Pointless argument about chance and randomness

"

BisnessPirate wrote:

"

Fruz wrote:

Yes, this got totally out of context, if a moderator had time to split the topic ( or even to remove all the "garbage flood" ), that would be nice ( if the main thread is considered useful ).
I argued on couple of posts, and I don't think that this is going anywhere.

I'm afraid this thread is beyond saving.
Actually I already thought that once the debate about gambling began.
Maybe we should all just move on and go to another topic and if this thread has to be saved plz maybe just continue the debate about the meaning of randomness somewhere else.

No need. Could use PMs for that if it were necessary.

"

DashSlash wrote:

My suggestion for Jewlers/fusings/chromatics is to make the new roll optional. Say you have a 5l armor and want to 6l it. Right now, you need to stockpile hundreds of these orbs to have a fairly safe chance of not screwing yourself over. But what if instead you could accept/decline the new roll. The orb would be consumed regardless of your choice, but you wouldn't be shooting yourself in the foot just by trying to improve your gear. It would still take the same number of orbs on average, but the player would have more incentive to use their orbs, even if they just had a few. Thoughts?

I like this idea

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Deccode wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
You are so easy lol.

It would help alot if you would actually read what you are linking.
That page contradicts your stance multiple times.

ROFLMAO and where exactly does it contradict myself please enlighten me no seriously Im loling hard.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Decode wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
You are so easy lol.

Are you actually aware that the first line of your article is :

"

Randomness means different things in various fields. Commonly, it means lack of pattern or predictability in events.

http://www.comicvine.com/myvine/reversenegative/all-images/108-356829/facepalm_epic/105-1718974/

Dude I'm not even trying to talk with you since you lowered by IQ so far by 10 already. What the fuck are you even talking about lol.

"

mibuwolf wrote:

"

The word random is used to describe a lack of pattern or organisation in behaviour. It may have very specific technical meanings in mathematics / statistics however.
In math the term random usually means not able to be predicted or happening by chance. It implies a lack of order.
In statistics we use the term random variable to mean a rule that applies a numerical outcome to each event in a sample space.
More generally in statistics randomness means a lack of correlation or a lack of bias.

psst.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_Does_Random_Mean

The underlined part is true, but so is the rest of the definition.

psst
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.prob.intro.html

"

ROFLMAO and where exactly does it contradict myself please enlighten me no seriously Im loling hard.

The first line:

"

Randomness means different things in various fields. Commonly, it means lack of pattern or predictability in events.

A lack of predictability. And that is EXACTLY the case here.

Also this is insightful:

"

The fields of mathematics, probability, and statistics use formal definitions of randomness. In statistics, a random variable is an assignment of a numerical value to each possible outcome of an event space. This association facilitates the identification and the calculation of probabilities of the events. A random process is a sequence of random variables describing a process whose outcomes do not follow a deterministic pattern, but follow an evolution described by probability distributions. These and other constructs are extremely useful in the probability calculus

.

Where does it say that "a system is random when and only when all outcomes have exact same chances"?

"

Sickness wrote:

"

ROFLMAO and where exactly does it contradict myself please enlighten me no seriously Im loling hard.

The first line:

"

Randomness means different things in various fields. Commonly, it means lack of pattern or predictability in events.

A lack of predictability. And that is EXACTLY the case here.

Also this is insightful:

"

The fields of mathematics, probability, and statistics use formal definitions of randomness. In statistics, a random variable is an assignment of a numerical value to each possible outcome of an event space. This association facilitates the identification and the calculation of probabilities of the events. A random process is a sequence of random variables describing a process whose outcomes do not follow a deterministic pattern, but follow an evolution described by probability distributions. These and other constructs are extremely useful in the probability calculus

.

Where does it say that "a system is random when and only when all outcomes have exact same chances"?

Oh in the link I posted while quoting you? No where, but as always you either are lucky with clicking links or click them and ignore what you don't like to read lol.
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.prob.intro.html
This time it has only one link I'm still afraid of you wont like the truth. I still fail to understand how I contradicted myself because I clearly can see that randomness can occur without the outcomes having the same chances, not.

"

Deccode wrote:

Oh in the link I posted while quoting you? No where, but as always you either are lucky with clicking links or click them and ignore what you don't like to read lol.
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.prob.intro.html
This time it has only one link I'm still afraid of you wont like the truth.

If there is anything on that page that you think is relevant then please quote it.

"

Deccode wrote:

I still fail to understand how I contradicted myself because I clearly can see that randomness can occur without the outcomes having the same chances, not.

Then you are not as smart as you think.

It has been explained to you over and over for over 10 pages. If you don't understand it at this point then you might simply lack the mental capacaty to understand it.

If you want to give it another try, then consider this "Randomness means different things in various fields"
and think about why an absolute statement like this: "a system is random when and only when all outcomes have exact same chances" isn't true.


If you want to continue the discussion you have to start answering my question. Otherwise it's like talking to a wall.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Deccode wrote:

Oh in the link I posted while quoting you? No where, but as always you either are lucky with clicking links or click them and ignore what you don't like to read lol.
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.prob.intro.html
This time it has only one link I'm still afraid of you wont like the truth.

If there is anything on that page that you think is relevant then please quote it.

"One event, all outcomes equally likely"
You don't even have to scroll down man. Come on... I answered this like last page and you still asking the same question over and over again. You are just to mentally ill to understand or to read or to understand. That's your problem not mine.

"

Deccode wrote:

"One event, all outcomes equally likely"

"One event, all outcomes equally likely" is an example of a statistical problem. There is nothing about that that says that the system is only random if all outcomes are equally likely.
Infact, if that was the case then they would probably not have bother writing it that way in the first place, and just called it "random".

What about "These are the only four possibilities - but they are not all equally likely."?

Is it no longer random at that point??

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Deccode wrote:

"One event, all outcomes equally likely"

"One event, all outcomes equally likely" is an example of a statistical problem. There is nothing about that that says that the system is only random if all outcomes are equally likely.
Infact, if that was the case then they would probably not have bother writing it that way in the first place, and just called it "random".

What about "These are the only four possibilities - but they are not all equally likely."?

Is it no longer random at that point??

"In fact if that was the case they would probably not have bother writing it that way in the first place and just called it random".
That's exactly what happens in the various links of yours and mine where it doesn't state that the outcomes has to be of equal chance. Yet some mentally challenged beings have still to be taught.

"

Sickness wrote:

What about "These are the only four possibilities - but they are not all equally likely."?

Is it no longer random at that point??

Are you even reading seriously now? It has 4 possibilities or 4 events where the x outcome depends on x-1 outcome. LOL

"

Deccode wrote:

That's exactly what happens in the various links of yours and mine where it doesn't state that the outcomes has to be of equal chance. Yet some mentally challenged beings have still to be taught.

No, they don't state that because they are too busy stating the opposite.
You REALLY need to get over yourself and just accept that you are simply wrong.

The link from page 9 is enough to completely crush your every single argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_mass_function
It's unexplainable by using your definition of randomness.
The first picture is "false randomness"? lol, that makes me seriously laugh.

Oh right, you were not even capable of understanding that the numbers next to the red lines were their probability.