RE: Unfair Coin Flip
September 30, 2017 at 11:58 am
(This post was last modified: September 30, 2017 at 12:22 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(September 30, 2017 at 11:55 am)pocaracas Wrote: You're nitpicking at a linguistic detail, when everyone else understands what was meant.
And you're insisting and pushing and arguing and disagreeing over a useless itty bitty tiny detail, just because of your seemingly inability to broaden the scope of some terms... or insistence that other people's usage conforms to your own.
So what? I don't know why anyone ever needs to make a big deal out of it.
Quote:It's a useless battle... a useless waste of your resources... a useless waste of everyone else's resources... Let it go!
I don't understand why I'm told to "let go" when disagreement is a two way thing. I could just as easily say "you let it go" but that would be immature and futile. And I think all this "Let it go!" shit is always immature and futile too to begin with. What's the point in saying that to me? All it means is "don't argue back!" which is just damn silly. As is making a big deal out of mere disagreement in the first place (and developing an attitude problem over a disagreement that isn't even personal).
I always nitpick. I don't think there's anything wrong with nitpicking. It's just being accurate as far as I'm concerned.
(September 30, 2017 at 10:02 am)Tiberius Wrote: One of the greatest mathematicians came up with this answer, but hey maybe he's a trick mathematician.
I'm also not impressed by arguments from authority. Nowhere have I said the math was wrong either.
And of course I understand the definition of a simulation and you know I do. And it's both condescending and disingenuous to claim that I don't. Especially when I made it very clear that there is a difference between simulating something and simulating the purpose of something. I am indeed nitpicking.
I also stand by what I said here:
Quote:If we're told to achieve 50/50 fairness with a coin that isn't 50/50 fairness but it isn't mentioned that we're totally allowed to ignore some results.... then suddenly it feels like a trick question again.
It seems more like a way to demonstrate an interesting mathematical solution to a problem than simulating a fair coin flip with an unfair coin to me. You can't simulate a fair coin flip with an unfair coin. The best you can do is achieve the same purpose of flipping a coin (to reach 50/50 fairness) with an unfair coin. I wouldn't say that acheiving the same purpose of X by doing Y is "simulating X" that's not what a simulation is. A simulation of X is a simulation of X and not just a simulation of achieving the purpose of X.
It's no wonder if no one who isn't already versed in programming and/or math can't come up with the solution if the solution is to basically redefine stuff and equivocate + do some math. I really take issue with that being 'simulating a flip'... to call it that really does make this one of those trick question things that are always super annoying because no one in a million years could figure it out if they didn't already know something about the subject. Because it isn't really simulating a normal coin flip at all. Flipping several times and discounting certain flips is not 'simulating a flip'. To call that 'simulating a flip' is DEFINITELY redefining things.
