Question about dice...

[JoshyBoy]

For the record... I have been having horrific dice in every game I play with FOG OF WAR.

Glitch maybe?

Oh btw i have nothing against you personally xelabale.

[Timminz]

For the record... I have been having horrific dice in every game I play with FOG OF WAR.

Glitch maybe?

Totally a glitch. But you're not supposed to see it.

[Mr_Adams]

For the record... I have been having horrific dice in every game I play with FOG OF WAR.

Glitch maybe?

Totally a glitch. But you're not supposed to see it.

haha

[Thezzaruz]

What have I said about dice probability that is wrong? Please explain.

Your first error is thinking that it is in any way relevant to the outcome of any future CC 4v1 battle...

Thezzaruz.... Eureka! the penny drops

Happy to help.

Thezzaruz have you or anyone else looked into the calls of the dice being "streaky", not sure how to monitor that claim to prove it one way or another ?

It has been studied, and what some people consider "streaky", is actually just a manifestation of "random". If there were never any streakiness to the rolls, that would indicate a lack of randomness.

If I had a sig that would be in it.

[mkohary]

honestly, what is the debate? Klobber pretty much has owned you all in this, and i don't know why you just won't let him have the last word, and let the thread drift down the forums. that way, none of us get to watch the continual ass kicking the Windmill is handing to Don Quixote!! GO KLOBBER!-0

Because he keeps saying things like this: "4v1 loss = 100% if it happened, 0% if it did not, 56v16 loss = 100% if it happened, 0% if it did not." That's just...bizarre, and indicates a clear lack of understanding about probability (which I would think you'd need to know to get anywhere in this game). It's not even close to "ownage", seeing as how it is completely wrong.

[KLOBBER]

Probabilities as you attempt to calculate them do not apply to the dice on this site, as the dice are unpredictable.

This shows that you misunderstand the CC dice, and says nothing at all about whether or not I understand probabilities.

[mkohary]

Probabilities as you attempt to calculate them do not apply to the dice on this site, as the dice are unpredictable.

Right, they're unpredictable, i.e. random, so why would probabilities not apply? They are dice - probabilities apply to all dice.

This shows that you misunderstand the CC dice, and says nothing at all about whether or not I understand probabilities.

Why, are the CC dice special somehow? Are they different from any other 6-sided dice?

[mkohary]

Probabilities as you attempt to calculate them do not apply to the dice on this site, as the dice are unpredictable.

Right, they're unpredictable, i.e. random, so why would probabilities not apply? They are dice - probabilities apply to all dice.

This shows that you misunderstand the CC dice, and says nothing at all about whether or not I understand probabilities.

Why, are the CC dice special somehow? Are they different from any other 6-sided dice?

Oh, I see. Looking at your website, you have this:

1. The dice are 100% non-random.

2. They are also 100% unpredictable, and these are two completely separate and distinct concepts.

If they are unpredictable, they are for all intents and purposes "random", i.e. you don't know and can't predict what's coming next. That does not make them any different from truly random physical dice. As far as I know, CC derives their numbers from random.org - they're random.

There is no point in arguing any of this with you, as you are clearly deluded on the topic, therefore I will stop here, lest I put myself in danger of winning an internet argument, which as we all know has no real winners at all.

[KLOBBER]

Only a moron thinks that "unpredictable" is synonymous with "random."

There are many systems in the natural world, and many man-made, that are unpredictable yet 100% non-random.

The CC dice happen to be one of them.

[xelabale]

What have I said about dice probability that is wrong? Please explain.

Your first error is thinking that it is in any way relevant to the outcome of any future CC 4v1 battle...

No, it is relevant, because there is a probability associated with my next roll that can be proven to exist. Of course whether it happens or not is a totally different thing, but it's not probabilitie's job to predict the next roll is it?

[Thezzaruz]

No, it is relevant, because there is a probability associated with my next roll that can be proven to exist. Of course whether it happens or not is a totally different thing, but it's not probabilitie's job to predict the next roll is it?

True, but it is what you are trying to get it to do...

[xelabale]

No, it is relevant, because there is a probability associated with my next roll that can be proven to exist. Of course whether it happens or not is a totally different thing, but it's not probabilitie's job to predict the next roll is it?

True, but it is what you are trying to get it to do...

No it's not. There is a probability associated with my next roll, but it's unpredictable. Why is that hard to understand?

[Thezzaruz]

No it's not. There is a probability associated with my next roll, but it's unpredictable. Why is that hard to understand?

No the probability is not unpredictable in any way, it's a fixed number.

Of course you could have meant that the dice is unpredictable and hence won't follow the odds in the short run but then why do you argue with me at all???

[xelabale]

I meant the individual dice roll is unpredictable. The probability is a fact, sorry it was ambiguously worded.

You started arguing with me I think you'll find.

What have I said about dice probability that is wrong? Please explain.

Your first error is thinking that it is in any way relevant to the outcome of any future CC 4v1 battle...

I'm arguing with Klobber who says that if I lost the roll the probability of losing that roll was 100%, which is just not true. Feel free to join in.

[KLOBBER]

If the roll was 5 to 4 (as one example), and this came from a pre-determined static list, then yes, the likelihood was 100% that you would lose. This is a fact whether you knew beforehand or not that you would lose.

This principle applies to all rolls on CC, as they all come from a pre-determined, static list.

Your personal ignorance of the result prior to rolling does not change the likelihood from 100%.

5 is ALWAYS 100% likely to beat 4, no matter how ignorant you are.

[xelabale]

If the roll was 5 to 4 (as one example), and this came from a pre-determined static list, then yes, the likelihood was 100% that you would lose. This is a fact whether you knew beforehand or not that you would lose.

This principle applies to all rolls on CC, as they all come from a pre-determined, static list.

Your personal ignorance of the result prior to rolling does not change the likelihood from 100%.

5 is ALWAYS 100% likely to beat 4, no matter how ignorant you are.

You can treat the dice as random because the list was generated to have the quality of randomness. It thus obeys the laws of probability.

If I flip a coin and then cover it in my hand the result is predetermined. It's already happened. If I ask you heads or tails you will still have a 50% chance of guessing correctly. Your lack of knowledge IS relevant.

P.S. You still haven't given an example of something incorrect I have said about the dice by the way

P.P.S. Think Schroedinger's cat, for a laugh.

[KLOBBER]

If the roll was 5 to 4 (as one example), and this came from a pre-determined static list, then yes, the likelihood was 100% that you would lose. This is a fact whether you knew beforehand or not that you would lose.

This principle applies to all rolls on CC, as they all come from a pre-determined, static list.

Your personal ignorance of the result prior to rolling does not change the likelihood from 100%.

5 is ALWAYS 100% likely to beat 4, no matter how ignorant you are.

You can treat the dice as random because the list was generated to have the quality of randomness. It thus obeys the laws of probability.

You can treat your toilet seat as if it were solid gold in order to feel like a king when you take a dump, and expect people to behave according to the laws of your imaginary kingdom, but you would be wrong. Similarly, you can treat the CC dice as random, but since they are not random, you would be wrong there too, and non-random phenomena do not behave as so-called "random" phenomena are postulated to behave.

The CC dice are not random, and they do not behave as "random" dice are supposed to behave.

If I flip a coin and then cover it in my hand the result is predetermined. It's already happened.

That is true, and I like where you're going with this!

If I ask you heads or tails you will still have a 50% chance of guessing correctly.

I see! I'm not talking about guesses -- I'm talking about facts. You are talking about guesses, right?

Yes, the likelihood of guessing correctly, in that case, is 50-50.

However, if it happens to have been heads when it landed and you covered it, then it is 100% likely to still be heads when you lift your hand, and there's a 0% likelihood of it being tails. Similarly, if the static list showed 5 next, then 5 is 100% likely to be next (not 16.6%, but 100.0%), even though you may not know the specific number (5) that's next on the list, and it is 0% likely to be any number but 5.

Your ignorance may indeed change your likelihood of guessing correctly. I have no problem at all accepting that, but your ignorance does not change the likelihood of it being a 5 -- it is still 100% likely to be a 5, and 0% likely to be another number.

Can we come to some agreement based on the above?

[xelabale]

Yes, I agree with your analysis regarding the coin toss and then on.

I would add that every time you "roll a dice" on cc you are "guessing" the result, even though it is in fact predetermined by the list. Therefore your "guess" is still governed by the law of probability, and it is valid to take into account probability when making a decision whether to attack or not.

[Robinette]

Wow... after a few dozen pages of THIS...




This thread may FINALLY be able to come to an end...

It's that 3rd possibility that is beginning to surface...
you know, the 3rd possibility that was mentioned pages and pages ago...

[xelabale]

But Robinette if we just agreed it wouldn't be nearly as much fun, would it?

[mkohary]

If the roll was 5 to 4 (as one example), and this came from a pre-determined static list, then yes, the likelihood was 100% that you would lose. This is a fact whether you knew beforehand or not that you would lose.

This principle applies to all rolls on CC, as they all come from a pre-determined, static list.

Your personal ignorance of the result prior to rolling does not change the likelihood from 100%.

5 is ALWAYS 100% likely to beat 4, no matter how ignorant you are.

lol, what are you, 13? We all know there is a list - this list is RANDOMLY generated. Since you don't know what is on the list, the outcome of every dice roll is random.

You are conflating two different things. Yes, if you had the list in front of you and were keeping track, you could know with 100% certainty what the next roll was going to be. Since you don't have the list and don't know what's on it, and since the list was randomly generated, continuing to insist that the "odds" were still 100% one way or the other is pedantic beyond belief. Sure, to the computer, every result has a 100% probability. For that matter, NO number "randomly" generated by any computer is ever truly random, since they are all pre-determined by whatever method the computer is using to "randomly" generate the number. All random number generators are simulations. But the simulation of randomness is the same as random to us, because we couldn't possibly track the circumstances by which the computer is deriving its "random" numbers.

You'd be laughed out of any math class with your silly, nitpicky argument. Even in the real world, you could argue that physical dice are not truly "random", because the outcome of the dice is 100% depending on how they left your hand, the rotation of the dice, the fine dimples on the surface they land on, air speed velocity, etc etc etc. If you were omnipotent, you could judge all of these things and call the dice correctly every time. That doesn't mean that to us they're not random. lol...

[KLOBBER]

If the roll was 5 to 4 (as one example), and this came from a pre-determined static list, then yes, the likelihood was 100% that you would lose. This is a fact whether you knew beforehand or not that you would lose.

This principle applies to all rolls on CC, as they all come from a pre-determined, static list.

Your personal ignorance of the result prior to rolling does not change the likelihood from 100%.

5 is ALWAYS 100% likely to beat 4, no matter how ignorant you are.

lol, what are you, 13? We all know there is a list - this list is RANDOMLY generated. Since you don't know what is on the list, the outcome of every dice roll is random.

You are conflating two different things. Yes, if you had the list in front of you and were keeping track, you could know with 100% certainty what the next roll was going to be. Since you don't have the list and don't know what's on it, and since the list was randomly generated, continuing to insist that the "odds" were still 100% one way or the other is pedantic beyond belief. Sure, to the computer, every result has a 100% probability. For that matter, NO number "randomly" generated by any computer is ever truly random, since they are all pre-determined by whatever method the computer is using to "randomly" generate the number. All random number generators are simulations. But the simulation of randomness is the same as random to us, because we couldn't possibly track the circumstances by which the computer is deriving its "random" numbers.

You'd be laughed out of any math class with your silly, nitpicky argument. Even in the real world, you could argue that physical dice are not truly "random", because the outcome of the dice is 100% depending on how they left your hand, the rotation of the dice, the fine dimples on the surface they land on, air speed velocity, etc etc etc. If you were omnipotent, you could judge all of these things and call the dice correctly every time. That doesn't mean that to us they're not random. lol...

No, I'm much older than 13. This list is not random by any means, and is not randomly generated. Your ignorance of the order on the list does not make it random, it makes it unpredictable -- two different things that YOU are conflating, not me.

Simulated randomness is NOT random. It is non-random.

Only a moron thinks that "randomness" is the same thing as unpredictability.

[KLOBBER]

But Robinette if we just agreed it wouldn't be nearly as much fun, would it?

I have to agree with you there!

[KLOBBER]

Yes, I agree with your analysis regarding the coin toss and then on.

That's great! I was beginning to think that we'd never agree on anything!

I would add that every time you "roll a dice" on cc you are "guessing" the result....

You may be guessing, but I'm not guessing -- I'm just rolling.

...Therefore your "guess" is still governed by the law of probability

No, not if I don't make one. I'm referring to the facts and the dice, though, not your guesses. The dice on CC are not subject to any probability guesses before they manifest, as they are unpredcictable.

...and it is valid to take into account probability when making a decision whether to attack or not.

That is not the case on CC, as the dice here do not line up with any arbitrarily calculated probability, including your guesses. The dice complainers have demonstrated that fact so many times that it's not even funny.

[Thezzaruz]

We all know there is a list - this list is RANDOMLY generated. Since you don't know what is on the list, the outcome of every dice roll is random.

Why would your knowledge (or lack of) of a number (long after it has been generated) in any way affect its randomness???

For that matter, NO number "randomly" generated by any computer is ever truly random, since they are all pre-determined by whatever method the computer is using to "randomly" generate the number.

I foresee great applause and much agreement from Klobber in the near future.


Edit: Fastposted...