Question about dice...

[KLOBBER]

Your post is an untidy mish-mash of nonsense and lies.

I never said that I'm "seeking" the truth. I am in possession of it.

Also, I have no beliefs; I rely on facts instead, and I leave the entire realm of belief to you.

[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.

It's untidy because you intentionally make it difficult to follow an argument. You must be really pissed that I won't let it drop!
If there are lies, point them out.
You are in possession of the truth? All of it?
You have no beliefs? Is it a fact that I love you or not? Prove it. (I really do love you)

Or do I?

Yeah I do.

Believe it baby.

[KLOBBER]

It's untidy because you intentionally make it difficult to follow an argument.

You mean difficult for you to follow. Everyone else here seems to be having no problem.

You must be really pissed that I won't let it drop!

Nah -- this is a lot of fun for me!

If there are lies, point them out.

Already did point out one -- scroll up!

You are in possession of the truth? All of it?
You have no beliefs? Is it a fact that I love you or not? Prove it. (I really do love you)

Or do I?

Yeah I do.

Believe it baby.

It looks like it's past time for your meds.

[Timminz]

It would appear that someone is projecting.

Yes, someone is.

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

That is a question for your psychiatrist.

Sorry for not making my self more clear. I realize that some people have difficulty understanding things. Let me elaborate for you. The only way for you to know for sure that someone was projecting would be if it were, in fact, you. Otherwise you are simply making an assumption. Since you have made your opinion of assumptions quite clear, one could deduce that you would not come to such an unscientific, and baseless conclusion. Therefore, the appearance of you projecting, in this instance, was not deceiving.

[KLOBBER]

How do you mean?

[Timminz]

How do you mean?

I take the sum of a group of numbers, and divide it by the how many numbers are in that group. There are other methods, but that is most common.

Please do try to follow the flow of the discussion. Off-topic posts like that, detract from the overall quality of this forum.

[KLOBBER]

You think so?

[Timminz]

You think so?

Yes. It appears that you, however, do not.

[KLOBBER]

Actually, I'm doing my best to prevent you from derailing this thread from its subject, which is dice.

[maniacmath17]

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!

Mind posting the link again? I couldn't find any information about how the streakyness tests were conducted. I don't ignore links. I've contacted e_i_pi, who ran the tests so I should have the information soon. Also, you ignore all the calculations made in this thread, including the one i recapped recently about the 30 v 1. How do you explain the results? KLOBBER's explanation wouldn't work for your argument because you are assuming the dice are random.

KLOBBER, you still haven't answered my question by the way. How do you know which advantage is greater. 3 attacker dice, or 2 defender dice with ties going to defender? I would determine this through programs that calculate dice odds which of course you said are not applicable to this site. Direct quote: "Your assumption is that some calculation or another can be adequate to predict unpredictable dice, and that is an incorrect assumption" So how would you determine who has the edge?

[kiddicus maximus]

I take the sum of a group of numbers, and divide it by the how many numbers are in that group. There are other methods, but that is most common.

You really are all about average, eh? That explains a lot.

[kiddicus maximus]

The attacker still has the advantage. Essentially, the defense dice range from 2-7, while the attack dice range from 1-6. 3 @ 1-6 give you better odds than 2 @ 2-7, assuming (of course) that the dice are random.

If KLOBBER is correct, however, there are no odds, and no random dice, therefore you have a 100% chance of winning every roll - regardless of attack or defense...

[KLOBBER]

...there are no odds, and no random dice, therefore you have a 100% chance of winning every roll - regardless of attack or defense....

That's not what I said. It's your opinion, not mine, and your attempt at putting words in my mouth has failed.

[maniacmath17]

...there are no odds, and no random dice, therefore you have a 100% chance of winning every roll - regardless of attack or defense....

That's not what I said. It's your opinion, not mine, and your attempt at putting words in my mouth has failed.

Then what is your reasoning KLOBBER? Without calculating the odds, how do you determine which has the advantage? 3 attack dice or 2 defending dice with tie to defender.

[MrMoody]

there cannot possibly be any predictable "odds" to factor in.

[xelabale]

Seeing as Klobber is allowed to troll and flame...

Klobber, you cannot hold an argument. You are a very effective troll however. I salute you for working out how to piss off as many people as possible without coming to the attention of the mods.

All hail the chief troll!!!!!

I bring you gifts of the finest spam, moulded from, well, mould.

[KLOBBER]

there cannot possibly be any predictable "odds" to factor in.

By posting that quote alone, you're obviously expressing your agreement -- thank you!

In addition, this quote shows that I never said "no odds," but that I actually said "no PREDICTABLE odds." There is a difference, kiddicus maximus is a liar, and my actual statement is a fact: With unpredictable dice, such as we have here at CC, there cannot be any predictable odds to factor in.

The dice are successfully designed to thwart all attempts at prediction, and that includes the use of "odds."

Conclusion: The dice are perfect as they are.

[KLOBBER]

Here's a quick recap of all the relevant posts in this thread. Off-topic and unscientific nonsense has been purged:

The correct number, in each and every case, is that whatever patterns the dice actually manifest are 100% likely to manifest.

100% -- in reality, there is never any exception to this number.

Every player is completely unable to predict the dice, just as all dice complainers' posts testify Their predictions NEVER come true, and so all is exactly as it should be.

"Man bites dog" would be reportable news. "Dog bites man," however, is not news, as it happens every day, many times, in every city. Dice complainers have only reported that their own arbitrary and unscientific dice predictions were incorrect, just like everybody else's arbitrary predictions are always incorrect. They have merely reported a handful of boring instances of "dog bites man," and this is not newsworthy, sadly.

I have seen hundreds of dice complaints, and each and every one of them contains attempts at predictions that are arbitrary, unscientific, and incorrect. What I'm waiting to hear is a player, ANY player, reporting that his dice predictions were correct, just once. Now THAT would be real news, but it has never happened -- never. The complainers are always wrong, and the dice are always right.

This is my challenge to all dice complainers: Predict correctly. Just once. Stop reporting "dog bites man." Report "man bites dog," just once, and then and only then will your posts have some value, some meaning. Then, and only then, will you have some valid basis for a complaint. Don't be wrong -- be correct -- just once. But no, not a single dice complainer has ever reported any correct prediction of the dice, never reported any stats of actual note. Never. Not a single time. It's always dog bites man, dog bites man, dog bites man -- again, and again, and again. Reality check: this is NOT news, guys!

If [incredible dice stories] actually happened (of which there is no proof by the way) then they were 100% likely to happen. 99.99541% is incorrect, and 99.8 is incorrect. The correct number, in each and every case, is that whatever patterns the dice actually manifest are 100% likely to manifest.

100% -- in reality, there is never any exception to this number.

By the dice complainers' "reasoning," if I flip a coin and it lands on heads, then, due to so-called "statistics," it must necessarily land on tails the second time, in order to line up with the unscientific and incorrect theory that it must match 50-50. However, real coins and real dice do not work that way, and neither do the dice on this site.

Also, the example of winning the lottery is flawed in that the dice complainers are not winning -- they are losing. If a guy loses the lottery 3 times, 30 times, or 3,000 times in a row, this is not news; it is par for the course.

Similarly, if a dice complainer predicts wrong twice, three times, ten, times, or more in a row, as they do, it is not news.

In order for the example to hold any water, the dice complainer would first have to predict RIGHT three times in a row, which they have never done. Their position is obviously more similar to the guy who repeatedly loses the lottery, which is, as I said in my original post, yet another example of "dog bites man," and is boring, quite expected, and by no means newsworthy.

According to your feeble brand of "logic," if I were to roll a die 5 times, yielding 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, then the next number must necessarily be 6. However, your thinking is as illogical as this example, and in reality, the previous rolls DO NOT determine the subsequent rolls. Real dice manifest independent of your unscientific theories, as do the CC dice.

You were wrong both times, and this is because your theory is wrong.

The dice are unpredictable, exactly as they are designed to be. Your errors prove, not that there is a problem with the dice, but that there is NO problem with the dice. Your thinking is diametrically opposed to reality, my friend, and I am beginning to doubt if you are even capable of apprehending the actual facts due to being unnaturally attached to your incorrect and unscientific preconceived notions.

However, the fact that you are consistently and undeniably wrong shows that what I am saying is fact.

By the way, no lottery is ever chosen "randomly." There are always specific parameters within which the numbers manifest, without exception. Specific and predictable parameters of manifestation are characteristics wholly divorced from the theoretical concept of "randomness," and as lotteries always possess such characteristics, they can never be defined as "random" in the least bit.

When dealing with UNPREDICTABLE dice:

1. No loss is "impossible," or even "nearly impossible," and

2. there cannot possibly be any predictable "odds" to factor in.

Your error boils down to assuming predictability in the dice, and becoming frightened or angry when your irrational assumption is proven wrong. No matter what arbitrary, unscientific, imaginary "odds" you have in mind before rolling, they will necessarily be incorrect -- that is the inherent nature of unpredictability, and this is a fact that you seem incapable of apprehending, sadly.

The dice are definitely unpredictable, just as their designers intended, and just as internet gaming dice should be. The dice are perfect as they are -- it is only your view of them that is erratic. It's time for you to stop posting such unscientific nonsense based on ignorance of the nature of these dice.

Until evidence of an actual problem is presented, which has never been done, every intelligent, logical, or scientific mind must accept the fact that the dice are absolutely perfect as they are. In this case, since they are designed to be unpredictable, and they are indeed unpredictable, the obvious definition of the term "perfect" as applies to the dice is simply "unpredictable." In other words, the only conceivable problem with the dice would be a proven citation of consistent predictability having bearing on the outcome of any games, which is something that has simply NEVER been cited.

In fact, every single dice complaint that I have ever seen has piled on fresh evidence of total, unfailing, unrelenting, absolutely perfect UNPREDICTABILITY. The dice complainers crowd is so backward in their thinking that they actually volunteer, time and time again, air-tight evidence in direct contradiction of their own ridiculous theories! If you have seen as much as a single dice complaint at any time that cites any evidence of a consistent occurrence of predictability (beyond the fact that it will be a number between 1 and 6, inclusive), which has an actual bearing on the outcome of any games, please point it out to me, and I guarantee that I will give you 5,000.00 USD. Or, if you can set up a situation where you prove to me that you or anyone else can consistently predict the dice in a manner that has any bearing on the outcome of any games, I'll guarantee the same amount. If anyone accepts this challenge and fails to provide the evidence, then that person owes me $5,000.00.

I have placed this guarantee in writing, it is a challenge that I have offered before on this site, and I continue to offer it to any and all dice complainers willing to meet my challenge at the same monetary level. If you complainers had any credibility, then it should be easy money, right? Still, no evidence has ever been presented -- not ever. I am placing all my cards on the table, and I am showing how confident I am in my statements regarding the unpredictability of the dice. Are you willing to meet this same level of confidence in your theory? Please let me know, because I would love to pocket your money.

I cannot predict them, and you cannot predict them -- nobody can predict them, and nobody ever will be able to predict them. So far, all dice complainers shoot blanks without exception. Face it: unpredictability is the ONLY real function of the dice, and they function perfectly.

Got $5,000.00 to spare? Either put your money where your mouth is, or shut it!

All your BS aside, unpredictability is what it all boils down to, and as no complainer has ever been able to prove that he, or anyone else, can consistently predict the dice in a manner having any bearing on the outcome of any games, all of their complaints are 100% bogus, and the conclusion is that the CC dice are perfect.

Rather than skirting the real issue altogether, would you care to get to the heart of the matter and make an attempt at citing an example of consistent predictability that has bearing on the outcome of any games? No, I thought not. Until you or anyone else cites an actual ability to consistently predict the dice, there has been absolutely no real problem reported. The dice are perfect.

Also, the dice are by no means "random." In reality, it is impossible to generate a string of truly "random" numbers. Even the most advanced computers in the world cannot do so, never have been able to do so, and never will be able to do so. There is never an equal "chance" for any given set or number to be chosen, neither in the natural world, nor in programming. Choice ALWAYS implies will and intelligence, and intelligence is ALWAYS manifesting a plan and a design (some predictable, and others unpredictable). Whichever set or number is chosen, in each instance, is 100% likely to be chosen, and all the others are zero. The arbitrarily concocted phrase, "equal chance" is nothing but imaginary nonsense, and has no bearing on reality.

The best that any computer program can come up with is actually never random in the least bit. If you take 100 computers and plug in the same data, whatever that data may be, and subject that data to the same program for supposedly "random" generation, and look at the outputs, you will have 100 exactly identical strings of numbers. Such a string may be unpredictable to some people, but the programmer may very well be able to predict the outcome for future trials. In this example, each number that each of the hundred computers outputs is 100% likely to come out of each of those hundred computers, and all other numbers are at zero, as I stated above. This fact can be verified by asking any computer programmer. Most "random" number generators are based on the internal clock, and so these strings are by no means random. CC's dice patterns are based on atmospheric noise, but the principle still applies: each number that manifests is 100% likely to manifest at the particular time that it manifests, and the other five numbers are 0% likely to manifest at that time.

We can at least agree that the dice are not random: that is an obvious fact.

The dice are, however, unpredictable, and my challenge stands. Care to take me up on it?

...there's no way of proving with 100% certainty that any string is random. But here's the process for being 95% sure....

The dice are not random; on this we agree.

I disagree with your strange and unbacked opinion that this is a problem, however. Try to prove that it is a problem, please: How exactly does this supposed "problem" affect the games? Does it give any player an advantage by being able to predict the dice?

-- If so, then you need to provide the evidence.

-- If not, then you have as yet to cite a real problem.

Which is it?

You admit that you cannot prove that your calculator manifests random number strings, and that admission directly contradicts the incorrect opinion on that subject that you stated earlier, while confirming the irrefutable fact that I stated -- that your calculator is incapable of manifesting any random numbers. I stated that the strings that your calculator produces are according to a definite plan, which proves without a doubt that they are not random at all, and you admit that you have no proof to the contrary. You are employing "scissor logic," which is not logic at all. It is simply bull-headedness and the inability to apprehend the fact that you are incorrect and have been proven incorrect without any hope of refutation.

"95%" is by no means acceptable proof in any truly scientific or logical circle. Do you even realize how ridiculous your ideas sound at this point? This "95%" statement is nothing but word jugglery in a vain attempt to turn around your utter logical defeat. Actually, you are not 95% correct, you are closer to 0% correct on the issue of computer-generated random number strings. They are an absolute myth, and you have offered no viable evidence to the contrary.

My statements are 100% fact, and the best you can come up with is that you admit that you cannot prove it, but you're pretty sure it's 95%. That is a total cop-out, and is ludicrous and laughable. I say that your method is closer to 5%, not 95%, and you also cannot prove me wrong on that. In any case, your method falls below scientific and logical standards for accepting statements as facts, which are 100%, not 95%, not 30%, not 5%, and not 0%.

You are shooting blanks.

The conclusion is that the dice are perfect, and you have failed, time and time again, to produce any evidence of a real problem, just as all dice complainers have always failed.

Lol, forget I tried to explain 95% confidence intervals. The point i was making was that no string can ever be proven with 100% certainty that it is random. Instead, one must look at the source to determine that. It is 100% obvious that you have never in your life taken a statistics class so I'll not speak on this matter any further.

We've gotten to the important point which is the dice aren't random. Now I'll try to explain WHY this is a problem.

Random dice give the game more strategy. Lets say you are in a standard sequential escalating game and have the possibility of eliminating someone. You want to know what are the chances that you can eliminate that person. So you go to http://gamesbyemail.com/Games/Gambit/BattleOdds and type in the situation. It will give you a % chance that your attack will be successful and you can use this % to decide on whether or not the attack is worth it.

This calculation can ONLY be made with random dice. Otherwise, the game is just you at a computer with your fingers crossed hoping your stack can come out victorius, where's the strategy in that?

There is a very good reason why you cannot prove that any string is random, and that is that no string anywhere is random. Real science necessarily includes proof, and the very idea of randomness is 100% unproven, and is 100% unscientific nonsense, existing only in the imaginations of the unintelligent. I have taken and taught statistics courses, and so you are as wrong about that as you are about random numbers.

I agree that you must look at the source to determine whether or not something is truly random, and the fact is that there is NEVER any source that is random -- all sources for all attempts at random number generation are according to one plan or another, one design or another, and planning and design are by definition diametrically opposed to the very definition of randomness. Therefore, there is never any truly random string of numbers, anywhere

The picture you paint of sitting at your computer with your fingers crossed hoping that you are victorious comes from your own experience, no doubt. Your above post finally makes clear the exact nature of your beef with the CC dice: that you can't use your little cheat program to beat other players. Since the dice are unpredictable, you will NEVER know the "chances" beforehand, under any circumstances, and neither will anyone else. ...and guess what? The dice designers WANTED IT THAT WAY.

They successfully thwarted your attempt to predict the dice before you even came along. You are always going to be incorrect in any arbitrary prediction you may ever make about the dice, and so is your little cheat program. Bravo to the dice designers!

In the ultimate analysis, this entire conversation is nothing more than yet another citation of clear and irrefutable evidence that the CC dice are absolutely perfect as they are. Thank you for helping to show, just like every other dice complainer has shown, that the dice are indeed unpredictable, and are indeed perfect. You've been very helpful, and I really appreciate it.

Since the dice are designed to be unpredictable, and they are just that, they are perfect as they are.

Nobody knows beforehand what the chances are, since the dice are unpredictable, just as they are designed to be, and you have proven nothing but the fact that they are unpredictable. Thank you for your help; you've done a better job of this than any other dice complainer I've seen.

In reality, no matter what math you use, and no matter what logic, whether flawed or perfect, you will NEVER be able to predict what the dice should manifest, what they will manifest, what they necessarily must manifest, or even what percentage of likelihood there is for a certain pattern to manifest, beforehand. This is because the dice are UNPREDICTABLE, and they are actually designed to be unpredictable. Therefore, since they perform perfectly according to what they were designed to do, the dice are perfect as they are. It is only the dice complainers' unscientific nonsense predictions that are always flawed, and always wrong. Sort of like your post.

In an effort to end this entire tirade:

The dice are completely unpredictable. You have no chance of predicting whether you're going to roll a 1 or a 6. However, statistically, you have a 16.6% chance of guessing correctly when attempting to predict the dice. There is no pattern, no cycle, nothing. The dice are essentially Pi (3.1415926535...) - never repeating.

The statistical anomalies that occur are living proof of this. 4 can beat 100. 100,000 can lose to 2. The chances are slim, but it is a probability. This probability cannot be predicted.

All good?

Actually, that's pretty close!

It's great that you included the word "guessing," as that is precisely what every one of the dice complainers is doing, without exception, whether they imagine their guesses to be statistics, mathematics, or logic, or whatever word jugglery they may employ to delude themselves into believing that they're doing anything more than simply guessing (and badly). Whether their guesses involve more or fewer convolutions matters not; whether or not they attempt to employ for their guesses some ridiculous little cheating program matters not; it all boils down to an untidy and embarrassing mish-mash of incorrect, unintelligent, and unscientific guesses, each based on ignorant and faulty assumptions about how the CC dice work.

The fact that their guesses are always wrong proves at least two things irrefutably:

1. That the dice are indeed unpredictable, as they should be, and

2. that all of their various methods for guessing are flawed and unscientific.

I could point out that the percentage that you arbitrarily chose in that regard is also nothing more than another guess, but in the interests of coming to some kind of agreement with you, however tenuous, in regards to the dice complainers' seemingly unending pageant of incorrect guesses, I won't do that.

You did post a couple of definite falsehoods, though....

1. There is most certainly a pattern to the CC dice. It is not divulged to the players in specific detail before games are played out, so it remains unpredictable to the players, but there can be no denying that it is a static list of predetermined, non-random, unpredictable numbers.

Now, because it is definitely a predetermined, static list, there is a 100% likelihood of the first number on that list (in the exact same order on the static list as it previously appeared on the other site) appearing first on this site, and a 100% likelihood of the second number appearing second, and so on. Conversely, there is a 0% likelihood of the first number on the list not appearing first, &c. The dice complainers' failure to apprehend these facts is partially to blame for their confusion, fright, anger, and painfully extended and laughable "blowhard" type folly.

2. The dice are not "pi" by any stretch of the imagination. Pi is predictable, and the CC dice are not.

Those falsehoods aside, the rest of your post is the closest to reality, besides my posts, that has been written here so far.

The point is that the list order is predetermined and static. Therefore, the odds of the first number on the list showing up first on CC are 100%, the odds of the second number on the list showing up here second are 100%, &c.

The fact that no player can predict the specific numbers does not change the odds as I have stated them, above.

what you fail to understand is that your limited view of probability does not apply to the CC dice as far as prediction goes, as they are unpredictable. Your premise that they are predictable is unscientific and incorrect, and it throws a monkey wrench into ALL of your calculations, no matter how simple or convoluted.

...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.

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.

...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.

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.

MrMoody wrote:...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.

I have agreed with the many people on this site who observe 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!

maniacmath17 wrote: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, plain and simple.

CONCLUSION:

All of the above only means that the dice work properly -- exactly as they were designed to work -- unpredictably.

BONUS QUESTION:

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

That is actually a very interesting question.

Is there a third alternative, or are those the only two choices?

[Robinette]

wow.... REALLY?

Say? is filibuster spelled with i's or u's?

wrote: BONUS QUESTION:

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

That is actually a very interesting question.
Is there a third alternative, or are those the only two choices?

why, of course... the 3rd alternative is what i hinted at by making a joke of it...

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

I'll give you another clue...

Will Mine That Bird win the Preakness today?

hehee... I'll tell you tomorrow...

It's appropriate for this thread that it's odds are 6-1 right now

[KLOBBER]

Yes, there is a third alternative, and that is the correct answer.

The correct answer is that the dice are pre-determined.

[JoshyBoy]

Woah am well confused...

I think we should replace the dice with smiley faces. And when you win a roll the smileys holding up your numbers can be happy ones (like this ) and the losing ones can be sad smileys (like this or this or maybe even this ).

Just a thought...

[Robinette]

Yes, there is a third alternative, and that is the correct answer.

The correct answer is that the dice are pre-determined.

ummm... no... that would be the 2nd option

come on now,,, that last clue about who will win the Preakness should have been enough...

[KLOBBER]

Yes, there is a third alternative, and that is the correct answer.

The correct answer is that the dice are pre-determined.

ummm... no... that would be the 2nd option

come on now,,, that last clue about who will win the Preakness should have been enough...

The words predestined and pre-determined have different meanings.

[Sperpurber]

Ungodly amounts of extrapolation on nothing

So do you want to be declared the winner of this thread, or do you just like to repeat yourself?

[KLOBBER]

What do you mean when you say "winner" of the thread? Strange.

I clarified all the relevant posts, not only my own.