Question about dice...

[KLOBBER]

...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.... Therefore the list is also 100% non-random.

Random.org uses atmospheric noise NOT sound waves.

Atmospheric noise is composed 100% of sound waves, sparky:

noise
  /nɔɪz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [noiz] Show IPA noun, verb, noised, nois⋅ing.
–noun
1. sound, esp. of a loud, harsh, or confused kind: deafening noises.
2. a sound of any kind: to hear a noise at the door.
3. a nonharmonious or discordant group of sounds.

...Same as the numbers on the list. Until the result is known it remains 1-6.

No, that is incorrect. Just being unknown to you does not change the fact that the likelihood is 100%. Allow me to demonstrate:

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the first few numbers on the static list are as follows:

"5, 3, 6, 1, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3, 6."

They will appear as above on the original website. Someone there may very well know the order at some point.

Obviously, they will then appear in the following order (the same order) when they are transferred to CC:

"5, 3, 6, 1, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3, 6."

When this portion of the static list is first transferred to CC, nobody here knows the specific order, although someone on the previous site may very well know the order of the static list. Now, the first number on this list, 5, is 100% likely to appear first, and the other five numbers are 0% likely to show up first, and the guy on the other website knows this. There is no chance whatsoever of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 6 showing up first. 5 is pre-determined to show up first. Similarly, 3 is 100% likely to show up second, and so on. You don't know this until it manifests, and neither do I, but the other guy from the other website knows.

This means that there is NOT an equal chance of 1-6 showing up on the first instance, on the second, on the third, or on any subsequent instance of a dice roll. Each number is 100% likely to show up in its pre-determined spot on the static list, as it is revealed on CC, in the exact same order as it showed up on the previous website, and this is a fact whether or not you know the specific order of the list.

You think that your personal ignorance of the list's order somehow magically changes the pre-determined status of the static list to equal chance 1-6, but you could not be any more wrong about this.

What about the guy from the other website who sees the list before you see it? In the imaginary world of rainbows and cream-puffs you live in, within your head, does his knowledge or ignorance of the static list's pre-determined order also somehow magically change the facts? Your theory is supremely unintelligent and alarmingly unscientific, and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Whether you are ignorant of the list's specific order or you know it makes no difference regarding the fact that each number is pre-determined. They will still each be 100% likely to show up in this pre-determined order:

"5, 3, 6, 1, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3, 6."

A lot of people have not yet read this post, and they have no idea the order of this example list I posted, although you and I do know the order. Are you saying that it magically switches over from being equal 1-6 chance to being pre-determined only after someone sees the list? If so, then what about the other people who haven't seen it? What about the billions of people who have never even heard of CC, and still do not know the outcomes of any rolls? Are you actually so deluded that you think that to them, the list is now equal 1-6 chance, but that to those of us who have seen it, it has been magically transformed into a pre-determined list? Are you really that insane and do you really have such n abysmally unscientific misunderstanding of reality?

Your theory is total nonsense.

The list is simply pre-determined, before, during, and after your finding out the order of the numbers, and before, during, and after anyone else finds out the order of the numbers. I am truly amazed at the idiotic statements you posted above in this regard -- completely astounded that anyone could even think something so nonsensical, even more so that you had the gall to actually post it.

[KLOBBER]

Way too much to respond to.

Here is my claim: Random dice are unpredictable.

... without playing under the assumption that attackers have the advantage.

Please forgive me for being "way too much" for you -- it wasn't "too much" for me to type it!

Your claim that random dice are unpredictable is acceptable to me.

However, CC dice are also unpredictable -- no need to change.

Your assumption that I don't know attackers have the advantage is also incorrect.

The only two true statements you have made in this conversation follow:

1. The dice are not random.

2. I am "way too much" for you.

Everything else you've said here is total nonsense.

[MrMoody]

Your the one crying about made up quotes then you pull mine out of context. nice trolling peaches

[Hsur]

on the original website.

Someone there may very well know the order at some point.

although someone on the previous site

and the guy on the other website knows this.

but the other guy from the other website knows.

on the previous website

the guy from the other website

Who is this "other" guy and what "other" website are you refering to?

[KLOBBER]

Your the one crying about made up quotes then you pull mine out of context. nice trolling peaches

Everything I quoted you as posting, you actually posted, and I'm not crying.

I was blatantly misquoted by the liar "xelabale" recently in this thread, but I never misquoted you.

No attempt at refutation? I'm not surprised.

[KLOBBER]

Who is this "other" guy and what "other" website are you refering to?

The other website is the one from which CC purchases the static list to use as dice on this website. The other guy is the person who made the arrangement for such a static list to be produced in the first place. His knowledge of the list's order is hypothetical, I admit, but it is entirely possible.

That was merely a hypothetical situation I set up in order to illustrate a point.

[maniacmath17]

Way too much to respond to.

Here is my claim: Random dice are unpredictable.

... without playing under the assumption that attackers have the advantage.

Please forgive me for being "way too much" for you -- it wasn't "too much" for me to type it!

Your claim that random dice are unpredictable is acceptable to me.

However, CC dice are also unpredictable -- no need to change.

Your assumption that I don't know attackers have the advantage is also incorrect.

The only two true statements you have made in this conversation follow:

1. The dice are not random.

2. I am "way too much" for you.

Everything else you've said here is total nonsense.

Well you just lost the argument KLOBBER. There is absolutely no way for you to know that the attacker has the advantage if the dice on conquer club are purely unpredictable. Thanks for playing, have a good night.

[KLOBBER]

Way too much to respond to.

Here is my claim: Random dice are unpredictable.

... without playing under the assumption that attackers have the advantage.

Please forgive me for being "way too much" for you -- it wasn't "too much" for me to type it!

Your claim that random dice are unpredictable is acceptable to me.

However, CC dice are also unpredictable -- no need to change.

Your assumption that I don't know attackers have the advantage is also incorrect.

The only two true statements you have made in this conversation follow:

1. The dice are not random.

2. I am "way too much" for you.

Everything else you've said here is total nonsense.

...no way for you to know that the attacker has the advantage if the dice on conquer club are purely unpredictable....

Simple dice manifestation is not the only factor at play in attacks. Attacker has advantage because he often has a greater number of dice in play than defender, therefore his likelihood of prevailing with higher numbers is heightened. Comparative advantage between attacker and defender is partially predictable. In cases where attacker and defender roll same number of dice, this advantage is nonexistent.

Dice themselves are still unpredictable in all cases, however.

[Robinette]

Glancing thru this thread, i simply must say...

This sounds like a debate between free-will vs predestination...

"So do the dice have a free-will, or is each roll predestined?"

These are the guys that make sure the dice follow the script



I think the very idea of Predestination was doomed from the start!

you really should read that line again, if you didn't laugh it means you missed the triple meaning

Hey, where's Calvin?

[maniacmath17]

Way too much to respond to.

Here is my claim: Random dice are unpredictable.

... without playing under the assumption that attackers have the advantage.

Please forgive me for being "way too much" for you -- it wasn't "too much" for me to type it!

Your claim that random dice are unpredictable is acceptable to me.

However, CC dice are also unpredictable -- no need to change.

Your assumption that I don't know attackers have the advantage is also incorrect.

The only two true statements you have made in this conversation follow:

1. The dice are not random.

2. I am "way too much" for you.

Everything else you've said here is total nonsense.

...no way for you to know that the attacker has the advantage if the dice on conquer club are purely unpredictable....

Simple dice manifestation is not the only factor at play in attacks. Attacker has advantage because he often has a greater number of dice in play than defender, therefore his likelihood of prevailing with higher numbers is heightened. Comparative advantage between attacker and defender is partially predictable. In cases where attacker and defender roll same number of dice, this advantage is nonexistent.

Dice themselves are still unpredictable in all cases, however.

I like your reasoning KLOBBER. But, you failed to mention that defending dice have the tie-breaker advantage. How do you determine which advantage is greater: rolling 3 attacker dice, or rolling 2 defending dice with tie going to defender?

[john9blue]

Hey KLOBBER... even if you know a list of numbers being generated from random.org, that doesn't mean they aren't random. You seem to be saying that the instant we see the CC dice rolls, they somehow change from "random" to "not random". That's bogus.

Either that or you believe the CC dice are not random, despite the lack of a true test confirming this result.

I think the very idea of Predestination was doomed from the start!

Lol!

[xelabale]

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

Simple question Klobber...

[Thezzaruz]

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.

I know... And I have said that before... But apparently maniacmaths own observations is of more importance and hence it has been ignored.

But, you failed to mention that defending dice have the tie-breaker advantage. How do you determine which advantage is greater: rolling 3 attacker dice, or rolling 2 defending dice with tie going to defender?

I would say that your question has been thoroughly proven by years of RISK playing (and a whole lot of math too). 3 dice > tie going to the defender. The non-random you claim we have doesn't factor in into that equation unless you also believe that the dice is not only non-random but also weighted in favour of the defender.

[maniacmath17]

I've been asking for clarification as to how exactly the streakyness was tested and have yet to get an answer. Like I said, work through the calculations that me and other players have done in this thread, and see where we may have gone wrong. The fact still remains that losing 30 v 1 given the billions of dice rolled on conquer club is still only about one out of 5000 to occur. It just doesn't add up.

The question about attacker advantage was only for KLOBBER because I know he wouldn't try to justify it through probability (which is how everyone else would justify it). So I wonder what other approach he would use.

[KLOBBER]

Hey KLOBBER... even if you know a list of numbers being generated from random.org, that doesn't mean they aren't random. You seem to be saying that the instant we see the CC dice rolls, they somehow change from "random" to "not random". That's bogus.

Yes, that is bogus. However, you said it, not me.

Either that or you believe the CC dice are not random, despite the lack of a true test confirming this result.

I have no beliefs; I rely on facts instead, and I leave the entire realm of belief to you. I have agreed with many people on this site who state that the dice are not random, and directly above, in this very thread, I have proven that they are not random.

Short version:

1. According to definition, random numbers cannot have an unequal likelihood of manifesting.

2. I have demonstrated clearly that the CC dice always have a 100% likelihood of manifesting a specific, pre-determined number for each respective roll, and that the other five numbers for each respective roll have a 0% likelihood of manifesting.

3. 100% to 0% -- Those odds are heavily unequal.

4. Therefore every single roll on this site is 100% non-random, and any portion of the static list of non-random rolls is also 100% non-random.

Want the long version? Scroll up!

[KLOBBER]

he fact still remains that losing 30 v 1 given the billions of dice rolled on conquer club is still only about one out of 5000 to occur.

That is incorrect. Your assumption is that some calculation or another can be adequate to predict unpredictable dice, and that is an incorrect assumption. There is no calculation in existence adequate to predict anything unpredictable, and that includes the CC dice.

Your calculation doesn't add up -- the unpredictable dice manifestation does add up.

Your calculation is wrong.

[KLOBBER]

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

Simple question Klobber...

If you don't know the answer to that question, I am glad to hear it.

If you do, then the only reason you have for asking me is to criticize my answer, and if you think I'm going to cooperate with you toward that end, then you have another think coming. You are seeking only an argument, not the truth. If you change your mind and decide to seek the truth some day, I'll be happy to give it to you, but I refuse to cooperate with you in your search for an argument.

[KLOBBER]

"So do the dice have a free-will, or is each roll predestined?"

I understand that it was posted tongue-in-cheek, but that is actually a very interesting question.

Before I venture an answer, I would ask if there is a third alternative, or are those the only two choices?

[Thezzaruz]

I've been asking for clarification as to how exactly the streakyness was tested and have yet to get an answer.

Not true, you just ignored it. IIRC most of it is posted in the dice complaints thread in the suggs & buggs forum (I linked to it earlier) and the rest can be found in other old dice threads (if they weren't merged with the just mentioned thread). Doing a simple search would have helped you but apparently that was beyond your grasp.

[KLOBBER]

I've been asking for clarification as to how exactly the streakyness was tested and have yet to get an answer.

Not true, you just ignored it. IIRC most of it is posted in the dice complaints thread in the suggs & buggs forum (I linked to it earlier) and the rest can be found in other old dice threads (if they weren't merged with the just mentioned thread). Doing a simple search would have helped you but apparently that was beyond your grasp.

Thezz, Maniacmath has an unfortunate propensity for ignoring any answers that he doesn't happen to like. He ignores mine, he ignores yours, and I'm sure he ignores others as well. I suspect that he attempts to use it as a tactic to bog down his opponents in useless searches that are actually his own responsibility, but he failed to do that with me, and from your response above, I can see that he also failed with you, as you just cut right through his BS. Good call!

[Timminz]

It would appear that someone is projecting.

[KLOBBER]

It would appear that someone is projecting.

Yes, someone is.

[Timminz]

It would appear that someone is projecting.

Yes, someone is.

So, appearances are not deceiving me, in this instance?

[KLOBBER]

It would appear that someone is projecting.

Yes, someone is.

So, appearances are not deceiving me, in this instance?

That's a question for your psychiatrist -- he'll have access to files on your other "instances."

[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!!

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

Simple question Klobber...

If you don't know the answer to that question, I am glad to hear it.

If you do, then the only reason you have for asking me is to criticize my answer, and if you think I'm going to cooperate with you toward that end, then you have another think coming. You are seeking only an argument, not the truth. If you change your mind and decide to seek the truth some day, I'll be happy to give it to you, but I refuse to cooperate with you in your search for an argument.

You have answered the question, in your first quote. You then deny you gave that answer in the second section. You then refuse to answer the next time. So rather than not answering, you have answered too many times and in contradictory manners.

If you are seeking the truth why not discuss it? Clear up our confusion as to which of your responses is your true belief.