Out of Pod Experience

Oh you're just mad because Akita T has no evidence to support her theoretical math.

Akita has about 6 pages of it actually, only problem is that Akita is talking to the mule. Sadly He is just as stubborn hence the 2 of you keep repeating the same thing over, and over, and over, and over
























































and over, and over, and over, and over

I give it 2 minutes before his ADD kicks in and he stops playing with the program and claims the theory is a failure again.

And yes, I was able to generate 0000 00000000 0000000 in a relatively small set.

My question to you is this: at what point does it become impossible? 20? 30? 50? 100? 1,000? 15,764? At some point you MUST draw an arbitrary line where you say "This number of consecutive heads is possible, but ONE MORE is impossible."

Do you understand now why your argument just doesn't work?



Proving that it's possible to get 1,000 repeated bits, or 10,000, or whatever number you think is the Magic Impossible Number, would require such a large set that I don't have the resources to produce such a large set of data and analyze it. I *have* demonstrated that the larger your sample set, the more likely you are to get large sets of bits like we're talking about.

The "proof" is that after a set of X, you still have a 50% chance of getting the X+1th of the same type.

So every time you DO encounter a streak of 12, there's a 50% chance the next throw would make it a 13-streak.
Make that 10 streaks of 12 encountered (which, by your account would be "within the margin of randomness") and it would be highly unlikely to NOT get a 13-streak at least once.

And for every 13-streak, there's a 50% chance it will become a 14-streak.
Get enough 13-streaks and it becomes highly unlikely to NOT get a 14-streak eventually.

And so on and so forth.
And the only thing that matters is how many throws you made.
Plus, we gave you estimates of how long the set of throws needs to be for a realistic chance and an almost certainty to get what you need.

Neither of those estimates has any other variables except the number of throws, and there is absolutely no reason to say it stops working after a certain value.
...

Or do I have to explain to you why 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4 and so on and so forth too ?

You are not taking all of the variables into account is all and I will discuss this when I make my certain to be megathreadnaught regarding the pseudoscience of statistics.

The only variable is the number of expected heads or tails, N.
The answer is N*(2^N) throws for a good chance of throwing N heads or N tails, and 10*N*(2^N) for almost certainly getting a streak of N heads or N tails.
There are no other variables.

Fine now prove your hypothesis with some reference please. That is reasonable enough is it not?

20*2^20 = 20,971,520.
Have you really flipped coins nearly 21 million times in your entire life ?
Assuming a coin flip takes about 3 seconds on average, that's nearly TWO WHOLE YEARS needed, just to have a DECENT chance of flipping 20 heads in a row. Add in work and sleep, and that's SIX YEARS of your life spent throwing coins in your free time.
And make that SIXTY years of spending all your free time flipping coins to be almost certain to get 20 heads or tails in a row.
Your personal experience is irrelevant for anything even approaching 20 heads or tails in a row. You simply do not have enough time to actually see that.


The record of needed number of throws for that to happen randomly surpasses the PLANETARY DATA STORAGE CAPACITY.
Of course he can't provide that to you.

Ok so a computer can do that pretty easily then? Has it been done to your knowledge? Because I know of no such experiment? More to the fact we would be looking more to the 50-100 range and greater.