These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#141 - 2012-07-26 02:26:40 UTC
Black Panpher wrote:
I like monkeys.


I liek turtles!

"Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff 

Want to see what Surf is training or how little isk Surf has?  http://eveboard.com/pilot/Surfin%27s_PlunderBunny
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#142 - 2012-07-26 04:02:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Akita T wrote:
Puts her faith in something that can never be observed in tangible reality

Sounds a little too much like blind religious faith miss Akita... so sad.

Oh, yeah, because it somehow takes blind almost religious faith to believe that 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4, 4+1=5 and so on and so forth for as long as you can care to go... /sarcasm

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#143 - 2012-07-26 11:50:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Akita T wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Akita T wrote:
Puts her faith in something that can never be observed in tangible reality

Sounds a little too much like blind religious faith miss Akita... so sad.

Oh, yeah, because it somehow takes blind almost religious faith to believe that 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4, 4+1=5 and so on and so forth for as long as you can care to go... /sarcasm



Actually, when I was in kindergarten a simple scientific experiment involving popsicle sticks proved those mathematical equations true. It was yummy! and ever since then it has not required not one shred of religious-like faith on my part because it was 100% observable in the physical universe.



So when did someone prove your math equations involving infinity and "almost likely" in the physical universe? You know, that moment when it became real and it did not require a "belief?"

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#144 - 2012-07-26 12:15:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Furthermore Miss Akita


if the theory states that it may take an infinite amount of time, and is there for untestable, then… what you have is an improvable assumption. So what you see as an appeal for ignorance I see as an rational observation regarding the theory that you are trying to impress upon others, without evidence to support your claim.


1. A simple test involving monkeys yields no such results

2. A monkey Program circulating in people’s home computers claims the current record as being 10 letter in the form of “King. So s” followed by gibberish. This evidently has been linked to the words of Henry 4th, Part 1 “King. So shaken as we are, so wan with car, Find we a time for freighted peace”. Those ten digits took over 1 billion monkey years to generate, and this program has simulated values in the ranges of 2 million million million billion billion billion monkey years.

That last interval achieved 24 places in the form of RUMOUR. Open your ears (followed by gibberish) which was apparently linked to one of Shakespeare many works. But that does not prove that you can ever get the whole thing, it only proves that you can get extremely tiny fragments, that by themselves have no cognitive meaning. Only after you search for meaning, does it seem to have any meaning at all. Like scholars looking at hidden messages in the bible code. RUMOUR. Open your ears, is not even proper English. It does not mean anything outside of a literary context.


3. If you generate a random 1 and 0 generator, or a random coin toss generator, what you will get will be remarkably similar to the output of the monkey simulator above. You will end up with long strings of heads and long strings of tails, but there is a REALISTIC PHYSICAL LIMIT that will never be exceeded. You will never randomly generate 10 billion billion billion trillion trillion heads in a row, because if you did the output would no longer be random.



So these series of experiments do not prove your hypothesis and furthermore there are no others to contradict them. Your answer is “well you just need more time” but we have already given these experiments exponential more time then exists in the universe (many universes worth in fact) and they have not generated your desired result. So you have 1. An imagined and unreachable value that you have named infinity and 2 you have a theory of randomization that says that you can eventually get to Hamlet, the bible or the constitution. You have two imaginary ideas that resist all attempts to prove them physically.

That is my assertion, and that my friend is not a plea for ignorance. On the contrary it is a very sober and rational observation of the facts at hand. So you are trying to prove imaginary values with math that you made up… of course you can come up with any answer that you desired. But you HAVE to also be able to observe it through experimentation. That is science. Without that there is no scientific method and we might as well crawl back into the dark ages.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#145 - 2012-07-26 14:31:08 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
1. A simple test involving monkeys yields no such results


I just realized another problem with that test: The monkeys weren't immortal. Immortal monkeys might be better typists.

edit: also, those weren't even monkeys.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#146 - 2012-07-26 17:15:07 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
1. A simple test involving monkeys yields no such results


I just realized another problem with that test: The monkeys weren't immortal. Immortal monkeys might be better typists.

edit: also, those weren't even monkeys.



What an excellent and blatant dodge of post 143 and 144. Here you get a cookie.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#147 - 2012-07-26 20:59:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
if the theory states that it may take an infinite amount of time

And there you go, all the rest of the point rendered pointless by that opening mistake.
It does not take an infinite amount of time. Just a really, really, really long one, for some particular constraints. An unfeasibly long one. But not infinite.

Let's still comment on this other one though...
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
If you generate a random 1 and 0 generator, or a random coin toss generator, what you will get will be remarkably similar to the output of the monkey simulator above. You will end up with long strings of heads and long strings of tails, but there is a REALISTIC PHYSICAL LIMIT that will never be exceeded. You will never randomly generate 10 billion billion billion trillion trillion heads in a row, because if you did the output would no longer be random.


Can a single 1 obtained every now and then be compliant to randomness ? Sure as heck is. And it has a chance of 2^-1 of happening.
Are two 1s in a row still random enough ? Pretty much. And it has a chance of 2^-2 of happening.
What about three 1s in a row ? Still pretty damn obviously random, but at a smaller probability, which it just so happens is 2^-3.
Four 1s in a row ? What do you know, still could randomly happen ! And at a probability of 2^-4.
Notice a trend here ?
...
How about an arbitrary but small N count of 1s in a row ? Like, oh, say, N=6. Or 10. Or 15. Heck, as far as we know and we have absolutely no reason to disbelieve it, it should happen randomly now and then too, with a chance of 2^-N, for a reasonable value of N, and you were not denying it.
How about for N+1 counts of 1s in a row ? What a surprise, sure as heck still can happen randomly. And absolutely and totally coincidentally, at a 2^-(N+1). Or, 50% of the time you just had a string of N 1s in a row before. Hmm...
...
Hey, didn't you just agree that if you keep adding a 1 to something you can go on forever ?
So what if that N would not be small, but large ?
When exactly does it STOP being random, by your own admission ?
And more importantly, WHY does it stop at that particular value of N instead of N+1, N+2, N+3 and so on ?
...
The answer, obviously, it that it never stops being random. It's just getting less and less probable. But not impossible.
Could N be equal to "10 billion billion billion trillion trillion" ?
Absolutely nothing against it still being possible.
But what exactly would be the chance of it happening ?
Well, 2 ^ -(10 billion billion billion trillion trillion), which is horribly, horribly small, and it would take an insane amount of time (STILL VERY MUCH FINITE, MIND YOU) for it to have a decent chance of actually happening.
That it COULD take longer than the universe is likely to exist is another matter altogether.

...

AGAIN, why exactly should you have a "REALISTIC PHYSICAL LIMIT that will never be exceeded" ?
If you can accept that 9x 1s in a row is possible, the next, 10th 1 in a row would have a 50% chance of happening right afterwards, which is quite damn plausible. True randomness by definition has no memory. Same for the 11th, 50th, 100th or 1000th, always just one more vs before.
So, YET again, what exactly is the exact number of that "realistic physical limit" in your opinion ?
And why can't you throw one more 1 afterwards and still call it random ?
And another one after that ?
And so on and so forth as much as you like.

Note that your only requirement of any contention was that the time needs to be finite for a good chance of it happening.
And that's pretty much been proven to actually be the case for any arbitrarily large number N.
You didn't say "you have at most XYZ years at your disposal".

Now, if you WOULD give an exact due date in years, no matter how large, and a "confidence probability" for a certain streak length, then sure enough, there would be a maximum number N that would act as a "realistic limit".
And the value of N would depend on allowed amount of time and your required probability of such a streak actually appearing.
But you never actually asked for that.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#148 - 2012-07-26 21:38:08 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
What an excellent and blatant dodge of post 143 and 144. Here you get a cookie.


Sweet, I love cookies.

Also, you're taking this entirely too serious, and in my opinion too far. The infinite monkeys idea is a thought experiment; you're supposed to picture millions of monkeys randomly banging away on a keyboard as a way to visualize a random character generator. Anyone who takes it seriously and starts arguing "nuh uh cuz the monkeyz would poo on the typewriters" is completely missing the point.

Eternum Praetorian wrote:
You will never randomly generate 10 billion billion billion trillion trillion heads in a row, because if you did the output would no longer be random.


If I flip a coin ten times and it lands on heads ten times in a row, you would question the randomness of it. If I flip the same coin a billion times and at least once get ten heads in a row, you would say "that's the nature of randomness." In fact, I'd be quite surprised if you DIDN'T have that occur multiple times. It's one of a thousand possible combinations of ten flips, and you're doing a hundred million sets of those.

The problem here is you lack the imagination to envision a sample size in which a billion billion billion is mere sliver of the whole.

I'll finish this up by quoting Post #2:

Alexis Fawn Molari wrote:
The odds of generating anything meaningful are truly staggering. Let's say you want to randomly produce a particular 140-character code to post to Twitter (yes these really exist). That's 1,120 random bits in a specific order. That means you have 2^1,120 possible outcomes, only one of which is your desired result. To put the spectrum of possibilities in better perspective, that's a 338-digit number that is well on its way to equaling the estimated number of atoms in the known universe.

If you did 10,000 random bits per second for 14 billion years, you'd have generated 3,942,000,000,000,000,000 possible combinations...assuming your randomizer never repeated a set. That's less than 2^64. It will take you another 25-30 billion years to reach 2^65.

Infinite? Yeah, you're going to need infinity to get the results you're looking for.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#149 - 2012-07-27 01:54:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
I retort your assertions be submitting that you do not understand the true nature of randomness. Locked away in the tiny nuances of whatever variables cause a coin to end on heads or tails is the very reason why you won’t get ludicrous amounts of heads in a row

What you do not seem to understand, and what other posters do not seem to grasp, is that "won’t get" and "can’t get" have two distinctly different meanings. The math is simply telling you that it is theoretically possible, and in a universe of seemingly infinite possibilities that makes sense. But that is not the same thing as saying that it is invariably definite. You cannot say that because it is only "almost certain". Understand?



You are taking it on faith--something that can never be observed. The math is not telling you that it will occur, it is only telling you that it could. Get it? I don’t know if I can explain this concept in any simpler terms to you. You seem unwilling to accept the consequences inherent in your own hypothesis. I say again, almost certain is not definite. So it might not occur because it is, drum roll… almost certain.

However likely or unlikely that you might try to spin it…
No matter how many mathematical proofs that you submit…

The outcome is not 100% definite by your own admission and your own mathematical "evidence", and that is just simple logic






I offer you another notion to ponder

Let's get off of the coin toss thing and the keyboard for a moment. Let us instead use scrabble pieces. I will now arrange them into a pile and I will set off an explosive devise at their center. The pieces are hurled every which way, and now I ask you this "how many tries do I get until they land in a perfect linear sequence that spells out the works of Hamlet?"

Am I supposed to accept the fact that must occure to, if given infinite tries?



You see in the very metaphors that we are arguing about, the cards are VASTLY stacked in favor of the statisticians. You give them a tiny set of outputs like only a 1 and 0, a heads or a tails or a keyboard that only has 84 keys and then you ask them if a random generator can make the full encyclopedia. The possibility is there, however unimaginably tiny, yes… it is there. It is there because the keys are there, and since I can type it with my hands it is possible that very same keyboard can output said literary work, program or 10 billion ones in a row.

That does NOT mean that it will, and the math does not say that it will. It says that it is almost certian and as very likely as that may seem to you, that is just not the same thing as definite. It is far from it.



I am amazing... I know. But try and keep up will you? Big smile

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#150 - 2012-07-27 03:50:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
I retort your assertions be submitting that you do not understand the true nature of randomness.

And I retort that you're talking out of your posterior.
What, did a magic unicorn shared that intimate knowledge of the universe with you instead of anybody else in the whole wide world ?

Quote:
You are taking it on faith--something that can never be observed. The math is not telling you that it will occur, it is only telling you that it could. Get it?

It can EVENTUALLY be observed. How long it takes to get a certain chance of it happening is calculable. You personally won't live long enough to observe it, but that's a different story.

Quote:
The outcome is not 100% definite by your own admission

And I am not quite 100% definitely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, but pretty damn close to.
I'd still bet you everything that I could possibly bet against your 10 USD each and every day that it will rise the next day, and I'll almost certainly win that bed each and every time until the day one of us dies.

Even if there's just a 51% chance that you'll get N head tosses in a row in XYZ throws, that's already more likely to happen than not, and by just increasing the value of XYZ, that chance will keep on getting higher and higher.


Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Let's get off of the coin toss thing and the keyboard for a moment. Let us instead use scrabble pieces. I will now arrange them into a pile and I will set off an explosive devise at their center. The pieces are hurled every which way, and now I ask you this "how many tries do I get until they land in a perfect linear sequence that spells out the works of Hamlet?"

How about you just pull letters out of the bag one at a time and reshuffle it in after each draw ? Because what you'd get with an explosive device will most likely be just ashes.

So let's start small first.
What's the chance you'd get a single word ? You should recognize that as quite possible, if not easy.
Now what's the chance of one extra word ? Slightly less likely, but still possible.
Each additional word is increasingly unlikely but still possible.
The more times you do it, the higher the chance of it eventually happening.
Do it enough times and it's more likely to have happened rather than not.
No faith required, just basic logic.
How many times you'd have to do it to get a decent chance of the complete works happening by accident ? Many, many times the age of the universe. A FINITE amount of time. NOT an infinite amount of time. Just very, very long. Eventually, the chance of it NOT having happened would be negligible.

Akita T wrote:
So, YET again, what exactly is the exact number of that "realistic physical limit" in your opinion ?
And why can't you throw one more 1 afterwards and still call it random ?
And another one after that ?


Care to answer that ?

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#151 - 2012-07-27 04:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
To put it in the simplest terms.
Show me EXACTLY where the error is in the following list.
Which of the next lines is all of a sudden false when the previous one was true ?

...

Flip until you get 1 head.
Can you get head # 2 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 3 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 4 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 5 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 6 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 7 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 8 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 9 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 10 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 11 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 12 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 13 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 14 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 15 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 16 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 17 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 18 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 19 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 20 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 21 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 22 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 23 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 24 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 25 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 26 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 27 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 28 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 29 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 30 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 31 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 32 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 33 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 34 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 35 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 36 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 37 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 38 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 39 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 40 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 41 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 42 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 43 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 44 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 45 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 46 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 47 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 48 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 49 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 50 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 51 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 52 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 53 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 54 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 55 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 56 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 57 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 58 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 59 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 60 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 61 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 62 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 63 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 64 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 65 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 66 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 67 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 68 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 69 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 70 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 71 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 72 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 73 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 74 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 75 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 76 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 77 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 78 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 79 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 80 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 81 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.
Can you get head # 82 randomly ? Yes, 50% chance. Flip again.

...and continue in the same manner until you reach whatever value you want.

So, at which number exactly is one line true but the next one false ?
And what's your reasoning for picking that number ?

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#152 - 2012-07-27 11:31:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Oh dear miss Akita….


Let me just say that

1. The idea of infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters is no more correct, sane or ludicrous then an explosion set inside of a pile of indestructible, infinite scrabble pieces.

2. To assume that the sun will not rise tomorrow after how many billions of years? Borderlines on lunacy TBH and that is a fallacy argument at best, from someone who no longer has a leg to stand on.

3. You say it can eventually be observed, but it never has been. That is bad bad bad science by anyone’s definition of bad science, so you are indeed talking out of your posterior now.



About your reshuffle and draw thing?

You are creating a bias in favor of the statisticians by putting a small number of variables on what is essentially a conveyor belt where only one can be counted at a time. This idea is vastly in favor of your outcome because you have created your own parameters. Even still, any attempt thus far to simulate anything more then gibberish and partial sentence fragments has failed, even when the simulations run for a million million million billion billion billion monkey years.

Try and remember, the whole idea of infinite tries on infinite keyboards that only possess 84 keys is a strongly predetermined exercises in favor of accidentally creating Hamlet. It is strongly in favor or the staticians theories and if anything would be in favor of yielding hamlet such an exercise would. Yet… it does not. When we run the programs in our best computers nothing even close has ever happened. When we run Pi and get nothing people tend to accept that it is incalculable, but when we run random letter generators and try to get Hamlet and nothing happens? Well… here we are


We calculate pi to seemingly endless ends with no answer with these computers…
Now people are doing the same with them in the hopes of getting random outputs that appear organized…

They are also failing and achieving nothing.




Regarding Your “50%” wall of text post

Those are just words on a page and that is what you do not seem to understand. All simulations so far have contradicted your assertion. Here is but one suggested reason why. In any group set, there is presumed to be an even split 50:50 heads and tails.

It does not matter how big or small this set is, but once we get to numbers greater then say (10-100 or 1,000) we begin to see this 50:50 split. Since any sample size of coin tosses is a value less then infinite, you will ALWAYS encounter a roughly 50:50 split of coin flips dispersed over large numbers of tosses. Always. This is a rule of flipping a coin just like the 50% chance thing is.

So you are right, and there is no flaw in post 151
But you are also wrong because you are only representing 1/2 of the story and you are not taking into account the whole thing. There are two rules of randomness in coin tossing 1. Is 50:50 with no memory and the other is 50:50 over large group sets (or any value less then infinite cut out of the timeline).


Boo Ya! DAMN I AM GOOD!!!

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#153 - 2012-07-27 11:45:02 UTC
Eternum Praetorian, giving the Dunner-Kruger effect a face.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#154 - 2012-07-27 12:07:38 UTC
Alpheias wrote:
Eternum Praetorian, giving the Dunner-Kruger effect a face.



Yes I think so, because people like you lack the cognitive ability to know that you are not scoring as highly on tests blah blah yadda yadda.


ZING!

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#155 - 2012-07-27 12:40:31 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
Eternum Praetorian, giving the Dunner-Kruger effect a face.



Yes I think so, because people like you lack the cognitive ability to know that you are not scoring as highly on tests blah blah yadda yadda.


ZING!


I don't think Dunner-Kruger means what you think it means. But thank you for letting everyone know that you have a condition and we shouldn't aggravate you.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#156 - 2012-07-27 12:50:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Alpheias wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
Eternum Praetorian, giving the Dunner-Kruger effect a face.



Yes I think so, because people like you lack the cognitive ability to know that you are not scoring as highly on tests blah blah yadda yadda.


ZING!


I don't think Dunner-Kruger means what you think it means. But thank you for letting everyone know that you have a condition and we shouldn't aggravate you.



back atcha buddy, and nice sig it makes people respect your opinion. No adolescent teenage anxieties there... Straight


Do you have anything related to the OP to discuss or are you just here to lurk because all of this is over your head?

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#157 - 2012-07-27 13:14:11 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
Eternum Praetorian, giving the Dunner-Kruger effect a face.



Yes I think so, because people like you lack the cognitive ability to know that you are not scoring as highly on tests blah blah yadda yadda.


ZING!


I don't think Dunner-Kruger means what you think it means. But thank you for letting everyone know that you have a condition and we shouldn't aggravate you.



back atcha buddy, and nice sig it makes people respect your opinion. No adolescent teenage anxieties there... Straight


Do you have anything related to the OP to discuss or are you just here to lurk because all of this is over your head?


I believe that I told you before where my sig comes from. :)

BBC Horizon had a nice documentary about infinity, where they mentioned the example of Infinite Monkeys typing away. Seen it?

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#158 - 2012-07-27 17:20:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
2. To assume that the sun will not rise tomorrow after how many billions of years? Borderlines on lunacy TBH and that is a fallacy argument at best, from someone who no longer has a leg to stand on.

Funny you should say that, because it is your position that's analogous to the one betting against it for the time being.
So thanks you in agreeing that YOUR position borders on lunacy.
Eventually, it is a certainty that one day the sun WILL stop rising every roughly 24h - be it because there's no more sun, no more planet, the planet is no longer rotating in a way to make one sunrise in roughly 24h possible, or any other number of things which are almost but not quite completely impossible to happen WITHIN OUR LIFETIME, but are almost unavoidable if given enough time.

Quote:
You say it can eventually be observed, but it never has been. That is bad bad bad science by anyone’s definition of bad science, so you are indeed talking out of your posterior now.

Put all of this in terms of atoms and atom states and similar things that happens by the billions of billions many times a second, and it HAS been observed.


Quote:
You are creating a bias in favor of the statisticians by putting a small number of variables on what is essentially a conveyor belt where only one can be counted at a time. This idea is vastly in favor of your outcome because you have created your own parameters. Even still, any attempt thus far to simulate anything more then gibberish and partial sentence fragments has failed, even when the simulations run for a million million million billion billion billion monkey years.

And when you calculate what length of text has a decent chance of appearing in a run lasting those "million million million billion billion billion monkey years", it just so happens that it roughly agrees with the length of text that actually manages to show up.
In other words, the problem is just that you need a truckload more time, and absolutely no other type of problem whatsoever.



Quote:
Regarding Your “50%” wall of text post
Those are just words on a page and that is what you do not seem to understand. All simulations so far have contradicted your assertion. Here is but one suggested reason why. In any group set, there is presumed to be an even split 50:50 heads and tails.
It does not matter how big or small this set is, but once we get to numbers greater then say (10-100 or 1,000) we begin to see this 50:50 split. Since any sample size of coin tosses is a value less then infinite, you will ALWAYS encounter a roughly 50:50 split of coin flips dispersed over large numbers of tosses. Always. This is a rule of flipping a coin just like the 50% chance thing is.
So you are right, and there is no flaw in post 151
But you are also wrong because you are only representing 1/2 of the story and you are not taking into account the whole thing. There are two rules of randomness in coin tossing 1. Is 50:50 with no memory and the other is 50:50 over large group sets (or any value less then infinite cut out of the timeline).

Dude, you don't understand what "the law of large" numbers actually says.

It says (when applied to this particular example) that taken as a WHOLE, the total number of 1s will TEND to get closer to the total number of 0s, or that the ratio of 1s to 0s (or ratio of heads to tails, if you prefer) will tend to be closer to 50:50 than anything else. Not "has to, always", but "generally will, usually". Notice the exact same phrasing as in pretty much all I am saying, and the exact opposite of what you keep on saying.
It says absolutely nothing about localized streaks of either throw. It just says that the higher the number of samples you go, the average gets less and less influenced by randomness. Heck, a huge streak of 1s followed by an identical length huge streak of 0s ALSO GETS THE AVERAGE CLOSER TO 50:50 !!! The average CAN get further away from 50:50, in fact, it DOES get further from 50:50 every single freaking time you add a new throw in the direction of the winner so far, or 50% of the time - it's just that every time you add one additional "winning throw", the absolute percentage movement away from 50:50 is smaller than the absolute percentage movement TOWARDS 50:50 whenever you hit a "losing throw", so the average OBVIOUSLY gets closer to 50:50 the more you keep at it, even if AT TIMES it TEMPORARILY moves a bit away from it.

And that does absolutely nothing good for your side of the argument (if you actually have an argument other than "I don't really know and therefore you can't know either").
The only part that has any relevance to what we WERE talking about is the part which you said it's not wrong.
So, basically, you've just admitted you're wrong.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#159 - 2012-07-27 17:30:07 UTC
Of course, you're free to say that you disagree with formal logic in general, and in particular with formal logic applied to mathematics. In which case, there's no point in even trying to have a logical argument with you.
Are you saying that ?

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#160 - 2012-07-27 17:36:51 UTC  |  Edited by: dexington
Once you add infinity to the equation, you can more or less prove anything is possible.

With a infinite number of monkeys, each of them doing just one keystroke with result in a infinite number of random outputs. You would not only have the current version of eve, but also every variation of eve that ever has or will exist, and you will have them a infinite amount of time.

The real question is would be, is a infinite number of monkeys able to find a infinite subset of a infinite total, in polynomial time? :)

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.