Page 3 of 5
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 9:17 pm
by jefjef
PLAYER57832 wrote:You roll more sixes at home because those rolls are LESS random.
LOL. Urm.
I see an abnormally randomly high amount of defender sixes here at CC. Didn't mean to type so fast. (btw. I don't roll dice at home when I take my turns)
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 2:26 am
by AgentSmith88
OK, maybe we should define random for those who think "randomness" is impossible to achieve. In statistics, random means unable to predict the outcome. Which means if I flip a regular coin, the outcome will be random because you cannot predict what the outcome will be. This doesn't mean that the probability (in this case 50/50) can't be calculated, it means the outcome cannot be predicted. You can compute the probability that heads will be flipped 1,000 times in a row, but not the actual outcome. So woody, saying that pure randomness does not exist is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time.
If an algorithm is used to create "random" numbers, then they are not truly random since using math the outcomes can be predicted. Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers, I can't tell you whether they are truly random or not. I do know that a "standard" die may not be perfectly symmetrical, but assuming that it isn't loaded, you cannot truly predict what the result will be, hence making the outcome RANDOM.
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 2:28 am
by natty dread
Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers
Yes they do. They pick them up from atmospheric noise.
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 2:29 am
by AgentSmith88
natty_dread wrote:Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers
Yes they do. They pick them up from atmospheric noise.
Explain in more deatil how atmospheric noise creates random numbers please. That is what I meant.
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 2:34 am
by natty dread
AgentSmith88 wrote:natty_dread wrote:Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers
Yes they do. They pick them up from atmospheric noise.
Explain in more deatil how atmospheric noise creates random numbers please. That is what I meant.
Sigh... I already have in the past. Perhaps you just don't read each and every one of my posts...
You have atmospheric noise, which is radiation (like radio waves). You pick up said noise with a receiver and run the signal through an ADC (analog-digital-converter) and sample it at whatever frequency and whatever bitrate (they have probably ran tests on which settings get best results) and you get an endless stream of random 1:s and 0:s from which all digital numbers are composed of.
Very simple really.
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 2:41 am
by AgentSmith88
natty_dread wrote:AgentSmith88 wrote:natty_dread wrote:Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers
Yes they do. They pick them up from atmospheric noise.
Explain in more deatil how atmospheric noise creates random numbers please. That is what I meant.
Sigh... I already have in the past. Perhaps you just don't read each and every one of my posts...
You have atmospheric noise, which is radiation (like radio waves). You pick up said noise with a receiver and run the signal through an ADC (analog-digital-converter) and sample it at whatever frequency and whatever bitrate (they have probably ran tests on which settings get best results) and you get an endless stream of random 1:s and 0:s from which all digital numbers are composed of.
Very simple really.
Good to know. Random.org should post that. Saying they use atmospheric noise to generate numbers doesn't really explain anything at all. You did.
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 2:49 am
by Woodruff
AgentSmith88 wrote:OK, maybe we should define random for those who think "randomness" is impossible to achieve. In statistics, random means unable to predict the outcome. Which means if I flip a regular coin, the outcome will be random because you cannot predict what the outcome will be. This doesn't mean that the probability (in this case 50/50) can't be calculated, it means the outcome cannot be predicted. So woody, saying that pure randomness does not exist is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time.
No sir, a stupid statement would be to claim that I have ever said that "pure randomness does not exist"...perhaps you can point out where I said that? Go ahead...find it for me. Yeah, that's what I thought.
I make enough stupid statements on my own, I don't need you making them up for me too.
AgentSmith88 wrote:If an algorithm is used to create "random" numbers, then they are not truly random since using math the outcomes can be predicted. Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers, I can't tell you whether they are truly random or not. I do know that a "standard" die may not be perfectly symmetrical, but assuming that it isn't loaded, you cannot truly predict what the result will be, hence making the outcome RANDOM.
Incorrect. If the die is not perfectly symmetrical, then the "randomness" is not true because it will still be weighted to favor certain numbers. Due to that weightedness, the results CAN be somewhat predicted, thus it is not "random". It may not be LOADED (meaning highly likely to hit certain combinations), but LOADED is simply an extreme form of weightedness.
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 6:02 am
by Coler
There's really only one way to address this.
We are all going to have to roll dice for attacker & defender at home, physically, take a picture, and email/mms it to all players. Now, say if you don't trust your opponent to roll your defender dice for you, you can tick that as an option in game set up - 'I don't trust my oppoent to roll my dice' or something.
Then, you would take a picture of your Defence dice and send them to all players.
Oh yeah, and you have to send your dice into random.org every six months to get a certificate of randomness that they are not weighted. Or possibly there could be certified CC dice.
Oh yeah, and if your opponent rolls lots of sixes and you roll lots of ones, you can still open a thread to bitch about it.
Simples !
I don't know how this is going to impact on 8 man freestyle esc speed games though.
*wanders off to suggestions forum to make it happen!*
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 7:18 am
by Agent 86
Listen to Woodruff, he thinks he's spock and knows everything. 1 v 1 is about drop and going first, intensity cubes ( how ridiculous to call them this ) Dice will always be random. The dice work on atmospheric noise generated from woodruffs brain..totally random.
Don't pick a fight with me woodruff you insolent fool, go play startrek with someone else's thread.
86
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 7:24 am
by Agent 86
Now let's see if a random mod, defines what I said to woodruff as being against the rules and considers it flaming, then bans me. Now that would be totally random
86
P.S. bring it on spock
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 7:42 am
by Agent 86
Considering that I never usually join in forum discussion, what do you you do for a living almighty Woodruff. This is now my random thread as he has decided to take me on. So if it is random take me on in 10 ..1 v 1 on any map of your choosing with any settings. No wait you are offering advice from a fremium point of view with limited games. Now that statement should get many replies
86
Okay 4 1 v 1 on any map and settings, should win them all, played you before so the outcome wil not be random. Spocks ears twitch
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 7:44 am
by Agent 86
I think you now understand my wording, do you need any further clarifaction oh wise one.
86
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 7:48 am
by Agent 86
Oh and on further advice from star trek command the vote seems to be not in your favour
It would be even more amusing if it was April fools
86
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 8:38 am
by natty dread
5 posts in a row? come on...
Agent 86, meet Edit Button. Edit Button, meet Agent 86.
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 11:05 am
by Woodruff
Agent 86 wrote:Listen to Woodruff, he thinks he's spock and knows everything. 1 v 1 is about drop and going first, intensity cubes ( how ridiculous to call them this ) Dice will always be random. The dice work on atmospheric noise generated from woodruffs brain..totally random.
Don't pick a fight with me woodruff you insolent fool, go play startrek with someone else's thread.
86
You've realized your arguments are faulty and so your only recourse now is to attack me?
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 11:13 am
by jefjef
natty_dread wrote:AgentSmith88 wrote:natty_dread wrote:Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers
Yes they do. They pick them up from atmospheric noise.
Explain in more deatil how atmospheric noise creates random numbers please. That is what I meant.
Sigh... I already have in the past. Perhaps you just don't read each and every one of my posts...
You have atmospheric noise, which is radiation (like radio waves). You pick up said noise with a receiver and run the signal through an ADC (analog-digital-converter) and sample it at whatever frequency and whatever bitrate (they have probably ran tests on which settings get best results) and you get an endless stream of random 1:s and 0:s from which all digital numbers are composed of.
Very simple really.
Very simple. Nothing is truly random when directly and intentionally influenced by outside factors. IE. The noise in this forum, my head, the atmosphere or whatever.
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 2:54 pm
by AgentSmith88
Woodruff wrote:AgentSmith88 wrote:OK, maybe we should define random for those who think "randomness" is impossible to achieve. In statistics, random means unable to predict the outcome. Which means if I flip a regular coin, the outcome will be random because you cannot predict what the outcome will be. This doesn't mean that the probability (in this case 50/50) can't be calculated, it means the outcome cannot be predicted. So woody, saying that pure randomness does not exist is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time.
No sir, a stupid statement would be to claim that I have ever said that "pure randomness does not exist"...perhaps you can point out where I said that? Go ahead...find it for me. Yeah, that's what I thought.
I make enough stupid statements on my own, I don't need you making them up for me too.
AgentSmith88 wrote:If an algorithm is used to create "random" numbers, then they are not truly random since using math the outcomes can be predicted. Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers, I can't tell you whether they are truly random or not. I do know that a "standard" die may not be perfectly symmetrical, but assuming that it isn't loaded, you cannot truly predict what the result will be, hence making the outcome RANDOM.
Incorrect. If the die is not perfectly symmetrical, then the "randomness" is not true because it will still be weighted to favor certain numbers. Due to that weightedness, the results CAN be somewhat predicted, thus it is not "random". It may not be LOADED (meaning highly likely to hit certain combinations), but LOADED is simply an extreme form of weightedness.
You are an idiot and obviously didn't read what I posted. If a die is perfectly symmetrical the PROBABILITY that a 6 will land is ~16.67%. If the die were slightly assymetrical perhaps the PROBABILITY of a 6 landing would be 17%. Either way, you can't predict the outcome of said roll. You can say that the PROBABILITY of a 6 landing is 17%. But you can't say that because a die has rolled 16 6's in 99 rolls that on the 100th roll is MUST be a 6. That would be predictabilty, and hence not random (Because the opposite of random is predictable, at least in statistics). Unless the outcome has a 100% probablity, the outcome is random, because the outcome cannot be predicted.
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 3:45 pm
by Timminz
Damn! Look at all that stupid.
Edit- shit! How did this turn into another dice bitch thread?
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 3:49 pm
by jefjef
Timminz wrote:Damn! Look at all that stupid.
Edit- shit! How did this turn into another dice bitch thread?
I've had good dice today. Random my ass!
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 3:55 pm
by Woodruff
AgentSmith88 wrote:You are an idiot and obviously didn't read what I posted.
Jedi Master, the ironicism is strong within this one.
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 6:23 pm
by PLAYER57832
AgentSmith88 wrote:OK, maybe we should define random for those who think "randomness" is impossible to achieve. In statistics, random means unable to predict the outcome. Which means if I flip a regular coin, the outcome will be random because you cannot predict what the outcome will be. This doesn't mean that the probability (in this case 50/50) can't be calculated, it means the outcome cannot be predicted. You can compute the probability that heads will be flipped 1,000 times in a row, but not the actual outcome. So woody, saying that pure randomness does not exist is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time.[
If an algorithm is used to create "random" numbers, then they are not truly random since using math the outcomes can be predicted. Since random.org doesn't exactly say how they get their numbers, I can't tell you whether they are truly random or not. I do know that a "standard" die may not be perfectly symmetrical, but assuming that it isn't loaded, you cannot truly predict what the result will be, hence making the outcome RANDOM.
Sorry, but woody is correct. And no, you don't understand that the outcome of a die flipped is far
more predictable than those randome algorythms. When you study some advanced math .. not just basic Calculus and stats, but the heavy stuff, then maybe you can come back and talk. Until then... sorry, but you are showing what you don't know, not what you know.
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 6:39 pm
by Bruceswar
Woodruff wrote:Agent 86 wrote:Well as soon as my tourney games and singles games finish, I will only play team games from now on. This reduces the streak in dice. Just check out the top players on this site. Of course this doesn't count the freestylers who can get around this. Not an option for someone in China with slow connection.
86
Team games absolutely do NOT "reduce the streak in the dice". In fact, that doesn't even make basic sense.
Sure it makes 100% sense. You have 2, 3 or 4 people rolling vs one. More people rolling = more even dice. One person's bad dice can be made up by another person's good rolls. This is why team game players generally have high win percentages
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 6:43 pm
by The Neon Peon
Bruceswar wrote:Woodruff wrote:Agent 86 wrote:Well as soon as my tourney games and singles games finish, I will only play team games from now on. This reduces the streak in dice. Just check out the top players on this site. Of course this doesn't count the freestylers who can get around this. Not an option for someone in China with slow connection.
86
Team games absolutely do NOT "reduce the streak in the dice". In fact, that doesn't even make basic sense.
Sure it makes 100% sense. You have 2, 3 or 4 people rolling vs one. More people rolling = more even dice. One person's bad dice can be made up by another person's good rolls. This is why team game players generally have high win percentages
The streaks are all still there, there are just more of them. So the good and bad streaks cancel out, but there are still streaks.
(Balancing out the dice) != (Reduce streak in the dice)
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 6:52 pm
by natty dread
This is why team game players generally have high win percentages
No, that's because they play against noobs who don't know how to co-operate as a team.
Re: Which more irritating?
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 6:57 pm
by Woodruff
Bruceswar wrote:Woodruff wrote:Agent 86 wrote:Well as soon as my tourney games and singles games finish, I will only play team games from now on. This reduces the streak in dice. Just check out the top players on this site. Of course this doesn't count the freestylers who can get around this. Not an option for someone in China with slow connection.
86
Team games absolutely do NOT "reduce the streak in the dice". In fact, that doesn't even make basic sense.
Sure it makes 100% sense. You have 2, 3 or 4 people rolling vs one. More people rolling = more even dice. One person's bad dice can be made up by another person's good rolls. This is why team game players generally have high win percentages
That does NOT "reduce the streak in the dice" at all. The dice are as the dice are. Your PERCEPTION of the streakiness in the dice changes.