Question about dice...

[xelabale]

Actually, you're both wrong.

If such a scenario ever happened, of which there is no proof, then the odds of it happening were 100%.

If it didn't happen, which is more likely, then the odds were 0%.

Lets put that to a test.
Before I roll a die what are the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says there are no odds, it's entirely unpredictable.

I roll the die. It shows 3. What were the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says 0%


OR

I roll the die. It shows a 1. What were the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says 100%

If I'm misrepresenting your logic please correct me. Or will you refuse to answer this too?

OK Klobber - define odds for us. If you don't do it I will assume you acknowledge that you are wrong by your silence, as you usually don't answer awkward questions...

Quote in full. Don't call me a liar. By cutting off the top quote you lied. Who's a pretty troll, then!

I'm enjoying your lack of ability to answer the question! In fact you are now avoiding 2 questions from 2 different people!!

[KLOBBER]

Actually, you're both wrong.

If such a scenario ever happened, of which there is no proof, then the odds of it happening were 100%.

If it didn't happen, which is more likely, then the odds were 0%.

Lets put that to a test.
Before I roll a die what are the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says there are no odds, it's entirely unpredictable.

I roll the die. It shows 3. What were the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says 0%


OR

I roll the die. It shows a 1. What were the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says 100%

If I'm misrepresenting your logic please correct me. Or will you refuse to answer this too?

OK Klobber - define odds for us. If you don't do it I will assume you acknowledge that you are wrong by your silence, as you usually don't answer awkward questions...

Quote in full. Don't call me a liar. By cutting off the top quote you lied. Who's a pretty troll, then!

I'm enjoying your lack of ability to answer the question! In fact you are now avoiding 2 questions from 2 different people!!

What I actually said, I admit I said. The rest was written by someone else, as the text above shows. By claiming that I said what I didn't say, you are a liar. For example, I never said there are "no odds." That is a lie on your part, and there are others. Yes, lying makes you a liar.

I did answer the question once. I am definitely avoiding answering it twice, however, and I'm very happy with that.

If you want to see the answer again, scroll up. In the meantime, I am really enjoying this!

[KLOBBER]

...suggest where there was an incorrect assumption....

Your assumption that you can use some method, any method at all, to accurately predict the CC dice, is incorrect. Since that ignorant assumption is your starting point, ALL of your calculations from that point on are inherently flawed -- every single one.

...the goal is to have only unpredictable dice...

Again, that's not what I said. You are expert at utilizing the straw-man logical fallacy, but not very good with actual logic. Are you suggesting, however, that the dice should NOT be unpredictable? The only necessary function of gaming dice is that they be unpredictable, and the CC dice meet that requirement perfectly. You seem to think that the site would be improved by making them predictable.

By some miracle, you and I agree that the dice are not random. However, you have failed to show that this is any kind of problem. The only supposed "problem" that you have cited in regards to the dice not being random is that you can't use your silly little cheat program to predict them, thereby gaining an unfair advantage over other players. That may be a good problem for you, but nobody else has any motivation to agree with you that your personal problem represents an actual problem with the dice. In fact, I'm glad that your silly little cheat program has proven as impotent as your own unscientific calculations in this case.

In reality, the CC dice are unpredictable, therefore they are perfect as they are. It's your silly little calculations and your silly little cheat program that are flawed, not the CC dice.

...there needs to be an equal probability of rolling a 1-6....

Above lies the very crux of your error. Please read the following very carefully, as you either ignored or failed to comprehend it the first time I posted it (just like you did with my clear answer to your silly little question in this same thread):

The CC dice are based on a previously prepared, static list of numbers. This static list of numbers appears on another website before it appears on CC, and it undergoes no modification in the transfer from that site to this one -- it remains an unchanged, static, predetermined list. Therefore, whether or not we know what the specific number is, the first number on that list has a 100% likelihood of appearing first on CC, and the second has a 100% likelihood of appearing second on CC. Similarly, there is a 0% likelihood of the first number NOT appearing first on CC, &c.

Therefore, there will NEVER be an "equal chance of rolling a 1-6." Every single roll on CC is both pre-determined and unpredictable. If you happen to roll a 3, for example, that has absolutely no effect on the likelihood of the next number being a 3 or not being a 3 -- it is from a pre-determined list that undergoes no changes as a result of any particular number punching through to your screen. The next number after your 3, whatever it happened to be on the previous site, is still 100% likely to show up on CC next. If the number on the list after the 3 happens to be a 5, for example, then the number 5 is 100% likely to show up on CC directly after the 3, just as it appeared on the previous site. The other five numbers have 0% likelihood of appearing after the 3, in this example, because they are pre-determined not to show up there. I'm referring to down-to-earth, concrete pre-determination here, BTW, not something philosophical or paranormal. The numbers have been determined, in the recent past, by a specific process on the other site, and the list is transferred unchanged, in that very same, static order, to this site, by a specific electronic method.

Your error involves the bizarre belief that you can somehow make some calculation or another that will magically allow you to predict the numbers. That is an addle-minded belief you have, and you need to overcome it before you make any real progress in your journey towards someday, somehow comprehending the CC dice.

The short story here is that when your chosen method of calculation, whether it's more or less convoluted, FAILS to predict the CC dice, it means only that YOUR CALCULATIONS ARE WRONG, nothing more, nothing less. You either need to come up with a correct method of calculation, or give up on calculating altogether, and I suggest to you that the second option is the more intelligent.

[Timminz]

I see what KLOBBER is saying.

It doesn't matter if they were randomly selected from the 1-6 range to begin with. Once they are recorded, they are no longer random. They are then pre-determined.

Technically correct, however useless to the discussion at hand.

[KLOBBER]

1. I suggest the dice are streaky based on some outrageous results that are highly unlikely given random dice.

But you yourself have stated many times that the CC dice are not random, and that is the one thing on which you were actually correct. Therefore, you cannot say (with any consistency or credibility) anything based on being "given random dice."

You and I both know that we are not "given" random dice -- we are given unpredictable dice. Your silly little semantic beef with the good programmer Lackattack notwithstanding, what we are actually discussing here are unpredictable dice, not "random" dice. I never said that Lack "said he wanted the dice to be unpredictable," and in fact, he never did say that. What I actually said is that I've read his quotes on this subject many times, and I am at peace with them, although I do not agree with them.

I think Lack's a good programmer, and I like his gaming site. His dice work perfectly well in a practical sense, and your semantics-based, prima donna pissing and moaning about them is childish and, quite frankly, embarrassing for you.

...Now that we've established the goal is for random dice....

You have failed to establish that. The only supposed "reason" you've given for random dice is that you want to use a silly little cheat program that only works on random dice, in order to gain an unfair advantage over your opponents on this site. I've got some bad news for you, sunshine -- your silly little cheat program is inadequate to deal with the dice on this site, in the same way that your own hare-brained and unscientific theories are inadequate for dealing with reality. Lack outsmarted you and the designer of that program long before you even came along. You will NEVER be able to predict the CC dice, no matter what you do, and you have failed to cite a real reason to change them, or even a reason to look into the possibility of changing them.

Your earlier tirade only proved, in the ultimate analysis, that the CC dice are unpredictable. This means that they are perfect as they are, and you did a good job of pointing this fact out. You need not continue -- the irreparable damage that you have inflicted upon your own flawed, incorrect, unscientific theories, by ignorantly volunteering evidence that clearly contradicts them, is already done.

[KLOBBER]

I see what KLOBBER is saying.

It doesn't matter if they were randomly selected from the 1-6 range to begin with. Once they are recorded, they are no longer random. They are then pre-determined.

Technically correct, however useless to the discussion at hand.

Actually, that is what you said, and it is far from what I said. Nice example of straw-man fallacy, though!

[john9blue]

I see what KLOBBER is saying.

It doesn't matter if they were randomly selected from the 1-6 range to begin with. Once they are recorded, they are no longer random. They are then pre-determined.

Technically correct, however useless to the discussion at hand.

No, he's still trolling. Random is a strange word that can be interpreted several ways. If you are a determinist/fatalist, then nothing is random.

If you believe that random.org generates its numbers only from random atmospheric patterns, then the stream from random.org to CC is a random stream, and the dice are a random result. Here's what we want to know: is there anything in between modifying the results?

[xelabale]

Actually, you're both wrong.

If such a scenario ever happened, of which there is no proof, then the odds of it happening were 100%.

If it didn't happen, which is more likely, then the odds were 0%.

Lets put that to a test.
Before I roll a die what are the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says there are no odds, it's entirely unpredictable.

I roll the die. It shows 3. What were the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says 0%


OR

I roll the die. It shows a 1. What were the odds of rolling a 1?
xelabale says 1/6
KLOBBER says 100%

If I'm misrepresenting your logic please correct me. Or will you refuse to answer this too?

OK Klobber - define odds for us. If you don't do it I will assume you acknowledge that you are wrong by your silence, as you usually don't answer awkward questions...

Quote in full. Don't call me a liar. By cutting off the top quote you lied. Who's a pretty troll, then!

I'm enjoying your lack of ability to answer the question! In fact you are now avoiding 2 questions from 2 different people!!

What I actually said, I admit I said. The rest was written by someone else, as the text above shows. By claiming that I said what I didn't say, you are a liar. For example, I never said there are "no odds." That is a lie on your part, and there are others. Yes, lying makes you a liar.

I did answer the question once. I am definitely avoiding answering it twice, however, and I'm very happy with that.

If you want to see the answer again, scroll up. In the meantime, I am really enjoying this!

So what are the odds of rolling a six with one dice one time, in the future?

[KLOBBER]

...If you believe....

We are discussing facts here, not your beliefs.

...that random.org generates its numbers only from random atmospheric patterns...

As you stated above, that is merely your personal "belief," and neither you nor the website has ever offered any evidence whatsoever that any atmospheric sound waves are in any way "random."

On the contrary, each and every sound wave in existence is regular in frequency -- that is the inherent nature of all waves -- and therefore ALL sound waves, including all atmospheric sound waves, are, by definition, inherently non-random.

You mentioned your "beliefs" and some philosophical terms. However, I am talking about science, not your "beliefs" or esoteric philosophy. Scientifically speaking, without reference to your "beliefs" or your spacey philosophy, sound waves are regular, and are therefore 100% non-random. This is a concrete fact, not some paranormal "belief" of yours or some philosophical meandering of which you seem overly fond.

Therefore the list is also 100% non-random.

More importantly, the static list is pre-determined by a down-to-earth, concrete, non-philosophical process. This is not a reference to some esoteric and non-scientific philosophy such as of determinism or fatalism -- I'm not trying to say that the big-bang (or any other unscientific nonsense), or the universe itself, is pre-determined -- I am only talking about the CC dice. It is a simple scientific fact about the specific static list of numbers that CC purchases from another site and calls "intensity levels," commonly referred to as "dice." The list appeared previously, in the exact same order, as it eventually appears on this site -- it is most definitely pre-determined.

You are right that determinism and fatalism prove that everything is non-random -- whatever is pre-determined cannot be random. However, I'm not referring to everything, nor am I referring to philosophy, only the CC dice. They are also undeniably pre-determined, and in a very practical, down-to-earth, easily understandable manner.

The specific method by which the list is pre-determined also happens to be 100% non-random, as posted above, but that is actually a different issue altogether.

[Thezzaruz]

Here's what we want to know: is there anything in between modifying the results?

As KLOBBER answered the question related to his discussion and left the easy one I'll do that (as both I and KLOBBER already have anwerd it earlier in the thread).

No...

random.org generates the number and puts them in a file that CC then uses.

[john9blue]

We are discussing facts here, not your beliefs.

If they were my beliefs, I wouldn't have used "you", I would have used "I". Learn English.

As KLOBBER answered the question related to his discussion and left the easy one I'll do that (as both I and KLOBBER already have anwerd it earlier in the thread).

No...

random.org generates the number and puts them in a file that CC then uses.

If the outrageous dice stories are true, how do you explain them? If tests are done that prove the dice are streaky, how do you explain that? You can't just say "random.org did it" and call it a day, can you?

[Timminz]

I see what KLOBBER is saying.

It doesn't matter if they were randomly selected from the 1-6 range to begin with. Once they are recorded, they are no longer random. They are then pre-determined.

Technically correct, however useless to the discussion at hand.

Actually, that is what you said, and it is far from what I said. Nice example of straw-man fallacy, though!

Actually, I did not say that you said any of that. If you re-read what I wrote, you might catch that fact. I won't hold my breath though.

[wakka]

If the outrageous dice stories are true, how do you explain them?

Ourageous dice stories just proves the fact that Klobber is right.
Find 1.000 people and put them all in a big building with a coin in their hands, let them flip, and wait till somebody throw a streak of 20 times tails.
I am 100% that it will happen. And I hope that you can see that is has nothing to do with the coin or the person or the air circulation...

[KLOBBER]

I see what KLOBBER is saying.

It doesn't matter if they were randomly selected from the 1-6 range to begin with. Once they are recorded, they are no longer random. They are then pre-determined.

Technically correct, however useless to the discussion at hand.

Actually, that is what you said, and it is far from what I said. Nice example of straw-man fallacy, though!

Actually, I did not say that you said any of that. If you re-read what I wrote, you might catch that fact. I won't hold my breath though.

I see what you're saying now.

What you said, not what I said, is useless to the discussion at hand.

[Timminz]

I see what KLOBBER is saying.

It doesn't matter if they were randomly selected from the 1-6 range to begin with. Once they are recorded, they are no longer random. They are then pre-determined.

Technically correct, however useless to the discussion at hand.

Actually, that is what you said, and it is far from what I said. Nice example of straw-man fallacy, though!

Actually, I did not say that you said any of that. If you re-read what I wrote, you might catch that fact. I won't hold my breath though.

I see what you're saying now.

What you said, not what I said, is useless to the discussion at hand.

If you say so.

[KLOBBER]

You are the one, not me, who said you believe. In that sense, it is your belief. You brought up the very notion of belief, independently, in a discussion formerly centered on facts. In that sense, it is also your belief, as opposed to the facts that I have presented. In any sense, your beliefs are wrong.

If the outrageous dice stories are true, how do you explain them?

There is no proof that any of the supposedly "outrageous" dice stories are true. Most likely, they are just a bunch of lies. They are definitely unsupported by any evidence. Verily, the only thing that is outrageous about them is the fact that some schmuck actually wasted enough of his time and energy to fabricate them. Since the stories were fabricated by others, not me, I have no intention of attempting to explain them. I am simply relating facts, not explaining other people's unsupported lies.

The CC dice are perfect as they are.

[KLOBBER]

I see what KLOBBER is saying.

It doesn't matter if they were randomly selected from the 1-6 range to begin with. Once they are recorded, they are no longer random. They are then pre-determined.

Technically correct, however useless to the discussion at hand.

Actually, that is what you said, and it is far from what I said. Nice example of straw-man fallacy, though!

Actually, I did not say that you said any of that. If you re-read what I wrote, you might catch that fact. I won't hold my breath though.

I see what you're saying now.

What you said, not what I said, is useless to the discussion at hand.

If you say so.

You said it, not me.

[Timminz]

The CC dice are perfect as they are.

I agree entirely.

[Timminz]

If you say so.

You said it, not me.

I'm positive that I was referring to what you said.

What you said, not what I said, is useless to the discussion at hand.

What was it you were saying about straw-man fallacies?

[KLOBBER]

If you say so.

You said it, not me.

I'm positive that I was referring to what you said.

What you said, not what I said, is useless to the discussion at hand.

What was it you were saying...?

What are you trying to say?

[KLOBBER]

The CC dice are perfect as they are.

I agree entirely.

I'm almost ashamed to say it, but I'm almost beginning to like you!

[MrMoody]

...that random.org generates its numbers only from random atmospheric patterns...

As you stated above, that is merely your personal "belief," and neither you nor the website has ever offered any evidence whatsoever that any atmospheric sound waves are in any way "random."

On the contrary, each and every sound wave in existence is regular in frequency -- that is the inherent nature of all waves -- and therefore ALL sound waves, including all atmospheric sound waves, are, by definition, inherently non-random.

You mentioned your "beliefs" and some philosophical terms. However, I am talking about science, not your "beliefs" or esoteric philosophy. Scientifically speaking, without reference to your "beliefs" or your spacey philosophy, sound waves are regular, and are therefore 100% non-random. This is a concrete fact, not some paranormal "belief" of yours or some philosophical meandering of which you seem overly fond.

Therefore the list is also 100% non-random.

Random.org uses atmospheric noise NOT sound waves. Lets not assume they measure the sound wave generated by this noise. The level of noise, time between noise both can be and are random. According to Wikipedea Atmospheric noise is created primarily by some 8,000,000 lightning strikes daily. Unless KLOBBER thinks when lightning will strike or the time between strikes is not random? Then these numbers are 100% random when created.

If you have a die the odds of rolling a 4 are 1-6. If you take that die into another room and roll it the odds are still 1-6 you rolled a 4 even though the roll has all ready taken place. Same as the numbers on the list. Until the result is known it remains 1-6.

[maniacmath17]

Way too much to respond to. KLOBBER, you keep coming back to the completely incorrect assumption that what I want is predictable dice. I have tried to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible, but you still don't understand. This will also clear up thezzaruz's confusion.

Here is my claim: Random dice are unpredictable.

Here is why: By definition, random dice have an equal chance of rolling 1-6 on any roll agreed? This means that any future roll is not affected by a previous roll. This means that it is impossible to predict what the outcome of a roll will be and therefore each roll and each sequence of rolls is unpredictable. Let me know if I lost you anywhere in this.

As for why it is important to have random dice, I think everyone on this thread other than you KLOBBER understand the importance of it, even thezzaruz has said random is important. It is so that the most basic strategical concepts of Risk are in fact true such as the attacker has the advantage. I'm actually quite impressed that you even managed to get the rating you did KLOBBER without playing under the assumption that attackers have the advantage.

[Thezzaruz]

If the outrageous dice stories are true, how do you explain them?

Some "to small sample" and bit of "not proven" with some added "selective memories psychology" covers it nicely tbh.

If tests are done that prove the dice are streaky, how do you explain that? You can't just say "random.org did it" and call it a day, can you?

No test done has proven any such thing though so I don't have to explain anything. IF tests where to show the dice to be streaky then I would firstly be surprised and secondly I would wholeheartedly get behind a change of the CC dice, but I'm confident this will never be the case.

As for why it is important to have random dice ... It is so that the most basic strategical concepts of Risk are in fact true such as the attacker has the advantage.

No, no, no. The attackers advantage has nothing at all to do with randomness. In fact it comes from the attacker (sometimes) having a very fixed and non-random advantage of the extra dice.

Here is my claim: Random dice are unpredictable.

And you are wrong. The RNG in your calculator (that you yourself said produced random numbers) is by no mathematical or statistical definition "unpredictable" and the same can be said for most of the definitions of "random" that you have used in this thread.

[Timminz]

If tests are done that prove the dice are streaky, how do you explain that? You can't just say "random.org did it" and call it a day, can you?

No test done has proven any such thing though so I don't have to explain anything. IF tests where to show the dice to be streaky then I would firstly be surprised and secondly I would wholeheartedly get behind a change of the CC dice, but I'm confident this will never be the case.

In fact, tests have been done that have proved the opposite. The dice are no more, or less streaky than one should expect from randomly distributed numbers.