Moderated Coin Flipper

[Leumas]

No. I didn't say that.

Yes... jsfisher... yes you did say that... read your post...

That is very likely not true. Digitized atmospheric noise is very random in appearance in the least-significant bits, ....

If that is then used to seed the generator, great. The first value out is random in the same sense the atmospheric noise seed was random. Thereafter, the sequence is fully deterministic.

If you are going to claim that you can determine atmospheric noise bits then you are amazingly claiming omnipotence and omnipresence and omniscience.



.

 

[jsfisher]

Yes... jsfisher... yes you did say that... read your post...

Look closer at what I wrote. I did not say it was random. And before we get to the opposing claim, I didn't just now claim is wasn't random, either.

If you are going to claim that you can determine atmospheric noise bits then you are amazingly claiming omnipotence and omnipresence and omniscience.

Good thing I made no such claim, then isn't it?

 

[Leumas]

Look closer at what I wrote. I did not say it was random. And before we get to the opposing claim, I didn't just now claim is wasn't random, either.

Good thing I made no such claim, then isn't it?

Ah... so you are agnostic... are you gnostic about your agnosticism like theprestige?

Anyhow...then anything you have to say in regards to the topic of randomness is an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

 

[jsfisher]

Ah... so you are agnostic... are you gnostic about your agnosticism like theprestige?

I didn't say that either. Please stop accusing me of positions I have not taken.

Anyhow...then anything you have to say in regards to the topic of randomness is an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

If that thread interested me, I might contribute. It does not.

 

[Leumas]

I didn't say that either. Please stop accusing me of positions I have not taken.
....

So only the "we" can dot it?

...
You were asked a simple question. You need not answer it, of course, but then we may interpret your silence in a light that you may find unfavorable.
(I know I have.)

 

[jsfisher]

So only the "we" can dot it?

We/I/you may draw inferences and conclusions based on statements made or not made. For example, were you to a claim (note the use of the subjunctive) that did not appear credible, and you refused to provide any clarification or details regarding the claim when requested, then we/I may be able to infer the original claim be baseless.

What we/I/you may not do is misrepresent statements made by others nor draw baseless conclusions.

 

[Thermal]

So only the "we" can dot it?

In fairness, man, you are setting yourself up adversarially against virtually the whole forum. It's kind of fair to say "we" when so many posters are disputing your claims almost in one voice.

 

[jsfisher]

... I am interested in the "why" not the "how".


Why did you model the "edge case" as having a probability of something like 1 in 4 billion 10,000? That [B ][HILITE ]looks like just a wild-ass guess with no basis whatsoever[/HILITE ][/B ].

[HILITE ]What insight do you believe your application provides that wasn't already provided and predicted by simple statistics[/HILITE ]?

Leumas,
The above snippet from your post has me curious on two counts:

1. You stiill have not answered why you chose to sum four values rather than just take one.
2. You edited my post to strike out the 4-billion estimate and replace it with 10,000. Why?

I expect you will never respond to the sum-of-four-values question, and I (we) will draw inferences accordingly, but I seek a response to the second point, above, as well.

Admittedly, my 1-in-4-billion value was an estimate, but it was based on the dynamic range of 32-bit integers and how probability distributions change under summation. The probability just one 32-bit singed integer be zero is 1 in 2^32 (i.e., about 1 in 4 billion). The probability only gets smaller, not bigger, as you sum additional values.

So, I am interested in where you got your 1-in-about-10,000 value.

 

[Leumas]

We/I/you may draw inferences and conclusions based on statements made or not made. For example, were you to a claim (note the use of the subjunctive) that did not appear credible, and you refused to provide any clarification or details regarding the claim when requested, then we/I may be able to infer the original claim be baseless.

What we/I/you may not do is misrepresent statements made by others nor draw baseless conclusions.

But you yourself said that you did not make any statements...

No. I didn't say that.

Look closer at what I wrote. I did not say it was random. And before we get to the opposing claim, I didn't just now claim is wasn't random, either.

Good thing I made no such claim, then isn't it?

So since you did not say neither Yes nor No... then the "we" can draw any inference they want as you yourself gave yourself the right to do so... and now you are graciously granting me the same right too... no?




.

 

[Leumas]

In fairness, man, you are setting yourself up adversarially against virtually the whole forum. It's kind of fair to say "we" when so many posters are disputing your claims almost in one voice.

No... no... if I were to go to a Flat Earthers' forum and try to argue with them... or to a Christian Forum and try to argue with them... that would be "setting myself up against virtually the whole forum".

All I did on a forum for skeptics and purportedly no theists is give a link to an app I created so that skeptics can experiment for themselves with randomness and probability distributions in a practical way.

Unfortunately this raised the CONCERNS of the "we" you are talking about of a handful of people who deny there is an inherent randomness in the natural world.

So no I was not setting myself up to be the target of a "we" who are concerned to deny randomness and even an app that lets one experiment with randomness in a practical way.... they were concerned to come to this thread on a forum for skeptics to wrangle against the app... by dissing and deriding it and even slander me too.

 

[Leumas]

Leumas,
The above snippet from your post has me curious on two counts:
....
So, I am interested in where you got your 1-in-about-10,000 value.

Why are you so very much concerned about a bloated nothing but window dressing pointless app that contributed nothing to your knowledge... and that you slandered me as lying about???

When you admit that you slandered me in error and you apologize for doing so I might consider your concern as of interest to me.... until then... I am not interested in your concerns.

 

[jt512]

Leumas,

The version of your app that uses the TRNG appears to be biased in favor of Tails. If I understand your code, your script includes a hard-coded set `randomData` of 16,384 integers between 0 and 255 that you had downloaded from http://www.random.org/bytes. The script shuffles this set, picks a random starting point, and draws a sequence of N integers n from the set, where N is the number of flips set by the user (up to 10,000). For each flip that does not result in an edge, the script classifies the flip as a head if n > 127, and a tail otherwise.

The set includes 8182 integers greater than 127. Thus, conditional on the flip not being an edge, the probability of a head is 8182/16,384=0.4994, and a tail 1–0.4994=0.5006. Thus, your app is biased in favor of tails.

onmessage = function (e) {
   //console.log("Worker: Message received from main script", e.data[0]);
   shuffle(randomData);
   let resultT = 0;
   let resultH = 0;
   let resultE = 0;
   let count = limit(e.data[0], 10_000, 10, 10_000);
   let edgeP = limit(e.data[1], 1, 6000, 10_000_0000_000);
   const offset = Math.floor(Math.random() * 200);
   const en = offset + count;
   for (let i = offset; i < en; i++) {
      if (Math.floor(Math.random() * edgeP) == 1) resultE++;
      [HILITE]else if (randomData[i] > 127) resultH++;
      else resultT++;[/HILITE]
   }
   //console.log("Worker: Posting message back to main script", count);
   postMessage([resultH, resultT, resultE]);
};

I'm not a javascript programmer, so I may have misunderstood your code. I'm sure you'll let me know if that is the case.

 

[Leumas]

...
I'm not a javascript programmer, so I may have misunderstood your code. I'm sure you'll let me know if that is the case.

Yes... you did not understand it... but why so much concern... are you retracting your statements that my app is nothing but bloated window dressing and that it contributed nothing to your knowledge or anyone else's you apparently self-appointed as a representative for... even including me too?

Are you saying that you are gaining knowledge... or are you just CONCERNED to further deride and diss the app???

... The fact is your app is trivial. Not only does it do nothing more than illustrate a statisitical fact that has been well understood for hundreds of years, it merely implements a rudimentary random number function, which in R (the programming language I know best) requires exactly one line of code.

Your app contributes exactly nothing to our knowledge of anything. And everybody here—including you—knows it.

 

[jt512]

Yes... you did not understand it...

Merely stating that, doesn't mean anybody will believe it, especially since I've posted the function that appears to produce the biased result.

Are you claiming that your code is not biased in favor of tails?

 

[Leumas]

Merely stating that, doesn't mean anybody will believe it, especially since I've posted the function that appears to produce the biased result.

Are you claiming that your code is not biased in favor of tails?

Yes... you did post the function... and you demonstrated with your own words that you did not understand it.

Any high school programmer can see that you did not understand it.

Why are so CONCERNED to incessantly misrepresent and misunderstand and to carry on being CONCERNED to diss on the app?

I thought you already decreed it worthless to all (including me) and nothing but window dressing that contributes nothing to your knowledge... or anybody else's including mine.

Are you now admitting that you were wrong and that you are learning from the app??

And are you ever going to apologize for your false slander of me?

 

[jsfisher]

So since you did not say neither Yes nor No... then the "we" can draw any inference they want as you yourself gave yourself the right to do so... and now you are graciously granting me the same right too... no?

No. Not what I said at all.

 

[jt512]

Yes... you did post the function... and you demonstrated with your own words that you did not understand it.

Like I said, I'm not a javascript programmer, so it is certainly possible that I misunderstood it. But I have explained why the app appears biased and, as anyone can see, I have posted the lines of code that appear responsible for the bias as well as a link to the script containing the hard-coded set of integers that your program draws from. So, I think that if you expect anyone to believe that it is unbiased, you'll have to explain how I have misunderstood the code.

 

[Leumas]

Like I said, I'm not a javascript programmer, so it is certainly possible that I misunderstood it.

Yes... you are right... you certainly misunderstood...

But I have explained why the app appears biased and, as anyone can see, I have posted the lines of code that appear responsible for the bias as well as a link to the script containing the hard-coded set of integers that your program draws from.

And your explanation only illustrates that you indeed did NOT understand it.

And any "appearance" is BIASED by your misunderstanding.

So, I think that if you expect anyone to believe that it is unbiased, you'll have to explain how I have misunderstood the code.

there you go again talking for everyone ... and accusing me of lying... so this is now quintupling down on your slander.

And skeptics and knowledgeable people do not need to believe me or you... all they need is read the code... a high school student of programming can see that you are indeed not understanding the code.

And if a skeptic does not understand the code... all they have to do in order to ascertain all by themselves that your are not understanding the code... is....

wait.... wait for it...

Run the app.... wow... what a concept... no???

Have you run the app??? Hmmm I wonder why not???

Here is a sample you ought to be CONCERNED about...

[IMGW=350]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipperImages/TRNGNoBIAS.png[/IMGW]​

 

[jsfisher]

Leumas,

This is al very peculiar.

You started this thread in "Computers and the Internet" about some software you wrote inspired by a comment from acbytesla in another thread. Then, to just about any other poster in this thread attempting to engage you in the details, you responds with hostility. Your remarks are often belittling, or evasive, or rude redirections to "go write it yourself", or combinations thereof.

Can we not just have a conversation?

Why the sum-of-four-values? How did you calculate the 1-in-10,000 probability?

 

[Leumas]

Can we not just have a conversation? ...
Why the sum-of-four-values? How did you calculate the 1-in-10,000 probability?

jsfisher,

Why are you so very much concerned about a bloated nothing but window dressing pointless app that contributed nothing to your knowledge... and that you slandered me as lying about???

When you admit that you slandered me in error and you apologize for doing so I might consider your concern as of interest to me.... until then... I am not interested in your concerns.