These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#101 - 2012-04-25 13:36:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
I am not ignoring your proof, I am telling yoyu that you are failing to take all variables into account and are getting a false positive as a result.




Address the occurrence of the "tiny pattern" principle as described in post 94, or go plant your head back into a text book somewhere like some cow failing to question what he is being fed about it's surrounding reality.

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

VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#102 - 2012-04-25 13:38:59 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
I am not ignoring your proof, I am telling yoyu that you are failing to take all variables into account and are getting a false positive as a result.

Address the occurrence of the "tiny pattern" principle as described in post 94, or go plant your head back into a text book somewhere like some cow failing to question what he is being fed about it's surrounding reality.


There is no such thing as a tiny pattern principle.
You made it up so you could justify not learning about math.



Eternum Praetorian wrote:
...or make good on your "threat" to stop posting.


I'm not posting within the 'arguement' you claim to be having.
I'm just trying to point out that you're not being logical with your side of it.

The one and only way to back up a mathematical statement is with calculations. No amount of eloquence or saber rattling will make you look smart enough that we will just take your word for it when you say 2+2=3. You must show a calculation. Akita T and I have linked and explained to you you the existing calculations that prove you must get hamlet if you make infinite tries on a finite number of keys and hamlet has a finite length. You have not argued them. You have only stated again and again that you believe they are wrong or missing something you cannot define mathematically.

That is nonsense.

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

Karn Dulake
Doomheim
#103 - 2012-04-25 13:46:36 UTC
Its about the nature of infinity and nothing else


given an infinite amount of time you would create the code for EVE online and you could create it an Infinite amount of times.


I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#104 - 2012-04-25 13:49:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
And yet there is such a thing...

All can see it when they take a piece of paper and record what happens when you flip a coin. You are putting more faith in the language of math then in the observable reality that surrounds you. You are then refusing to plug said information into your faulty math, and in doing so becoming willfully ignorant.


Quote:
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.



Remember it is the difference between "must" and "we think that it most likely will but it can never be proven". That is all...

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

VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2012-04-25 14:32:12 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
Watch... I'll show you how logic works by disproving your amazing new tiny pattern principle you have committed to for two pages now.



If we showed a streak of 20 heads (1 in 1,048,576 chance according to the big scary nerd books) we would immediately annihilate your theory, because twenty is a number of heads in a row that can't be readily observed by just flipping coins, since flipping twenty coins a million+ times is not something a person would practically be expected to do.

I could break out a random number generator and show you that this level of streaks happens by generating a very large set. At two clicks a second on a random number generator dumping into notepad I could do twenty times that number in about ten days, but I don't need to do that because there is something truly easily observable that does this for me. The lottery.

1) Impossible.
The bigger lotteries are a far smaller chance than 1 in 1,048,576 and that happens every day. If the Tiny Pattern Principle were correct and there was some phantom variable preventing incredible odds from happening, this would be impossible. According to the back of my ticket here, winning the lottery in my area is in fact approximately a 1 in 176,000,000 chance, which is a bit harder than getting 24 heads in a row.

2) Wont' NECESSARILY get Hamlet.
It does, observably, follow the law of large numbers. Lottery records are kept and studied to look for people cheating and maintain profitability against people who buy very large quantities of tickets to try and surpass the odds. If the law of large numbers wasn't applying beyond tiny patterns and high chances, we'd have known long ago.





If you don't think 24 is large enough, we're back to RNG's. I'm not leaving a macro running for a year to prove someone, who by all accounts is probably just trolling, wrong about something this silly. You can however (Look out, here comes logic again...) reasonably deduce that because we have super computers that can calculate Pi to a ridiculous number of digits, someone has indeed tested data sets of incredible size, and that they have seen the law of large numbers hold true because, again, we would certainly hear about it if it had not held true.


Q.E.D.

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
#106 - 2012-04-25 14:51:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
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 seem to confuse something one can easily confuse in statistics if he has not been exposed too much to it.

When somebody says "this event has p=1" (which in more common parlance would be "100% chance of it eventually happening"), that does NOT mean that it MUST happen up until any given finite time.
It only means it will "ALMOST surely" *EVENTUALLY* happen.

If you do flip a coin forever, the chance to get AT LEAST one "heads" has a p=1, so it will almost surely happen, eventually, at some distant unspecified point in time.
But it doesn't HAVE to happen up to any given concrete finite amount time has passed.
You COULD end up flipping any arbitrarily large number of tails and not get a head at all.
The CHANCE of not flipping at least one heads gets closer and closer to zero the more throws you make, and for any finite amount of throws, it doesn't quite reach zero.
But for an INFINITE number of throws, it does (p=0). In which case, you say that it will "almost surely" NOT happen.

The key here is the "almost".
It doesn't indicate that it MUST happen up to any given time, just that the chance of it happening eventually is as good as 100%.

...

So, no, you DON'T *HAVE* TO GET HAMLET.
It just gets increasingly unlikely that you won't get it the more time passes.
And eventually, "at infinity", you would "almost surely" have gotten it.
But at any given point in time, no matter how distant, there is no guarantee that you will have gotten it.


Quote:
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.

False.
You DO NOT have any "guaranteed" distance between anything.
It only gets increasingly unlikely to "break" any of your arbitrary rules the higher the restriction number goes and the smaller the analyzed sample size is.
But it's never completely impossible to break any of your claimed rules the more truly random 1s and 0s you add.

Quote:
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.

And if an output looks like THAT forever (with any "guaranteed" distance between things) that's the very definition of an output THAT IS NOT REALLY RANDOM.

Quote:
perhaps someone would care to address this principle with a renewed sense of clarity and an open mind

Sure, it's quite simple - that "principle" is an invention of yours and does not correspond to reality.


Yes, there's no GUARANTEE that you will get at least one head up to a certain point, just like there is no GUARANTEE you won't get an arbitrarily long streak of tails, but you CAN NOT argue (the way you do) at the same time that you can't possibly be ALMOST certain that you will get at least one heads eventually while ALSO arguing that you can't possibly be ALMOST certain that you won't get an arbitrarily long streak of tails eventually. Those things are kind of mutually exclusive. And streak of tails, streak of heads, same thing.
Jno Aubrey
Galactic Patrol
#107 - 2012-04-26 02:28:11 UTC
Don't you people realize you are "arguing" with the Stephen Hawking of trolls? Roll

Name a shrub after me.  Something prickly and hard to eradicate.

Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#108 - 2012-04-26 11:15:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Jno Aubrey wrote:
Don't you people realize you are "arguing" with the Stephen Hawking of trolls? Roll



Thx, I guess LOL


Quote:

So, no, you DON'T *HAVE* TO GET HAMLET.
It just gets increasingly unlikely that you won't get it the more time passes.
And eventually, "at infinity", you would "almost surely" have gotten it.
But at any given point in time, no matter how distant, there is no guarantee that you will have gotten it

* Shameless Ninja Fix
Since you can never get to infinity, you can also expect to never get to hamlet either.
But that does not mean that you could not get hamlet, at least purely in theory.
People on both sides of the argument need to understand the difference between these two things.





Quote:

The key here is the "almost".
It doesn't indicate that it MUST happen up to any given time, just that the chance of it happening eventually is as good as 100%.



I am noticing now that Akita T is beginning to confirm some of my suspicions by using words like "extremely likely" and "possible" in place of "absolutely must". VKhaun Vex, however is continuing to not address the points in hand, which suggests that doing so may be a bit beyond his skill level. which, ofc, is quite alright, and I don't mean that as a troll. Just try to keep a more open mind is all.


So thank you Akita for addressing this problem rationally. That was the point of the whole thread Blink




I mean is it not also "possible" that a monkey banging on a typewriter would only type the letter "e" LOL But should we expect that outcome too? There is a difference between what is real and what is of no consequence, except to mathematicians, philosophers and pendants.

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

Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#109 - 2012-04-26 11:32:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
VKhaun Vex wrote:
I could break out a random number generator and show you that this level of streaks happens by generating a very large set. At two clicks a second on a random number generator dumping into notepad I could do twenty times that number in about ten days, but I don't need to do that because there is something truly easily observable that does this for me.





In reference to a random number generator, as far as I know (and I might be wrong) modern random number generators are not actually random. They are random simulators, so their output might be considered less accurate then an actual person flipping a coin. Even if that is not true, when you run that program and measure the distance between 1 and 0, the distance between the two will never be infinite. The maximum distance between a sequence of 1 and a sequence of 0 will have a discernible cap, as that cap increases so will the likelihood of breaking that cap decrease. That is also real.

Bottom-line, if you sat a programmer in front of a computer screen and showed him a random number generator spitting out a googolplexian of 1’s in a row, and you then commence to tell him it’s output was random, it is just that, at this is particular point in all of eternity, now and only by pure random chance, a googolplexian of 1’s were being spit out….he would assume that the thing was broken.




Yes, and it is not certain.

& yes, if you can argue 10,000 heads in a row must transpire then you can also argue a a googoplexian amount of heads in a row, and twice that and then to the power of another googoplexian. Where does it end?


If a monkey can type only “e” forever, and you can flip only heads forever… it is all possible but none of it is real. In reality, you get the reoccurrence of what I am calling the tiny pattern. That is what really happens when you go out and do it. So what your math is conveying is strictly imaginary, and you don't seem to realize that it is.

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

Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#110 - 2012-04-26 13:51:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
& for VKhaun Vex



I understand that infinity can never be reached and almost sure is not definite. As a result, no set amount of randomly generated values of 1’ and 0’s (less than infinite) are guaranteed to create the working code to WOW, no set amount of random coin tosses (less than infinite) are guaranteed to generate a googolplex to the power of another googolplex of consecutive heads, and no set amount of monkeys (less than infinite) sitting in front of any set amount of computers is certain to generate hamlet or the bible.


What governs this?


The fact that infinity represents both a value that cannot be reached, and a stretch of time that cannot ever be achieved. Thus, any value no matter how seemingly large and endless (and perhaps ever growing) cannot, by default, be truly infinite. No infinity means that the equations using infinity are in question, because it cannot be reached. Thus, the stating that infinity must generate all things are in question, and likely, giving imaginary positives, being that infinity is just an imaginary math operation that can never be realized.


Did I miss something?

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

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#111 - 2012-04-26 23:33:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Since you can never get to infinity, you can also expect to never get to hamlet either.
But that does not mean that you could not get hamlet, at least purely in theory.
People on both sides of the argument need to understand the difference between these two things.

Well, no offense meant, but to be blunt, for clarification's sake, it looks like you are one of the latter ones to realize that Blink
It was always about chance of getting something, and as one "approaches infinity" (since you can never actually "arrive at infinity"), if the value of something approaches 100% chance of happening, when one is in a hurry, you could almost excuse them for saying "will certainly happen" or even "must always happen" instead of the ACTUALLY correct statement of "will almost surely eventually happen".
However, it's an issue of semantics more than an issue of what could or could not happen.

Quote:
The fact that infinity represents both a value that cannot be reached, and a stretch of time that cannot ever be achieved. Thus, any value no matter how seemingly large and endless (and perhaps ever growing) cannot, by default, be truly infinite. No infinity means that the equations using infinity are in question, because it cannot be reached. Thus, the stating that infinity must generate all things are in question, and likely, giving imaginary positives, being that infinity is just an imaginary math operation that can never be realized.

It IS true that infinity can never be reached (kind of by definition), but you don't actually need "infinity" unless you want that "almost certain" bit, which is not all that relevant.
What is a lot more relevant is stuff like "how many times should one try to do action A in order to have at least chance C of getting outcome X?", where you are always working with finite numbers all around, regardless of their magnitude.

Thinking with a cool head, you might agree that even if C is around 0.01 you can say "unlikely, but I can totally see it happening", if C is around 0.5 you say "could happen, might not happen, about even odds", and if C is around 0.99 you already can relatively safely proclaim "I'm pretty sure this will usually happen".
The large strings of numbers on the previous page were for a C~>=0.99 (but still C<1), yielding some quickly increasing number of tries needed for that chance of obtaining what you initially dubbed as practically impossible.

With increasing number of tries (orders of magnitude), things that were as good as impossible from a practical standpoint at a smaller number of tries first become highly unlikely, then unlikely, then somewhat possible, then likely, then highly likely, finally almost unavoidable. NEVER completely unavoidable, but still, you get the idea.

So, if you want to adhere to the strictest possible definitions, the question of "can you throw a streak of X heads" is meaningless, since you can conceivably end up throwing it, even if the odds are astronomical against you, and also, the question of "will you throw a streak of X heads if you keep flipping an infinite amount of time" is equally meaningless because infinity can not be reached and you can not guarantee such an outcome until any finite amount of throws.
What you need to ask is "if I throw a coin Y times, what is the chance of getting a streak of X heads".
And that can always be answered. With math. Math which we had no observed exceptions from.
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#112 - 2012-04-27 07:01:27 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
& yes, if you can argue 10,000 heads in a row must transpire then you can also argue a a googoplexian amount of heads in a row, and twice that and then to the power of another googoplexian. Where does it end?


It doesn't... that's why it's called infinity. The odds of getting that many in a row, are how often you will see it repeat in an infinite data set, just like a streak of two, or a streak of ten, or a streak of one, or a streak ten times that long. It happens in proportion to it's odds. Of course if you flip that many coins as a set ONE TIME it will 'almost certainly not happen'... but it could. Big smile

You keep selecting one part of this proven fact to take away. You say it can't be 'proven' because we can't flip coins infinitely, which is a position backed and a prerequisite created purely by your refusal to understand how a mathematical proof works, which you refuse only on the basis that it is the 'realm of the nerd'. You take it down to 'small tiny patterns' backed only by your unwillingness to see examples all around you that contradict that daily. You argue availability of random right after calling a human being flipping coins through air 'random' and posing the question in the first post by letting all in the conversation assume monkeys can be called random, at all... You will just do anything you can to avoid the whole picture that must know you cannot begin argue.

I have decided the best conclusion here is that you WANT there to be some mystery to the way this works. I think that's very sad. WIth education you could catch up and find where the real mysteries are and unravel them for real, and have debates about them for real, but for all your talk of the 'real world' you seem happy with -and rabidly defensive of- your fantasy mysteries.

I will leave you to them.

I know I've said that before in this thread, and I kick myself for making that statement then coming back, but that was when I thought you might be worth talking to. I see now the only alternative to you being a troll, is the tragedy of a born astronomer who chooses not to buy a telescope.

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
#113 - 2012-04-27 14:54:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Here i will just type the answer for you...



The Question Was:

"Can an endless string of randomly generated numbers ever create the programming code to WOW or Windows 7, given infinite tries."


The Answer is:

"An infinite amount of tries can never be reached, and in any predefined and calculable set of time, no, it is not guaranteed to happen. Although it is theoretically possible."

Thank you for your contributions to this thread, it helped clear things up a little. Even if it was taking us in a somewhat wrong direction, the end result was possitive. But that is the highest goal of science an all other worthy pursuits is it not?




& My response To All


Quote:

Almost sure is fine, but that has not been the claim throughout most of this thread. The claim was must and with certainty. To say that you are almost sure given infinity is fine, but you must then, after the fact, also take into consideration the imaginary non-value of infinity. After which we must then again ask a whole new set of questions, of which I have already begun to address.



Since infinity can never be reached, as I said before, any set value, no matter how insurmountably massive and seemingly endless (and perhaps even ever growing) can be infinite in size. If you cannot disput this basic definition of 1. A set value and 2. The nature of infinity, then it follows that any number of coin tosses cannot be infinite in their attempts.

And yet an infinity of attempts is the keystone of your mathematical "proof", which is an imaginary mathematical operation. Yes... I have a problem with that, I have issue with it because it is not at all accurate. Your seeming proof is just the product of an imaginary idea used to determine the outcome of something real, the notion of a randomly generated string going on without a perceivable end. Endless like the universe itself perhaps, but never reaching a value anywhere close to an infinite amount of tries. Your math proof, in this case, is inaccurate because not all of the propper, real and true-to-life values have been plugged in.






Stay tunded for my next thread, where the Steven Hawkins of forum trolls argues the existence of free will and truth! Lol


LolBig smileBig smile

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

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#114 - 2012-04-27 17:16:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Almost sure is fine, but that has not been the claim throughout most of this thread.

Actually, if you re-read the thread more carefully, you will see that it kind of was the majoritary claim throughout the entire thread.
That exact phrasing might have not been always used, but enough hints towards that effect were repeatedly given by almost everybody.
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2012-04-27 23:14:08 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
Akita T wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Almost sure is fine, but that has not been the claim throughout most of this thread.

Actually, if you re-read the thread more carefully, you will see that it kind of was the majoritary claim throughout the entire thread.
That exact phrasing might have not been always used, but enough hints towards that effect were repeatedly given by almost everybody.


@ Akita T, in clarification of my own posts:
I do not disagree with this, I just felt we never got far enough along to talk him about it because -as has already been articulated- a streak, is a streak. If he's going to say 10,000 heads in a row might 'never happen' and consider himself correct he must equally believe that an infinite string of tails 'might happen'. There is no limit on the 'almost sure' clause. The next one after ten trillion tails in a row is 'almost sure' to be heads, but may not be.

To have that conversation though, he would have to understand the rest of the picture or else it just looks like you're backing him up and saying Hamlet might never happen, because he obviously has the tendency to stop short at what sounds good. He would never equally acknowledge that you could get also Hamlet over and over again. He thinks getting that code is impossible and so obviously doesn't understand both sides of the statement.

He is biased where the real world and real math is not. That's the disparity he's had through the whole thread. He can't get his head around the behavior of extreme odds, and he doesn't want to. I think it was a mistake to bring that concept in when you did.

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
#116 - 2012-04-28 14:02:37 UTC
VKhaun Vex wrote:
I think it was a mistake to bring that concept in when you did.

Possibly Ugh
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#117 - 2012-04-28 14:28:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Quote:
@ Akita T, in clarification of my own posts:
I do not disagree with this, I just felt we never got far enough along to talk him about it because -as has already been articulated- a streak, is a streak. If he's going to say 10,000 heads in a row might 'never happen' and consider himself correct he must equally believe that an infinite string of tails 'might happen'. There is no limit on the 'almost sure' clause. The next one after ten trillion tails in a row is 'almost sure' to be heads, but may not be.

... I think it was a mistake to bring that concept in when you did.



I mean, who wants to be accurate right?
It is better to dual with words and try to win a debate I guess?



"Must" Vs "almost certain" and how that translates to "not definite" is the entire point. That combined with the fact that infinity is an imaginary idea that can never be achieved. I evidently proved my case, because now we are all in agreement. VKhaun Vex, people like you are what is wrong with modern theoretical science IMO, not the science itself.

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

Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#118 - 2012-04-28 14:32:33 UTC
Akita T wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Almost sure is fine, but that has not been the claim throughout most of this thread.

Actually, if you re-read the thread more carefully, you will see that it kind of was the majoritary claim throughout the entire thread.
That exact phrasing might have not been always used, but enough hints towards that effect were repeatedly given by almost everybody.



So what your saying is, everyone here was more or less in agreement the entire time? Awesome!

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

Sigurd Sig Hansen
Doomheim
#119 - 2012-04-28 15:52:39 UTC
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
Find yourself a good sturdy wall. Brick or stone. Something that would total a truck hitting it at a moderate speed without even cracking.

Got your wall? Good. Now for the next part.

Theoretically, if you run into that wall enough times, eventually you may pass right through it.

When you pass through a solid stone wall, come back and I will answer your question.


ps: Run really really fast at the wall every time you try. Wouldn't want that one time you were going to pass through it's matter not to happen because you didn't run fast enough.


Reminds me of flying in hitchikers guide

Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game

VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#120 - 2012-04-29 03:33:55 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
VKhaun Vex wrote:
I think it was a mistake to bring that concept in when you did.

Akita T wrote:
Possibly Ugh

Eternum Praetorian wrote:
VKhaun Vex wrote:
If he's going to say 10,000 heads in a row might 'never happen' and consider himself correct he must equally believe that an infinite string of tails 'might happen'. There is no limit on the 'almost sure' clause. The next one after ten trillion tails in a row is 'almost sure' to be heads, but may not be.
"Must" Vs "almost certain" and how that translates to "not definite" is the entire point.

Eternum Praetorian wrote:
I evidently proved my case, because now we are all in agreement.


Definitely should not have brought that in yet.
Not that it matters. He obviously thinks learning about this stuff is 'for nerds' and he's too cool for school.

If he wanted to talk about what can really be done and tested within the rules 'we can't see or test infinity' and
'there are no true random number generators' none of his questions would have ever made sense. If he really believed in those rules he wouldn't have asked them. If he really believed them now he would have said never mind. He has just put those rules in and taken them back out as needed to prevent himself from being wrong. If you take that wriggle room away from his aggressive restating that he thinks is an argument, we both cleared this up for him long ago.

I'm surprised my type-o's alone haven't accidentally spit out 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