Unfair Coin Flip

[pocaracas]

You're the one making a big deal out of it.

None of this is a big deal to me.

The premise was not a trick question. It clearly said something like "come up with a way to simulate a coin toss using only that unfair coin". Tibs even went further, at some point, and said that it involved tossing that one coin with some robot or machine.
If one toss is expected to be unfair, then multiple tosses, aggregated into one result, would fit the bill of such a simulation.

But this isn't simulating a flip. This is redefining the very meaning of a flip. It's redefining a flip to mean 'flipping several times and discounting certain results in order to achieve the effects of a flip'.

And redefining X and discounting certain results of X in order to achieve the same purpose that X is supposed to achieve is not simulating X. An equivocation is not the same thing as a simulation.

Again... if you're going to completely discount certain results then OF COURSE you can change the fairness/unfairness of something.

If the premise had began the same but had also mentioned "By the way you can completely ignore certain results and also redefine the very definition of a 'coin flip' itself" and I like to call that ""simulating a flip" even though a single coin flip is not being simulated but instead we are just achieving the purpose of it" then that would be hilarious right?

You're told to let go, because you're disagreeing with something that people understand as within the scope of the original phrasing.

Whose "people"? I am yet to see universal acceptance that everyone 'understands' besides me.

Furthermore there is a difference between understanding and thinking you understand.

And also... if I really am the only person who disagrees here... then is it really any surprise that I am the only one expressing it?

It's perfectly fine to be in the minority and to continuously express disagreement. Being told to "let it go" is just fucking silly. I'm entitled to express disagreement just as much as anyone else is. Especially when I give my reasons and give my arguments. How many people disagree with me or whether most people think they understand is irrelevant.

You may wish to narrow that scope to some dictionary reference, but it is commonly understood that informal discourse (such as the one present in an online forum) entails some broadening of scope.

Well it's the first time I've seen 'simulate' used to mean 'achieve the same purpose of'. That's not what simualte means.

If this was a University exam, you'd be entirely in your right to not let it go.

I'm always entirely in my right to not let it go. And everyone is entirely in their right to tell me to let it go. But it's entirely futile for them to do so because they're entirely NOT in their right to make me.

As far as I'm concerned the first person who needs to 'let it go' is the person who is so frustrated by an opposing position that they feel the need to tell the opposing position to 'let it go'.

That "always" there...
That's what costs you.

How?

I'm generalizing obviously. Maybe I don't always nitpick. But as far as I am aware I always try to when I think it's relevant.

I think this thread contained an impressive mathematical solution but I can't do the maths. I also think it was extremely misleading as that is not what a simulation is (and I actually do know what a simulation is... it's not a redefinition to achieve the same purpose as X. It's an artificial reproduction of X itself.) and it's hardly impressive that you can change the unfairness of something by completely discounting certain results.

Hammy, if I was to write a computer program to SIMULATE a dice throw, would the computer actually throw dice?
Or would I be making the computer do some fancy calculations that would "achieve the same purpose as" throwing dice?

A simulation simply aims at a particular result, based on whatever tools you have available.

Simulate is not emulate.

[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.

[brewer]

Cheating:

http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~michaelm/coinflipext.pdf

[Edwardo Piet]

Of course it's cheating. The very definition of a coin flip is being redefined. But you have to cheat because an unfair coin is by definition unfair. This is what the 'simulating it' was supposed to account for. But you can't simulate something fair using only unfairness. This is why equivocating has to be used where you completely ignore certain results and call that 'simulating a flip'. But it's clearly more equivocating than simulating.

The interesting part is the mathematics behind the why and how of how and why it's specifically H/H and T/T sequences that must be ignored. That's the interesting bit. Of course it's 100% cheating.

It's not surprising that you can create fairness if you completely ignore and discount the unfair results.

[pocaracas]

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?

1. Does a model of a thing not achieve the same purpose of the thing? And if it does not achieve said purpose, is it not a bad model?
2. Does the simulation suggested by Tibs not feign the result of a single fair coin toss?
3.... this one is not applicable...



But I get it... you don't like the word "simulation" there.... Tell me, now that it's perfectly clear what was to be achieved, which word would you suggest?

[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.

[brewer]

Of course it's cheating. The very definition of a coin flip is being redefined. But you have to cheat because an unfair coin is by definition unfair. This is what the 'simulating it' was supposed to account for. But you can't simulate something fair using only unfairness. This is why equivocating has to be used where you completely ignore certain results and call that 'simulating a flip'. But it's clearly more equivocating than simulating.

The interesting part is the mathematics behind the why and how of how and why it's specifically H/H and T/T sequences that must be ignored. That's the interesting bit. Of course it's 100% cheating.

It's not surprising that you can create fairness if you completely ignore and discount the unfair results.

Cheating by looking up the answer on google. Are you having a stroke? Or just your normal hissy fit?

[Edwardo Piet]

Of course it's cheating. The very definition of a coin flip is being redefined. But you have to cheat because an unfair coin is by definition unfair. This is what the 'simulating it' was supposed to account for. But you can't simulate something fair using only unfairness. This is why equivocating has to be used where you completely ignore certain results and call that 'simulating a flip'. But it's clearly more equivocating than simulating.

The interesting part is the mathematics behind the why and how of how and why it's specifically H/H and T/T sequences that must be ignored. That's the interesting bit. Of course it's 100% cheating.

It's not surprising that you can create fairness if you completely ignore and discount the unfair results.

Cheating by looking up the answer on google. Are you having a stroke? Or just your normal hissy fit?

I'm always having a stroke. If you know what I mean

[pocaracas]

"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.

Monte Carlo Simulation... look it up.

[Tiberius]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation

Nothing about this redefines what a flip is. A flip in this context means you use a coin to get a result of either heads or tails. The "fair" aspect means that each of the heads/tails options just occur 50% of the time.

You can stimulate a coin flip on a computer by generating random numbers and seeing whether the number is even or odd (even = heads, odd = tails). Nothing about that even comes close to an actual coin being flipped, but the result is identical, and the result is all we care about.