Moderated Coin Flipper

[Leumas]

Made mine in VB6. Not sure what implementation of RND VB6 uses .. but it repeats after roughly 16M calls.

Here's how 100M runs look like (vertical axis is 0.5 +- 0.0001):
...

This is how 1 billion of runs looks like (same vertical range):

Now does it oscillate, or converge ? And does it say anything about how coin flips ?

Your what?

• Mistaken programming?
• Mistaken plotting?
• Mistaken calculations?
• kumquats?

Your what??

Just because you mistook a kumquat for a bitter orange one is to forego oranges and mandarins and clementines ... and for a good measure pippin apples too?

And are you even sure it was a kumquat at all not a bad carrot?

But I thank you for the concern... nevertheless... irrespective of this definitively unwarranted concern... anyone with eyes that see and ability to think about what they see, can observe for themselves how your carrots of plots are not even in the same category of plants as the Lima oranges shown in the plots just three posts above yours

Or these ones... QED!!!

[IMGW=700]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipperImages/LimeOranges_1.png[/IMGW]

[IMGW=700]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipperImages/LimeOranges_2.png[/IMGW]

[IMGW=700]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipperImages/LimeOranges_3.png[/IMGW]

[IMGW=700]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipperImages/LimeOranges_4.png[/IMGW]

[IMGW=700]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipperImages/LimeOranges_5.png[/IMGW]

[IMGW=700]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipperImages/LimeOranges_6.png[/IMGW]
​

 

[Leumas]

....
Is it random?a. Yes
b. No
c. It depends on how it was chosen or generated
d. It depends on what someone intends to use it for

Or (e)

So? I haven't calculated...

But any attempts at Empirical Experimentation are preordained failures and do not even try... just carry on repeating bare assertion without any data or proofs or bases whatsoever.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Thanks for QED and the other nonsense. But I hoped for reaction picture. So I have no option but to call SLANDER !

For the rest: I did mine because 1 million is rookie numbers. I wanted to see how 100M and more looks. And it doesn't look good indeed.

 

[Leumas]

Glad I could help. You see, in statistical analysis, when statisticians talk about the frequencies of certain events converging on a certain ratio of results, they don't mean that it affects the outcomes of individual events. Nothing about the number of previous coin tosses has any effect on the next coin toss. That's why it's a fallacy when a gambler thinks that a number of same results in succession means that a different result is "due" on the next turn. Even though the distribution of heads and tails gets statistically closer to 50/50 with more tosses, if you "zoom in" on any part of the recorded results to look at, say, ten successive results, it won't be distinguishable from any other sample of ten tosses in the same overall series. The statistical convergence is simply a result of the sample size, not any change in the probability of coin tosses.

Halleluiah... Halleluiah.... by Jove you got it...




Just a small additional note: when you have a large number of data points that fluctuate randomly +/- above and below a reference line then when you add them up the +/- values are more statistically likely to add to 0 or close to it with a +/- smaller fluctuation than the data points do.... and since the data points are random then even if you happen to add up to 0 in the last N data points the next M data points will not add up to 0 and thus making the N+M data points not be zero... although of course not as much off the 0 as the individual M or N points.

So... you are very correct... it is all a statistical TRICK a deceptive sleight of statistics and averaging.

And.... as you and psion10 and even thermal, correctly stated... it is indeed RANDOM and will stay that way no matter how many tosses you do.

Thanks for agreeing with me... although you thought you were not...


.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Leumas, what were you expecting to happen? Did you think you were going to win the Fields Medal by proving the science behind probably and statistics wrong? Perhaps you could have a go at thermodynamics or General Relativity next.

 

[Leumas]

For the rest: I did mine because 1 million is rookie numbers. I wanted to see how 100M and more looks. And it doesn't look good indeed.

Whatever that "mine" is ... it is evidently nothing that even comes close to being in the realm of beginning to approach being possibly misconstrued to compare in any wringing of rationality to do with Coin Flipper V5's results or actions or plots or anything at all.

I say your "mine" whatever it is is irrefragably mistaken and wrong... and all one has to do is LOOK at what Coin Flipper V5 affords anyone with willingness to do Empirical Experimentations to glean and learn and observe.

Just because you mistakenly think a carrot (assuming it was even a carrot) is orange in color thus all Oranges and Clementines and Mandarins and even Pippin Apples are carrots (or whatever you mistook for a carrot)... does not make it so.

 

[Leumas]

Leumas, what were you expecting to happen? Did you think you were going to win the Fields Medal by proving the science behind probably and statistics wrong? Perhaps you could have a go at thermodynamics or General Relativity next.

Thanks again for the above statements demonstrating the running theme of all your posts directed at me... namely... egregious strawmanning.

Whether deliberately or out of not ever bothering to actually read the OP or any other posts but still strawmanning anyway... well... you keep doing it over and over.

But I thank you profusely for demonstrating it so clearly above.... QED!!!

ETA: I would strongly recommend you read the OP at the very least.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Just a small additional note: when you have a large number of data points that fluctuate randomly +/- above and below a reference line then when you add them up the +/- values are more statistically likely to add to 0 or close to it with a +/- smaller fluctuation than the data points do.... and since the data points are random then even if you happen to add up to 0 in the last N data points the next M data points will not add up to 0 and thus making the N+M data points not be zero... although of course not as much off the 0 as the individual M or N points.

So... you are very correct... it is all a statistical TRICK a deceptive sleight of statistics and averaging.

And.... as you and psion10 and even thermal, correctly stated... it is indeed RANDOM and will stay that way no matter how many tosses you do.

Thanks for agreeing with me... although you thought you were not...


.

You're just proving what I wrote above about your poor compression of probability and statistics. Do you think that true randomness demands that if you flip a coin 1 million times, and then do it again another 1 million times, that the ratios should be all over the map? Like one time the heads/tails ratio should be ≈ 62% - 38%, and the next time it should be ≈ 43% - 57%? You think that because probability and statistics predicts a ratio of ≈ 50% - 50% given enough truly random coin tosses, that that violates the randomness of each individual outcome? How the Hell do you think casinos make money if there are no such trends in probability?

There's only one thing for you to do, and that's to start publishing your findings in every mathematics journal that you can submit to, because right now there are millions of so called mathematicians the world over who have the effrontery and temerity to actually think that they are smarter than you. How can you let that stand?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Thanks again for the above statements demonstrating the running theme of all your posts directed at me... namely... egregious strawmanning.

Whether deliberately or out of not ever bothering to actually read the OP or any other posts but still strawmanning anyway... well... you keep doing it over and over.

But I thank you profusely for demonstrating it so clearly above.... QED!!!

ETA: I would strongly recommend you read the OP at the very least.

Again you show that you don't really know what a strawman fallacy is. It's just a word you pull out of the dark when you are losing the argument and can't offer any actual defense.

 

[Leumas]

<more strawmanning>

Look Foster... I don't even know why are you now retracting your agreement with me that you stated clearly... although of course out of not having even bothered to read the OP or any other post of mine... you in fact thought you were disagreeing with me.

So now after inadvertently agreeing with me ... mistakenly thinking you were disagreeing... you now want to backpaddle and retract your INADVERTENT ratification of my point?

Come on Foster... you made a mistake and stated the true facts... don't take it back now just because it happens to be what I say too... although you had no idea what I was saying because you never read a word I said!!!

 

[Dr.Sid]

This guy can't tell carrot from kumquat. I'm done.

 

[theprestige]

This guy can't tell carrot from kumquat. I'm done.

Or a hawk from a handsaw.

You see, the wind is never precisely southerly. It might blow from the south on average, but each individual gust is totally random and unpredictable. Sometimes they even come from north-northwest! It's enough to drive one mad.

 

[Leumas]

This guy can't tell carrot from kumquat. I'm done.

Yup... thanks for the above veritable demonstration of... well... QED!!!

 

[Wudang]

This guy can't tell carrot from kumquat. I'm done.

He's a wonderful example of the Dunning Kruger effect though. And this is the problem, he can't or won't grasp the fact that he fails to understand the most basic bits before yelling loudly about his imaginary grasp of a topic.

 

[Leumas]

...
You see, the wind is never precisely southerly. It might blow from the south on average, but each individual gust is totally random and unpredictable. Sometimes they even come from north-northwest! It's enough to drive one mad.

Aha... yippee... so you are no longer gnostic about your agnosticism of the inherent randomness of the natural world... well done... finally you get it... cheers.

 

[Leumas]

...a wonderful example of the Dunning Kruger effect ...

is this....

....
For a useful javascript book (free as in beer) try https://books.goalkicker.com/JavaScriptBook/ which is built from highest-rated items on Stackoverflow. I couldn't be bothered looking any deeper.

Maybe, if you "bothered to look any deeper" you might

...grasp the fact that he you fails to understand the most basic bits before yelling loudly about his your imaginary grasp of a topic.

But hey... thanks for yet another arrant demonstration of... well... QED!!!

 

[Foster Zygote]

Look Foster... I don't even know why are you now retracting your agreement with me that you stated clearly... although of course out of not having even bothered to read the OP or any other post of mine... you in fact thought you were disagreeing with me.

So now after inadvertently agreeing with me ... mistakenly thinking you were disagreeing... you now want to backpaddle and retract your INADVERTENT ratification of my point?

Come on Foster... you made a mistake and stated the true facts... don't take it back now just because it happens to be what I say too... although you had no idea what I was saying because you never read a word I said!!!

I haven't retracted anything. What the actual **** are you on about? That's not a rhetorical question. Can you explain, in one or two short, cogent paragraphs, what your actual point is?

Yes or no - do you think that the heads/tails ratio of sequential coin flips converging closer to 50/50 the more samples you have constitutes a violation of the random outcome of individual coin flips?

Keep in mind that no one has ever said that the results of 10,000,000 coin tosses will be exactly 5,000,000 heads and 5,000,000 tails. It was only pointed out that the ratio would be really, really close to 50/50.

 

[jsfisher]

...
all one has to do is LOOK at what Coin Flipper V5 affords anyone with willingness to do Empirical Experimentations to glean and learn and observe.

You are doing nothing like "Empirical Experimentations". You have a model for ideal coin flipping. You have a program that attempts to implement that model.

Your program is faulty in that it uses pseudorandom number generation in inappropriate ways; it provides a poor simulation of your modeled coin flipping. Your program output is suspect because you program is faulty. In no way is it empirical data, and in no way is running your program any sort of scientific experimentation of the behavior of coin flipping, real or ideal.

Worse, yet, your program is totally unnecessary. Your model can be analyzed directly through Statistics. To whatever extent your program simulations disagree with established Statistics, the fault rests with your program.

 

[theprestige]

I haven't retracted anything. What the actual **** are you on about? That's not a rhetorical question. Can you explain, in one or two short, cogent paragraphs, what your actual point is?

Yes or no - do you think that the heads/tails ratio of sequential coin flips converging closer to 50/50 the more samples you have constitutes a violation of the random outcome of individual coin flips?

Keep in mind that no one has ever said that the results of 10,000,000 coin tosses will be exactly 5,000,000 heads and 5,000,000 tails. It was only pointed out that the ratio would be really, really close to 50/50.

I got you, fam:

The whole point of the app was to play with the coin flip without having to actually spend the rest of one's life doing so in order to see how random coin tosses never really asymptotically approach a deterministic 50-50 result if only one approaches an infinite number of tosses.

This entire debate then revolve around trying to figure out what Leumas thinks he means by "random coin tosses never really asymptotically approach a deterministic 50-50 result", and what he thinks acbytesla's actual claim was.

It seems like pretty much all of us except Leumas understand acbytesla to mean that the cumulative ratio of results asymptotically approaches 50:50, the more flips you do.

Leumas seems to be assuming that acbytesla meant something else.

 

[Myriad]

Or (e)

Four words quoted out of context. You are posting

preordained failures