RE: Unfair Coin Flip
September 30, 2017 at 1:37 pm
(This post was last modified: September 30, 2017 at 1:44 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
"Equivocating" or "redefining" as that's how this supposed 'simulation of a flip' is being acheived. By completely ignoring certain results and merely defining that as 'simulating a flip' (even though many actual flips were completely ignored).
And I can be hardly called pedantic when Tibs is pedantic about me calling it a trick question. And he says it's not a trick question because it has an answer. The point is the question was misleading, regardless of the answer. If it were clear in the OP "Oh and by the way you can completely ignore and discount certain coin flips when you're flipping the coin" then it's suddenly hardly impressive that you can achieve fair results with an unfair method by ignoring the unfair results.
This kind of sidestepping shit is exactly what I meant in the first place when I said it was a 'trick question'. If ignoring certain results isn't a trick... then what the hell is?
To say that I'm doing the equivalent of saying that the guy who figured out the mathetmatics behind this is a 'trick matematician' is utterly absurd. The maths is all fine and correct and I've never complained about the mathematics. I've complained about the redefinition.
Lawrence Krauss is a fucking amazing physicist but he's also a complete fucking idiot and an equivocating fuckwit when he says the universe came from 'nothing' and a lot of his colleagues have rightly criticized him for that equivocation. The fact I recognize that, "No, Lawrence, the universe did NOT come from nothing. So-called 'empty space' teeming with quantum activity is not completely empty and certainly not 'nothing'. The fact you are describing anything at all means it's not nothing, Lawrence" doesn't mean I'm saying Lawrence Krauss isn't a brilliant physicist. He is. Arguments from authority are irrelevant fallacies.
And I can be hardly called pedantic when Tibs is pedantic about me calling it a trick question. And he says it's not a trick question because it has an answer. The point is the question was misleading, regardless of the answer. If it were clear in the OP "Oh and by the way you can completely ignore and discount certain coin flips when you're flipping the coin" then it's suddenly hardly impressive that you can achieve fair results with an unfair method by ignoring the unfair results.
This kind of sidestepping shit is exactly what I meant in the first place when I said it was a 'trick question'. If ignoring certain results isn't a trick... then what the hell is?
To say that I'm doing the equivalent of saying that the guy who figured out the mathetmatics behind this is a 'trick matematician' is utterly absurd. The maths is all fine and correct and I've never complained about the mathematics. I've complained about the redefinition.
Lawrence Krauss is a fucking amazing physicist but he's also a complete fucking idiot and an equivocating fuckwit when he says the universe came from 'nothing' and a lot of his colleagues have rightly criticized him for that equivocation. The fact I recognize that, "No, Lawrence, the universe did NOT come from nothing. So-called 'empty space' teeming with quantum activity is not completely empty and certainly not 'nothing'. The fact you are describing anything at all means it's not nothing, Lawrence" doesn't mean I'm saying Lawrence Krauss isn't a brilliant physicist. He is. Arguments from authority are irrelevant fallacies.
