Out of Pod Experience

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





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.

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.





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

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.



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.


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.


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.

Thx, I guess LOL









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




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.

& 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?

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.

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.

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.

Possibly

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

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.