"
Deccode wrote:
Oh you mean this? I still can't believe that you mean this seriously lol. How in the world are the chances of all outcomes in the first picture not equal?
The different outcomes are 1,3 and 7.
1 has the probability of 0.2 of occuring, 3 has 0.5 and 7 has 0.3. How can you possibly say that they have the same chance of occuring?? 0.2 does not equal 0.5, so you are wrong. Plain and simple.
This might help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable
A random variable can take on a set of possible different values, each with an associated probability.
|
Posted bySickness#1007on Feb 14, 2013, 6:42:57 PM
|
"
Sickness wrote:
"
Deccode wrote:
Oh you mean this? I still can't believe that you mean this seriously lol. How in the world are the chances of all outcomes in the first picture not equal?
The different outcomes are 1,3 and 7.
1 has the probability of 0.2 of occuring, 3 has 0.5 and 7 has 0.3. How can you possibly say that they have the same chance of occuring?? 0.2 does not equal 0.5, so you are wrong. Plain and simple.
This might help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable
A random variable can take on a set of possible different values, each with an associated probability.
lol thx for the quote. A random variable can take on a set of possible "different values".
At the end the chances of all outcomes is still the same because it's just there's more of the 3's in the system, a bit less 7's and 3's. I the system there's like 20% of 1's 50% of 3's and and 30% of 7's. At the end they still have the same chance tbh they write it better by saying fair chance.
I might know understand where the hype is coming from o.O
Edit:
"
Kreos wrote:
Randomness implies that the outcome is equally likely to occur proportional to the number of outcomes
that's the missing part I needed lol.
Anyway coming back later.
Last edited by Deccode#6112 on Feb 14, 2013, 6:56:26 PM
|
Posted byDeccode#6112on Feb 14, 2013, 6:47:41 PM
|
"
Deccode wrote:
lol thx for the quote. A random variable can take on a set of possible "different values".
At the end the chances of all outcomes is still the same because it's just there's more of the 3's in the system, a bit less 7's and 3's. I the system there's like 20% of 1's 50% of 3's and and 30% of 7's. At the end they still have the same chance tbh they write it better by saying fair chance.
No you don't understand. Imagine, if you can, a 3-sided dice that has the sides 1, 3 and 7. It's not a fair dice, it has 20% chance of rolling 1, 50% chance of rolling 3 and 30% chance of rolling 7.
Now, if you roll this dice you can't predict the outcome, so it is by definition random. And all outcomes does not have the same probability of occuring.
That contradicts your statement, so you are now proven wrong.
Last edited by Sickness#1007 on Feb 14, 2013, 7:11:59 PM
|
Posted bySickness#1007on Feb 14, 2013, 7:10:00 PM
|
"
Sickness wrote:
"
Deccode wrote:
lol thx for the quote. A random variable can take on a set of possible "different values".
At the end the chances of all outcomes is still the same because it's just there's more of the 3's in the system, a bit less 7's and 3's. I the system there's like 20% of 1's 50% of 3's and and 30% of 7's. At the end they still have the same chance tbh they write it better by saying fair chance.
No you don't understand. Imagine, if you can, a 3-sided dice that has the sides 1, 3 and 7. It's not a fair dice, it has 20% chance of rolling 1, 50% chance of rolling 3 and 30% chance of rolling 7.
Now, if you roll this dice you can't predict the outcome, so it is by definition random. And all outcomes does not have the same probability of occuring.
That contradicts your statement, so you are now proven wrong.
Depends. I'll take your example if a dive has 3 sides and 1 of them has higher chance to roll than the other then it must be somehow a larder side on the dice or dunno... Anyway if let's say the side on which the number 3 is, is a bit larger than the side of the number 3 which is a bit larger as well than the side where the number 1 is. Now if I take the dice and put an additional magnet below the side of number 5 (even further increasing the chance of rolling that side) then it's not random even if the end is not predictable. Without the magnet I agree with you o.O
Last edited by Deccode#6112 on Feb 14, 2013, 7:28:15 PM
|
Posted byDeccode#6112on Feb 14, 2013, 7:21:10 PM
|
"
Deccode wrote:
Depends if the sides are manipulated in a way to favor an individual like let's say the dice is used in a casino but the side on which the 3 is, is larger (or has a weak magnet) and so on for all the 3 sides then it's not random.
What? It really doesn't matter if the dice is weighed the way it is to favour an individual or not. But I guess that is beside the point.
You keep saying that it's not random. But since it's not predictable it is random by definition.
Why can't you accept that?
Does it all come down to that you just don't like this definition of random and therefor won't acknowledge it?
Edit:
"
Deccode wrote:
...then it's not random even if the end is not predictable.
It can't be non-random and non-predictable at the same time. It defies logic.
non-random = Predictable
non-predictable = Random
A system can logically only be one of these at a time, or it contraditcs itself.
Last edited by Sickness#1007 on Feb 14, 2013, 7:39:55 PM
|
Posted bySickness#1007on Feb 14, 2013, 7:31:43 PM
|
"
Sickness wrote:
"
Deccode wrote:
Depends if the sides are manipulated in a way to favor an individual like let's say the dice is used in a casino but the side on which the 3 is, is larger (or has a weak magnet) and so on for all the 3 sides then it's not random.
What? It really doesn't matter if the dice is weighed the way it is to favour an individual or not. But I guess that is beside the point.
You keep saying that it's not random. But since it's not predictable it is random by definition.
Why can't you accept that?
Does it all come down to that you just don't like this definition of random and therefor won't acknowledge it?
Edit:
"
Deccode wrote:
...then it's not random even if the end is not predictable.
It can't be non-random and non-predictable at the same time.
If something is not predictable it doesn't make it random automatically lmao, as I said if manipulated to favor one side it can't be easy as that, I understand this might be to high for you. Brb around 12 hours probably from now on. Giving you enough time to make valid argument for once lol.
Last edited by Deccode#6112 on Feb 14, 2013, 7:40:07 PM
|
Posted byDeccode#6112on Feb 14, 2013, 7:37:39 PM
|
"
Deccode wrote:
If something is not predictable it doesn't make it random automatically lmao
Oh really? Lets go back to your favourite link then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
Look at the very first line:
"
Randomness means different things in various fields. Commonly, it means lack of pattern or predictability in events.
"
Commonly, it means lack of pattern or predictability in events.
"
it means lack of predictability in events.
So yeah, it does automatically make it random. And thus you are wrong.
Last edited by Sickness#1007 on Feb 14, 2013, 7:56:06 PM
|
Posted bySickness#1007on Feb 14, 2013, 7:47:15 PM
|
"
Sickness wrote:
"
Deccode wrote:
If something is not predictable it doesn't make it random automatically lmao
Oh really? Lets go back to your favourite link then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
Look at the very first line:
"
Randomness means different things in various fields. Commonly, it means lack of pattern or predictability in events.
"
Commonly, it means lack of pattern or predictability in events.
"
it means lack of predictability in events.
So yeah, it does automatically make it random.
Commonly! it means lack of pattern or predictability. As I said you got 12 hours to make a valid argument for once.
|
Posted byDeccode#6112on Feb 14, 2013, 7:50:58 PM
|
"
Deccode wrote:
Commonly! it means lack of pattern or predictability. As I said you got 12 hours to make a valid argument for once.
So you are only hear to protest against the common meaning of randomness?
You know, just because you don't like that definition doesn't make it any less valid.
It's funny that you have linked that page twice(atleast), but when I cite it it's not valid any more.
I don't need to come up with another argument, you have already been proven wrong:
The probability for each outcome is not equal when you roll a loaded dice and the outcome lacks predictability. A lack of predictability means that it is random.
You can start harping on about how the definition is wrong, but all that will do is show how ignorant and stubborn you are.
|
Posted bySickness#1007on Feb 14, 2013, 8:11:43 PM
|
"
Sickness wrote:
"
Deccode wrote:
Commonly! it means lack of pattern or predictability. As I said you got 12 hours to make a valid argument for once.
So you are only hear to protest against the common meaning of randomness?
You know, just because you don't like that definition doesn't make it any less valid.
It's funny that you have linked that page twice(atleast), but when I cite it it's not valid any more.
I don't need to come up with another argument, you have already been proven wrong:
The probability for each outcome is not equal when you roll a loaded dice and the outcome lacks predictability. A lack of predictability means that it is random.
You can start harping on about how the definition is wrong, but all that will do is show how ignorant and stubborn you are.
It's OK guys, I retitled the thread.
IGN: Kulde
|
Posted byYxalitis#6223on Feb 14, 2013, 10:01:15 PM
|
