Unfair Coin Flip

[Edwardo Piet]

Hammy, if I was to write a computer program to SIMULATE a dice throw, would the computer actually throw dice?

That's rather a false analogy if you ask me. Because if this computer program had some sort of virtual simulation of a dice throw then yes that's obviously a simulation.

But not just any old thing that achieves the same purpose of X=simulating X. Since when does that mean 'simulate'?

Simulate is not emulate.

Nor is 'achieve the same purpose of' 'simulate'.

1.
to create a simulation, likeness, or model of (a situation, system, or the like):
to simulate crisis conditions.
2.
to make a pretense of; feign:
to simulate knowledge.
3.
to assume or have the appearance or characteristics of:
He simulated the manners of the rich.

None of these mean 'achieve the same purpose of'.

Merely doing lots of actual coin flips with an unfair coin and then ignoring certain results to achieve the same effects. Since when is doing anything like that a simulation?

I'm not saying it isn't anything remotely like a simulation but it's hardly the most accurate word that could be used. It's more of an equivocation than anything. And again... it's hardly impressive that the same effects as a fair coin flip can be achieved if you completely ignore certain results and sequences. If you're supposed to be flipping a coin but you ignore some of the flips... that's completely cheating. And just going ahead and ignoring certain results so you can achieve the same results and call that 'simulating a flip' is just silly. The mathematics part is the impressive part. But it's not impressive once you know that the results are being achieved because certain sequences are ignored. The interesting part is WHY it has to be H/H or T/T sequences specifically that are ignored. That part and the maths behind that interests me. But I can't really do or explore or comprehend the mathematics itself. I just know that obviously you can change the fairness/unfairness of something if you ignore certain results.