@ Tibs
I'm legitimately sorry for being such a pain in the ass. I don't mean to be like that. Really. I missed that particular definition of simulation and I got super hung up on the fact it felt like cheating and I have this obsession with equivocation.
I don't mean to be like this and get into this state. I do know what a simulation is though... even if I did have a brainfart (before shoving a stick up where the brainfart came from) and I wasn't really opening my mind enough to more scientifically relevant definitions like it being a working model that achieves the same purpose of an actual fair coin, etc. There isn't any shame in me being wrong, yes. But there is shame in me being such a dickhead, and I'm sorry. I wish I wasn't like this. I've been trying to stop getting a bee in my bonnet about something and not being able to 'let go' for the last few years now. And I've been trying with no success. Which is why I find it so frustrating when I'm simply told to 'let it go'. If only it were that easy for me.
Apologies for being an annoyance and for being ridiculous. I also didn't mean to spoil the atmosphere of your thread.
I'm also sorry if I annoyed you Poca. Although I'm sure you're used to me by now (including me at my worst
).
This is an interesting problem. I wish I was better at math(/s). The most interesting fact with regards to the solution for me is how the best way to simulate the flip is to eliminate specifically H/H and T/T sequences. My inuition says that the reason why that works is because then you're only left with H/T and T/H sequences which is what a standard fair coin flip averages out as. And I do think the solution is even more interesting than the problem once I get the stick out of my ass. I don't know why I couldn't do it sooner. Calling multiple flips with certain flips discounted a simulated flip just felt 100% like cheating. But if I could just get over that and look at how interesting the solution is. It's the solution that's especially interesting. And much more interesting than the problem. At least for me.
I'm legitimately sorry for being such a pain in the ass. I don't mean to be like that. Really. I missed that particular definition of simulation and I got super hung up on the fact it felt like cheating and I have this obsession with equivocation.
I don't mean to be like this and get into this state. I do know what a simulation is though... even if I did have a brainfart (before shoving a stick up where the brainfart came from) and I wasn't really opening my mind enough to more scientifically relevant definitions like it being a working model that achieves the same purpose of an actual fair coin, etc. There isn't any shame in me being wrong, yes. But there is shame in me being such a dickhead, and I'm sorry. I wish I wasn't like this. I've been trying to stop getting a bee in my bonnet about something and not being able to 'let go' for the last few years now. And I've been trying with no success. Which is why I find it so frustrating when I'm simply told to 'let it go'. If only it were that easy for me.
Apologies for being an annoyance and for being ridiculous. I also didn't mean to spoil the atmosphere of your thread.
I'm also sorry if I annoyed you Poca. Although I'm sure you're used to me by now (including me at my worst
).This is an interesting problem. I wish I was better at math(/s). The most interesting fact with regards to the solution for me is how the best way to simulate the flip is to eliminate specifically H/H and T/T sequences. My inuition says that the reason why that works is because then you're only left with H/T and T/H sequences which is what a standard fair coin flip averages out as. And I do think the solution is even more interesting than the problem once I get the stick out of my ass. I don't know why I couldn't do it sooner. Calling multiple flips with certain flips discounted a simulated flip just felt 100% like cheating. But if I could just get over that and look at how interesting the solution is. It's the solution that's especially interesting. And much more interesting than the problem. At least for me.
