These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

If Infinite Monkey Were Typing On A Computer…

Author
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#81 - 2012-04-23 13:51:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
VKhaun Vex wrote:
You will get head streaks to a certain size sure, but in practice you won't ever see 10,000 in a row.
Why do you think that? - Are you removing the infinite component selectively, and saying it's so unlikely you wouldn't expect to see it in the short term, or do you think that given infinite tires it would NEVER happen?

This is very basic statistics. The coin has a 1/2 chance, you will see that heads side 50% of the time in an infinite data set. Getting heads 10,000 times in a row has a chance, 1/X sets of 10,000 will be all heads. You will see 10,000 heads in a row in EXACTLY that ratio of 1 per X sets if you give it infinite tries.


Far to many things to respond to at once, try and ask them one at a time. Regarding this, the answer was already stated and it is hard to fathom why you have not noticed it by now? So here it is again in plainer English.


Arrow No amount of super computers could simulate infinite coin tosses, so you cannot prove or disprove that you can get 10,000 consecutive heads.

Arrow Statistics and the law of large numbers says that not only can you get 10,000 heads, but if given enough time, it is inevitable that you will get them given infinite tries. This theory is ofc safe, because as stated you cannot prove or disprove it.



However...


Arrow What computers can do is run accurate simulations of insanely huge amounts of tosses, or, we can just go outside with a coin and do it ourselves. we could also do both and see if the data correlates.

Arrow What we see happen is a general 50:50 split of heads and tails, regardless of whether or not we flip 50 times, 1,000 times, 1,000,000,000 times or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. This is a provable experiment, it always happens this way, and it does so without deviation.



Conclusion:

It is premature to instantly conclude that just because you can get 10 heads in a row, that you MUST ALSO BE ABLE TO to get 10,000 given what we can currently observe and prove. That is just an assumption, and that assumption directly contradicts our observable reality.

Thus: one must objectively say that rolling 10,000 heads in a row is theoretically possible, but NOT NECESSARILY INEVITABLE. Two vastly different conclusions. You are saying that it is inevitable because your math says so, but reality says that the heads to tails patterns will arise and repeat infinitely, and you will get stretches of heads far smaller then 10,000 even on your best day.




Clear enough?

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#82 - 2012-04-23 13:55:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
VKhaun Vex wrote:
Regardless of your answer, I'm ceasing.now :P



Opting out again I see, well TBH I would too. Blink
Moral lesson, don't put all your faith in collage math.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2012-04-23 20:44:55 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
VKhaun Vex wrote:
Regardless of your answer, I'm ceasing.now :P



Opting out again I see, well TBH I would too. Blink
Moral lesson, don't put all your faith in collage math.

I thought to myself...
"This guy is saying something completely ******** over and over again, that has no basis in fact, and flies in the face of what we know to be true, and he's somehow managing to be condescending to me at the same time..."

And then it hit me that this has happened before.
I had to look up the thread and see if it was you.
Guess what, IT WAS YOU that time too! Blink

Here's one where you couldn't understand Pi is not infinitely 'large' just because the number is infinitely long lol.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=68018






VKhaun Vex wrote:
Jno Aubrey wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:

Excepted Pi cannot be expressed as a fraction.


Pi = C/d

Eternum Praetorian = troll.

Q.E.D.



^




Shame on you for trolling or spamming the boards looking for 'discussion' while being closed minded. Shame on me for letting you pull me in twice with the SAME stupid argument about infinite not being infinite. There will not be a third time.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#84 - 2012-04-23 21:29:45 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Try and look at it this way then. If you flip a coin 10 times you can expect 5 head flips on average, if you do it 1,000 times you are looking roughly 500, so on and so forth. This grows indefinitely, and no matter how big the number of flips gets, you are always looking at roughly a 50/50 split, each time. Here is the thing though... as the number of flips grows, the distribution of heads to tails remains the same throughout.

Mostly correct.
It still fluctuates up or down, but as a grand total, summing up everything from the start of the experiment, the ratio TENDS to go closer to 50:50.
But on a local scale, with the scale being as large or small as you like, there is absolutely no guarantee that you will get closer to 50:50 with any single subsequent toss - in fact, it's a 50:50 chance that you will get closer or farther !

Quote:
That is the problem with math telling us that you can flip heads 10,000 times if you kept flipping forever. The purely human invented theory of probability says yes, where as the realityof the universe say that heads and tails will always be more or less evenly distributed.

Incorrect.
Flipping 10k heads or 10k tails or any other PARTICULAR combination of 10k heads/tails is EQUALLY LIKELY (or, better said, equally unlikely).

Quote:
And before you say "well can't you roll 10,000 heads and then have it followed by 10,000 tails" and that still be your 50:50 ratio? The answer is no, because that would defy the natural pattern observed in all coin tosses. There is a tendency for all lesser sets of 10, 50, 100, 1,000, 5,000 and so on and so forth, to have a more or less perfectly even split of heads and tails.
[...]
It does not matter how many flips you have, if you cut a section out of the timeline 5,000 units will have a 50:50 distribution, and 100 units of that will have a 50:50 distribution as well. That is the pattern, and that pattern will reoccur forever. Kind of like how a fractal image can reoccur forever (again referencing a metaphor not to be taken literally)

Actually, that "first answer" is yes, not no. There is no "natural pattern".
Yes, it is MORE LIKELY for any particular set of X coin tosses to have a heads/tails count close to X/2, but it is not MANDATORY.

Each and every sequence that can happen is equally likely to happen - it's when you sum up ALL POSSIBLE sequences, the numbers of heads and tails is equal, and each individual possible sequence is more likely to have a more even mix of heads and tails. BUT IT IS NOT MANDATORY.

The distribution will TEND to be CLOSER to 50:50 the LARGER the sample size is.
In other words, the larger the sample size, the higher the CHANCE to get a number that is closer to 0.5 for the ratio.
Any arbitrarily chosen sample size could be anywhere between 100:0 and 0:100, with the least chance near the extremes and the most chance near the middle.

Quote:
So you can get long sets of heads, and long sets of tails, but at some point you are going to peak in terms of the set length.

No, you will not. There is absolutely no rule that says you can't get 1 trillion heads in a row. It's EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to get many of them in a row, but it's not impossible.

Let me put it this way : can you throw 2 heads in a row ?
Yes, you can.
Is it impossible to throw an additional head in the next toss ?
No, in fact, the chance of that happening is 50:50. So getting 3 heads in a row is possible.
Getting 4, 5, 6, and so on and so forth is also always possible.
Getting any arbitrarily large number of heads in a row IS POSSIBLE.
The CHANCE of that happening however is always (1/(2^consecutive_heads_flips)) which gets really small really fast, but does not reach zero for any FINITE number of consecutive head flips.

Quote:
That peak is probably something like <100, give or take fifty to one hundred, if you have infinite flips.[...]--and everything after that--

There's so much wrong in this section I don't even know where to begin.
First off, we already established that there is no peak.

Also, not only is there no peak, but there is only "likelihood of getting X consecutive flips in a FINITE amount of time".
Depending on just how much time you have available (i.e. number of tries), and what you consider a reasonable chance to be satisfied that something could happen (1%, 5%, 10%, 50%, 90%, 95%, 99%, etc), the number X changes radically.
YOU CAN CALCULATE HOW HIGH X CAN BE BY JUST KNOWING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FLIPS AND THE DESIRED LIKELIHOOD OF STREAK OCCURRENCE.

And as soon as you remove the time limits, the likelihood jumps to 100% for any value of X.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#85 - 2012-04-23 22:20:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Yep that was mine, and you missed the entire point of that thread as well. So yes, shame on you. Posts like these are intended to be entertaining and compel people to think outside of the box, and entertain possibilities they never before entertained. It is meant to inspire debate.



Quote:

Since 3.1 is larger then 3.
And since 3.1415 (infinite decimal places) is infinitely larger than 3

Does it not follow that the value of Pi can be thought of as being both infinitely large and infinitely small at the same time? Infinitely larger then 3, and yet paradoxically, never exceeding the value of 3.2?



Quote:
But there is a key lesson to be learned here. Math is not physics! The real numbers are an abstract creation of the human mind. They are handy for doing physics; but we can NOT assume that space itself has the same properties of the real numbers.



Quote:
In the physical world we don't have infinitely many points in a given area; we have a finite number of atoms and quarks and strings.

So you must always be clear as to whether you are doing math or physics! If you are doing math, you can take a real number and chop it up as fine as you want. That is a key property of the real numbers.



Quote:
But we CAN be certain that you can chop a real number up as finely as you want. And the reason for this is that the real numbers are an abstract logical construction.



Quote:
Is that we might be looking at computational errors, resulting from the assumption that 1=10 every turn around the number line. Maybe it does not, and maybe sometimes 1 really just equals 1. Also, if there really are infinite possible locations between 1 and 2, then you could never get to 2 and 1.00000 (infinite 0’s) 0001 would be an unending sequence that could become infinitely larger then one, yet paradoxically smaller then 1.1, because 1.1 would be unattainable.

But since that is not true… it suggests that base 10 is the problem and it is causing unnatural paradoxes of our own design.




Gj, missing the point twice and assuming that your way is the only way. The post was questioning mathematics in general and comparing it to true reality. The usage of Pi was for the purpose of generating a starting point that everyone could be familiar with. Maybe you should apologize Blink



Edit:
Working on Akita T's, I am busy doing pew pew in game atm. Big smile

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#86 - 2012-04-23 23:48:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Working on Akita T's, I am busy doing pew pew in game atm. Big smile

I'll spare you the long read and give you the condensed version.

Take any number of consecutive heads you think is "likely enough" to happen eventually, like, say, 3.
So, initially, X=3.
The chance for the (X+1)th toss to be heads is always 50%, no matter how large X is.
Now, make X=X+1 and repeat the same logic as many times as you like until you get whatever value of X you used to think was impossible.
You DO have a non-zero chance of throwing X consecutive heads, no matter how large X might be (while still a finite number), and that chance is 1/(2^X). Which is equal to the chance of X consecutive tails. Or the chance of any other PARTICULAR combination of heads and tails.

This means that given enough tries - much more than 2^X, say 1000*(2^X) - there is a pretty good chance to throw X heads in a row (or X tails in a row, or any other pre-specified combination of length X of heads and tails).

Yes, 1000*(2^X) is an extremely large number even for rather small values of X, but it is ALWAYS smaller than infinity.
So, given an INFINITE (and NOT just a very, very, VERY large but finite) number of tries, throwing X heads in a row is almost guaranteed to happen at least once eventually in your never-ending series of tosses, no matter how large X is (as long as X is still a finite number).

HERE ENDS THE CONDENSED VERSION.
Below purely orientative numbers.
ONLY BROWSE THEM IF YOU WANT.
...



HOW large is 1000*(2^X) exactly ?
So how many tries you want to have to be fairly certain you will roll at least X consecutive heads at least once in that many tries (and on average roll about 100 instances of X consecutive heads) ?

10 heads -> 1,024,000 ( 1,024 * 1000) tries
20 heads -> 1,048,576,000 ( 1,048,576 * 1000) tries
30 heads -> 1.07374E+12 ( 1,073,741,824 * 1000) tries
40 heads -> 1.09951E+15 ( 1,099,511,627,776 * 1000) tries
50 heads -> 1.1259E+18 ( 1,125,899,906,842,620 * 1000) tries
60 heads -> 1.15292E+21 ( 1,152,921,504,606,850,000 * 1000) tries
80 heads -> 1.20893E+27 ( 1,208,925,819,614,630,000,000,000 * 1000) tries
100 heads -> 1.26765E+33 ( 1,267,650,600,228,230,000,000,000,000,000 * 1000) tries
120 heads -> 1.32923E+39 ( 1,329,227,995,784,920,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 * 1000) tries
140 heads -> 1.3938E+45 ( 1,393,796,574,908,160,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 * 1000) tries
160 heads -> 1.4615E+51 ( 1,461,501,637,330,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 * 1000) tries
180 heads -> 1.5325E+57 ( 1,532,495,540,865,890,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 * 1000) tries
200 heads -> 1.60694E+63 ( 1,606,938,044,258,990,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 * 1000) tries
250 heads -> 1.80925E+78 ( 1,809,251,394,333,070,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 * 1000) tries
300 heads -> 2.03704E+93 ( 2,037,035,976,334,490,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 * 1000) tries
350 heads -> 2.2935E+108 ( 2,293,498,615,990,070,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 * 1000) tries
400 heads -> 2.5822E+123 ( 2,582,249,878,086,910,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 * 1000) tries
450 heads -> 2.9074E+138 ( 2,907,354,897,182,430,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 * 1000) tries
500 heads -> 3.2734E+153 ( 3,273,390,607,896,140,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 * 1000) tries


How about TIMES ?
For a person, flip once a second, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year ?
How long would it take exactly to make almost absolutely sure you managed to roll X heads ?
Divide by 100 if you want just a reasonable chance to maybe get them :P

10 heads -> 0.14 years for 1 person
20 heads -> 145.64 years for 1 person
30 heads -> 149,131 years for 1 person ; 0.02 years for the population of Earth
40 heads -> 21.82 years for the population of Earth
50 heads -> 22,339 years for the population of Earth
60 heads -> 22,875,427 years for the population of Earth
70 heads -> 23,424,436,919 years for the population of Earth ; 1.7 times the age of the universe for the population of Earth
80 heads -> 23,986,623,405,052 years for the population of Earth ; 1,744 times the age of the universe for the population of Earth
90 heads -> 1,786,349 times the age of the universe for the population of Earth
100 heads -> 1,829,221,645 times the age of the universe for the population of Earth
110 heads -> 1,873,122,964,839 times the age of the universe for the population of Earth
120 heads -> 1,918,077,915,995,550 times the age of the universe for the population of Earth
and so on...
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#87 - 2012-04-24 01:52:02 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
The post was questioning mathematics in general and comparing it to true reality.


You have a bunch of real gem quotes in this thread but they're all way too long for my sig. Could you please say something stupid like this, or that there are an infinite number of things that are 'not' hamlet while typing with a finite number of keys per character and a finite number of characters per try, within an infinite number of tries... has to be 70 characters or less, including your name, a space, and a dash.

Please?


Quote:
Statistics and the law of large numbers says that not only can you get 10,000 heads, but if given enough time, it is inevitable that you will get them given infinite tries. This theory is ofc safe, because as stated you cannot prove or disprove it.


This is a good one too. Saying we can't prove something that has a well known published mathematical proof displays multiple misconceptions all at once, but again I need a shorter quote.



You're not better than roydas or Atticus, but I'll let you pick between replacing Surfin's PlunderBunny or Taedrin!


All you have to do is restate more concisely what you already believe.
Please. >.<

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch

Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#88 - 2012-04-24 04:00:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Have At It People


http://www.random.org/coins/?num=1&cur=20-novelty.decision-maker



An equation... is not proof. That is the core flaw in your counter arguments. Proof is proof, math is only theory and hypothesis until what it represents is proven to be true through observation and research. Math is just a tool, and just because you can generate a string of numbers saying that you MUST be able to flip 10,000 heads, or that a monkey can accidentally generate Hamlet, does not mean that it is proof. That is just not the way that real science works.


It is not the math itself that is wrong per-say, it is your conclusions and unwillingness to recognize how tiny patterns will be recreated endlessly forever. Since your equations and statistics are not taking these very fundamental elements of our reality into account, your math is giving your false positives.




Your math is flawless, but math, like any other language can tall a real story or a fictitious one. When you, the human, are not aware of all the variables involved, the math that you generate will not possess all of the variables involved either. So as perfect as your math may seem, it is fundamentally flawed from go. Naturally, that is not something math wiz-kids are ever going to accept, they build far to much around their ideas to let it go. But consider this if you would...




Go to that site and sit there for a while. Flip that digital coin and see what happens. A pattern is just something that your brain, that melon on top of your neck, creates as it attempts to make sense of the world around it. It does it's best to see patterns whether or not there are any, most of which are creative ideas liken to Jesus appearing on a slice of grilled cheese. If you take 5 min or your life and really hit that flip button, you will see what a small reoccurring pattern looks like. It will do precisely that same thing forever and ever and ever if you were able to sit there and click long enough. That same pattern would repeat, and repeat and repeat. It is both PREDICTABLE and OBSERVABLE




Your equations are neither, they are just ideas.
Ideas that cannot be proven through experimentation or observed in the reality that surrounds us.


And yet it is preached as if it is orthodox, and in my opinion that is a disturbing and unacceptable trend in our modern day.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#89 - 2012-04-24 04:24:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Quote:
If you take 5 min or your life and really hit that flip button, you will see what a small reoccurring pattern looks like.

DUDE !
What the hell is wrong with you ?
OF COURSE you will see some "reoccurring patterns" like HHH, HHT, HTH, HTT, THH, THT, TTH, TTT.
THOSE ARE ALL THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF 3 FREAKING THROWS !!!
There's no other "patterns" of 3 throws that CAN exist, so OF COURSE you will keep noticing one of those eight if you are only tracking "patterns" with a length of 3.

Pick an arbitrarily large "pattern" and I will tell you EXACTLY how many of those you can possibly have and therefore observe.
If anything, you have just proven YOURSELF WRONG, because you will eventually end up noticing all patterns of any certain length if you keep at it !!!
And, oh, what do you know, "all heads" or "all tails" are two such "patterns"...

Guess what happens when one of those "all heads" patterns randomly manages to come right after another "all heads" pattern ? You just got a DOUBLE LENGTH "all heads" pattern ! Incredible, isn't it ? Sheesh...
Or are you saying that any such "pattern" can not possibly come again immediately after the exact same pattern ? Huh ? Seriously ?


Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Ideas that cannot be proven through experimentation or observed in the reality that surrounds us.

You can prove through experiment with 2, 3, 5, 10, maybe even 15 simulated consecutive heads on your own computer at home in a reasonable amount of time. If you'll record the number of tries you needed to get there every time, and make enough runs, you will see that the practical results pretty much agree with the theory, and that there is no reasonable ground to disbelieve it will apply equally well when you scale it upwards.

There is EVERY reason to believe the math accurately describes reality, and only your assumption that "just because you can't easily observe it via experimentation it needs to not necessarily be true" that casts any beginning of a shadow of hypothetical discontinuity between math and reality.

Give me ONE single LOGICAL reason (that is not logically flawed like all your mostly-based-on-passion arguments so far) why you believe the math should FAIL to accurately describe reality in case of large amounts of consecutive tosses.
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#90 - 2012-04-24 04:26:42 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
An equation... is not proof. That is the core flaw in your counter arguments. Proof is proof, math is only theory and hypothesis until what it represents is proven to be true through observation and research. Math is just a tool, and just because you can generate a string of numbers saying that you MUST be able to flip 10,000 heads, or that a monkey can accidentally generate Hamlet, does not mean that it is proof. That is just not the way that real science works.

WILLFULLY IGNORANT but also WAY TOO LONG.
There's no way I can get that into my sig.
CONCISE man, be CONCISE pelase.

Eternum Praetorian wrote:
It is not the math itself that is wrong per-say, it is your conclusions and unwillingness to recognize how tiny patterns will be recreated endlessly forever. Since your equations and statistics are not taking these very fundamental elements of our reality into account, your math is giving your false positives.

Ha ha... WOW... the math isn't wrong but the math is wrong. That's almost worthy of devoting my whole sig to.

Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Your math is flawless, but math, like any other language can tall a real story or a fictitious one. When you, the human, are not aware of all the variables involved, the math that you generate will not possess all of the variables involved either. So as perfect as your math may seem, it is fundamentally flawed from go. Naturally, that is not something math wiz-kids are ever going to accept, they build far to much around their ideas to let it go. But consider this if you would...

Again, wow. The math is right but the math is wrong. There's a ghostly variable that you can't define, name, prove, or show basis for that makes mathematic proofs irrelevant...



You would be a real laugh riot if you weren't such a wind bag.
I can't use any of this in my sig.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch

Taedrin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2012-04-24 06:19:20 UTC
Eternum Praetorian:
Math is not "invented" - it is discovered. Math is just as fixed as the laws of the physical universe. The only thing that man invents is the notation used to describe it and the axiomatic sets we choose to abide by. By definition, math must be consistent so you can't just invent whatever you want. Everything in math is rigorously proven, and experimentally verified - just like physics.

You actually run these experiments yourself, unbeknownst to yourself, every time you turn your computer on. JPEG image compression works by using a Discrete Cosine Transform. MP3 files use a combination of a Huffman encoding and filtering to achieve the phenomenal compression rates people have become addicted to. Everytime you set a destination in EVE, your computer confirms an experiment on Dijkstra's Shortest Path Algorithm. Not to mention the billions of arithmetic operations that your computer executes every second. Ever tried to optimize your waypoints in EVE? You just performed an experiment on the Travelling Salesman Problem's Brute Force Search Algorithm (actually, depending on how talented the folks at CCP are, they might have trimmed it down a bit through dynamic programming and/or branch+bound. Connect to the internet? I bet you didn't know that your ISP uses a finite state machine to handle your internet connection (Border Gateway Protocol).

If Math was "invented" and "fiction", then none of these things would work consistently. Yet they DO work consistently. In fact they ALWAYS work. This is because these algorithms which were discovered have always existed, and will continue to always exist - independently of human observation.

The thing that irks me the most here is that you proclaim that math isn't real, yet you blatantly ignore how your standard of living DEPENDS upon math being real!
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#92 - 2012-04-24 11:13:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Taedrin wrote:
The thing that irks me the most here is that you proclaim that math isn't real, yet you blatantly ignore how your standard of living DEPENDS upon math being real!



It usually irks people because they don't read carefully enough, the idea of the "math religion" being in questions generates as about as much rage as spitting on a cross on Sunday. You skip strait to the part where "i am questioning our modern life" and missing the part where I only said that the math is just as good as the data that you plug in. Math is very good for computer coding, and, ofc, computer compression is another thing that humans have invented. One would expect that the two things would go hand in hand very well.



I don’t think that they really have explained their case very well TBH, because they have not addressed, or taken seriously, the notion/tendency/probability of tiny patterns (for the most part) repeating themselves for eternity. In each representation the very notion of such a thing has been left out completely. All they have done is submit lines of number script that cannot be proven in the real world, strictly in terms of their predicted outcomes and tell me that it "must be this way", where as when I look, and when I experiment, it distinctly appears to not be that way at all.

If you can't prove it in the real world, then it is not yet proven... it is just a little bit of representative math that might be true, or is probably true, but it is not yet fact. Will you dispute that too? The problem that I have is the usage of "this will happen" in place of "we think that it will most likely" happen. There is a huge difference between those two things. If that single concept is not understood, then no one has yet grasp the meaning of all this text that I have been typing, and as a result, they have not explained or addressed anything.





@VKhaun Vex

His issue may actually be a reading comprehension deficiency, because he seems to be selectively responding to certain lines of text and not comprehending the rest of it. That does not fill me with confidence TBH, at least Akita T seems to be accurately responding to my text and posing rational counter arguments. If he can't read and respond to the whole thing, how can one justify putting faith in his "math" abilities? (shrugs)


Oh yea, I Ad hominem you bra, because you deserve it at this point Blink

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#93 - 2012-04-25 02:48:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
not addressed, or taken seriously, the notion/tendency/probability of tiny patterns (for the most part) repeating themselves for eternity

How conveniently that you skipped my previous post ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1179244#post1179244 ) which starts by addressing that exact "problem".

OF COURSE some "tiny patterns" will "keep repeating" for eternity.
It's kind of the whole point of "for a certain precise number X of throws, there are only 2^X equally likely possible outcomes".
Our proof is BASED on that, not ignoring nor being diminished by it, as you seem to think.

What you seem to be unable to comprehend is that a random arrangement of several such "tiny patterns" yields a whole lot more slightly larger so-called "patterns", and that those "tiny patterns" DO NOT repeat evenly, nor in a certain order.

...

To make it obvious how monumentally meaningless what you keep saying is, reduce this to a more manageable size and make a direct observation.
While tracking "patterns" of 3 coin tosses, one can keep on spotting the following 2^3=8 so-called "patterns" : HHH, HHT, HTH, HTT, THH, THT, TTH, TTT.
These "patterns" will keep repeating forever, of course, it is impossible for them to not repeat. They will NOT repeat in any particular order though. You can't say "HTH will *always* come at most 3 groups after THH" or anything like that, because it would be patently wrong, even easily observed as wrong.
IF what you kept on saying for this many forum pages would be correct, then, say, the "larger patterns" like HTHTHTHTH, TTTHHHTTT, HHHHHHHHH (ohmygod, patternspatternspatterns everywhere!!!) or any other of the equally likely 2^9=512 total possible "patterns" of length 9 should be pretty difficult if not impossible to obtain because you can only have those smaller patterns repeating forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and... no ?
But guess what, each of those 512 "larger patterns" are not just likely, but borderline inevitable the more of the 8 possible groups of tiny size-3 patterns you add !!!
Did you realize just how lackluster your skeptical position so far was yet ?!?

Saying that some "patterns" will repeat is MEANINGLESS unless you can prove they will always happen in a certain order, which you can't possibly prove, but you can easily disprove practically.
And if they don't come in any particular order (which they so obviously don't), then they create even more "patterns" of larger sizes, and so on and so forth regardless of how large you make the sequence.
Given enough tries, ANY "pattern" of any finite length will be observed eventually, and it will be composed of many smaller "patterns" strung together.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#94 - 2012-04-25 12:21:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
I didn't skip it Akita I just was busy last night, here you go...


Quote:
If I flip a coin an infinite amount of times, am I guaranteed to get heads at least once? No.
If an infinite number of people are sitting in a room and each flips a coin, is there a guarantee that any of them will gets heads? No. We could go by, one by one, and check every coin, but it could be that coincidentally that every coin landed on tails. If we repeat the experiment, we might think that the odds are now better that we'll get at least one heads, because it was so improbable that we didn't get one last time, but the odds are exactly the same, and the result could be the same as well.

It doesn't matter if you have an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite amount of time, you won't necessarily get Hamlet. Even if no monkey is allowed to type the same as any other monkey (there must be at least one variation in the output of every monkey) there are an infinite amount of things that are not Hamlet. However, if you restrict the number of letters that each monkey can type, and specify that each monkey must type something different, then you should get Hamlet.

As for order out of chaos; in a sea of variability those patterns that are self-reproducing will eventually begin to dominate. But letters on a typewriter are not self-reproducing - it is the monkey creating the patterns, not the patterns creating the next iteration, so there is no implication that order is likely or inevitable.






It is the assumption that you must get hamlet that is incorrect, because you don’t necessarily have to. When you say that it is 100% certain that you would, you are committing yourself to an assumption that cannot be proven. What is most important is the awareness that you will not necessarily get any desired outcome. It is not a given, and it is not 100% inevitable. If you think otherwise then you have to prove it, and it cannot be proven. Thus, you cannot enforce your assumption on others who note that experimentation proves to the contrary.




What Do I Mean By A Tiny Patterns Repeating?


1010010001000100100101
1010010000001111001010
0010010101010100100101
0000001000100001011000
1011100001001010111100
0101010100101010000011


Perhaps I have used the term incorrectly, but observe the above. The above represents no real pattern from 1 to 0, and yet you have a guaranteed maximum distance between 1 and 1, and 0 and 0. That is what I mean by the tiny pattern repeating itself for eternity. In the above random pattern, you can see that the distance between 1 and 1 is (6), where as the maximum distance between 0 and 0 is much less.



So if you type a random output like this forever, or if you make a random number generator do it, you will see this same result repeated forever. There will be a general maximum distance between 1 and 1, and 0 and 0, that is far less then 10,000, far less then 1,000 and probably less then 100. A coin toss is no different, and this principle can also be applied to a monkey hacking away at a keyboard. So before anyone else submits more improvable math regarding why you must be able to get 10,000 heads in a row given infinite flips, perhaps someone would care to address this principle with a renewed sense of clarity and an open mind?


This principle counters your improvable assertion with consistently observable results.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2012-04-25 13:16:28 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
This principle counters your improvable assertion with consistently observable results.

But that's not a principle... it's an assertion with no backing what so ever.

Akita T's statements are backed by observable fact. Yours stands only on your own unwillingness to learn and observe basic mathematics. A few times now you've referred to 'college' and 'math nerds' but we're not at college level here. This is basic statistics which is incorporated into the 1st or 2nd semester of high school of algebra, which is still not the highest my high school had courses for many years ago.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch

Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#96 - 2012-04-25 13:16:31 UTC
Also

...put more simply.




The answer is that even if there were an infinite amount of monkeys, or the capacity to flip coins from here to eternity, the readily observable reality of "the tiny pattern" is equally as relevant as the law of large numbers and the probability of one.

& yet, whatever it’s more accurate term/name might be, it is not being taken into account.




The reality of the tiny pattern, could very well trump the "I can flip 10,000 heads in a row" assumption, as well as the "infinite monkeys can type hamlet" assumption. At the very least it’s existence should make said outcomes uncertain given infinite tries, even if you suspect that you probably would get the latter outcomes. It is not at all guaranteed that you must get them. Remember, your math is only as good as the variables that you plug in, if you fail to take something into account then you can get a false positive through no fault of math itself, but of your own limited human condition.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#97 - 2012-04-25 13:17:37 UTC
VKhaun Vex wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
This principle counters your improvable assertion with consistently observable results.


But that's not a principle... it's an assertion with no backing what so ever.



It can be observed every time that I flip a coin Vkhaun, you are most certainly mistaken.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#98 - 2012-04-25 13:20:28 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
It is the assumption that you must get hamlet that is incorrect, because you don’t necessarily have to. When you say that it is 100% certain that you would, you are committing yourself to an assumption that cannot be proven

You have already been linked the proof that you must get hamlet.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch

Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#99 - 2012-04-25 13:28:50 UTC
VKhaun Vex wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
It is the assumption that you must get hamlet that is incorrect, because you don’t necessarily have to. When you say that it is 100% certain that you would, you are committing yourself to an assumption that cannot be proven

You have already been linked the proof that you must get hamlet.



You really do have a kind of willful reading comprehension deficiency don't you? Go back and read it again, present something that is in response to my last couple of posts or make good on your "threat" to stop posting. Math, is not... proof in the real world. Your equations are missing certain key principles and are giving you false positives. I have explained why.



Respond to that if you feel like typing more.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#100 - 2012-04-25 13:30:03 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
VKhaun Vex wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
This principle counters your improvable assertion with consistently observable results.


But that's not a principle... it's an assertion with no backing what so ever.



It can be observed every time that I flip a coin Vkhaun, you are most certainly mistaken.



How can you observe a phantom maximum pattern length with one toss?

You can't claim mathematical proofs you remain willfully ignorant of are irrelevant 'to the real world' -which makes no sense anyway- because they 'can't be tested' and then assert you know the results of those impossible tests at the same time.

You can have this half baked debate where you don't believe in mathematical proofs like they're the easter bunny if you really want to and I'll stay out of that, but you can't have this both ways. You can not assume the results of a test you claim to be impossible in one argument, and then say those impossible test results are just an assumption on someone else's part to facilitate ignoring the proof.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch