• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My Second Telepathy Test

Michel H said:
I suspect Loss Leader used the target number in my test (3) when he constructed his own target 3 2 5 6 9, in order to get more hits (even if he denies it), as a "joke" (a joke with some merits, perhaps, that's hard to tell).
Click to expand...


I used a random number generator. There was a 1/10 chance chance that 3 would be the first number. There was a 1 - 9/105 chance of getting a 3 as one of the 5 numbers. That's a 41% chance that a 3 would show up at all in my random number; and a 43% chance that it would show up in any random guess.

As it is, the number most frequently guessed was 90210 which has no 3's in it.

There is no universe in which any of this makes your supposed powers of telepathy more likely.
 
Michel H said:
I suspect Loss Leader used the target number in my test (3) ...
Click to expand...

Well, you appear to be calling Loss Leader a liar when you say that he used "3" as his first number, rather than using a RNG. I would like evidence of this, because you are stretching truth so far to reinforce your failed idea, that you cannot even be honest any more. Not that you ever were.

Your idea that everybody lies to you, including people who do not even know you (which consists of all of us), or care a damn what you say and think, is so silly that it is almost beyond further comment.

Think what you like. Nobody else gives a damn. Get over the fact that you think that you are a legend in your own lunch time and try to reconnect with the real world by seeking real help. Nobody here actually cares about what you think, or what you think what you are, except that you act like a chew toy that some people here wish to play with from time to time.

Norm
 
Loss Leader said:
... There was a 1 - 9/105 chance of getting a 3 as one of the 5 numbers. That's a 41% chance that a 3 would show up at all in my random number ...
Click to expand...
1 - 9/105 = 1 - 0.00009 = 0.99991
This is the first time in my life that I learn that 0.99991 is equal to (the binomial probability, see http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx) 41%.
Really, I learn a lot on this forum, I should be grateful ;)
 
Loss Leader said:
Jsfisher's answer was written after seeing the target number as a post-diction joke, as was one other person's. The funny thing is that, even after seeing the number, jsfisher still got it wrong. Norman Alexander at least took the time to double check.
Click to expand...

I actually initally guessed some other number, then noticed youd ended the test, and went back and edited my answer to match your answer.

:jaw-dropp
 
Michel H said:
;)
Click to expand...

A lousy move Michel. You bring-in a quote from the other thread, that is not related to this one, and you use it to support calling Loss Leader a liar.

It does not support your contention.

A really, really, scummy move.
 
Donn said:
A lousy move Michel. You bring-in a quote from the other thread, that is not related to this one, and you use it to support calling Loss Leader a liar.

It does not support your contention.

...
Click to expand...
That Loss Leader's quote from another thread:
Loss Leader said:
For the record, I was lying about having any indication of knowing what number you were thinking of. I lied because I thought it was funny. ...
Click to expand...
does not prove that Loss Leader lied, or is lying in this thread. But it helps shedding some light on his personality.
Now, in this very thread, Loss Leader said, very recently:
Loss Leader said:
I used a random number generator. There was a 1/10 chance chance that 3 would be the first number. There was a 1 - 9/105 chance of getting a 3 as one of the 5 numbers. That's a 41% chance that a 3 would show up at all in my random number; and a 43% chance that it would show up in any random guess.
...
Click to expand...
and these are two lies, it seems to me (try to do the math). You cannot just throw any number, perhaps coming from math in a bar, after many glasses of whisky, and still claim you are the ultimate impartial moderator.
 
Michel H said:
1 - 9/105 = 1 - 0.00009 = 0.99991
This is the first time in my life that I learn that 0.99991 is equal to (the binomial probability, see http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx) 41%.
Really, I learn a lot on this forum, I should be grateful ;)
Click to expand...

Just so you know, by 9/105, Loss Leader meant (9/10)5 and not 9/(105). 'tis a problem with typewriter math equations.

(9/10)5 = 0.59049, the being the probability of no 3 appearing in a 5-digit sequence selected at random. Ergo, 41% would be the probability of (at least one) 3 appearing in the sequence.
 
jsfisher said:
Just so you know, by 9/105, Loss Leader meant (9/10)5 and not 9/(105). 'tis a problem with typewriter math equations.

(9/10)5 = 0.59049, the being the probability of no 3 appearing in a 5-digit sequence selected at random. Ergo, 41% would be the probability of (at least one) 3 appearing in the sequence.
Click to expand...
You are correct when you say that 41% = 0.41 = 1 - (.9)5, and I think that your point is a valuable contribution to this thread.
However, I think you're wrong when you say that Loss Leader's error (try to type in " 9/10^5 " in a Google window, you get 0.00009) is a consequence of a problem with "typewriter math equations" . I just typed " 1 - (.9)5 " with my keyboard, with no special difficulty. You seem to want to defend your colleague moderator here, against the evidence.
And you didn't say a single word about Loss Leader's strange (to me, at least) sentence:
Loss Leader said:
... That's a ... 43% chance that it would show up in any random guess.
...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
I think you're wrong when you say that Loss Leader's error (try to type in " 9/10^5 " in a Google window, you get 0.00009) is a consequence of a problem with "typewriter math equations" .
Click to expand...

I do not believe Google's calculator function is the ultimate authority on what Loss Leader may have intended. If you still have your doubts, perhaps simply asking him would resolve any further mystery.

...You seem to want to defend your colleague moderator here, against the evidence.
Click to expand...

You seem to want to fabricate a reality different from the one I am experiencing.

And you didn't say a single word about Loss Leader's strange (to me, at least) sentence:
Click to expand...

Why should I? If you find it strange, the correct thing to do would be to discuss it with the sentence's author.

Now, if only we knew who that was. (<-- Sarcasm, by the way.)
 
Michel H said:
You are correct when you say that 41% = 0.41 = 1 - (.9)5, and I think that your point is a valuable contribution to this thread.
However, I think you're wrong when you say that Loss Leader's error (try to type in " 9/10^5 " in a Google window, you get 0.00009) is a consequence of a problem with "typewriter math equations" . I just typed " 1 - (.9)5 " with my keyboard, with no special difficulty. You seem to want to defend your colleague moderator here, against the evidence.
Click to expand...


He's right. Not being a mathematician, I forgot to put 9/10 in parenthesis, so the order of operation was written wrong.

However, my conclusion of 41% was correct, and is supported by reliable sources on statistics.


And you didn't say a single word about Loss Leader's strange (to me, at least) sentence:
Click to expand...


Yes, it appears that I typed 43% instead of 41%. It doesn't change any of the facts. The random chance of putting at least one 3 in a sequence of five numbers is 41%. The random chance of it being the first number is 10%.

You are attempting to draw conclusions about non-randomness from results that are well within what randomness would predict.

Furthermore, it is bizarre in the extreme that you quote my post saying I was lying long ago on your test to buttress the idea that I'm lying now on my test. The reason it's so odd is that you have many times indicated that you believed my answer to your test was real and flat-out rejected my claim that I was lying. So, either: 1) I was lying in your first test and it wasn't really a hit; or 2) I was lying about lying, which means my new test didn't produce any hits; or 3) I'm completely unreliable, which means you have to throw out everything I've said in both tests and no hits of any sort were generated.

The fact is you choose to believe whatever helps you at that moment, shifting effortlessly between conflicting interpretations so long as you are able to consider yourself telepathic. You've performed no tests, let alone valid ones, and you've considered no evidence.
 
Michel H said:
does not prove that Loss Leader lied, or is lying in this thread. But it helps shedding some light on his personality.
Click to expand...

Translation: Loss Leader did not lie, but he's just the type to lie.

Now, in this very thread, Loss Leader said, very recently ... and these are two lies...
Click to expand...

Translation: Loss Leader is a liar, just like the type he is.

You know who I find to be lying and spinning here? Michel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom