Unfair Coin Flip

[Tiberius]

Maybe I didn't phrase the question correctly, but to clarify, "a simulated coin toss" means you want a single result that has an equal chance or being heads as it does tails.

Trying to adjust based on unknown probability won't really get you anywhere. This isn't about generating multiple flips where you get an equal amount of heads as you do tails. Even perfectly fair coins don't do that unless you flip them forever. The idea is that with no prior knowledge, you should be able to generate a single simulated coin flip that could be either heads or tails with equal probability.

[Tiberius]

Somebody quote me when the answer is revealed xD

I revealed the answer here: https://atheistforums.org/thread-51429-p...pid1628007

[Edwardo Piet]

So... I reread the OP.

"simulate a fair coin flip" was indeed mentioned from the very beginning.

But this doesn't seem like a simulation of a normal fair coin flip. As a normal coin flip isn't flipping the coin multiple times and calling that a 'simulated flip'. A simulation of a flip isn't grouping multiple flips together and calling that a simulated flip.

I don't know how it can be claimed that a redefinition wasn't used.

It's not really a single flip that's being simulated here. It's the very purpose of what a coin flip is for that's being simulated. i.e. you want to use a normal coin to achieve 50/50 fairness and you can do that by redefining what a coin flip is. Flipping multiple times the normal way, ignoring H/H and T/T results and adding those results together and calling that a 'simulated flip'. i.e. : When it's NOT a single normal coin flip being simulated. You're flipping several times the normal way without simulating anything. What you're doing is achieving the same purpose as a normal fair coin flip has (achieving 50/50 fairness) by redefining several coin flips with T/T and H/H results discounted as a 'simulated flip'. A truly simulated flip would be an accurate enough simulation to work exactly the same way as a normal flip does. i.e. you'd still flip the coin the same way.

I didn't think discounting certain results would be allowed because we're supposed to be flipping a coin here to achieve 50/50 fairness... and to discount some of those results is OBVIOUSLY gong to change the unfairness if it isn't 50/50 fairness.

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.

[pocaracas]

Let it go, Hamster.... let it go...

[Tiberius]

Its not my problem you don't understand what a simulation is Hammy. I gave you a definition. There's no shame in not being able to work this one out either, but claiming repeatedly that it is a trick question when it has an answer is just ridiculous. One of the greatest mathematicians came up with this answer, but hey maybe he's a trick mathematician.

[Edwardo Piet]

Its not my problem you don't understand what a simulation is Hammy.

Lol.

Woah I don't know why you're being like that.

Let it go, Hamster.... let it go...

Nor do I know why people always say that to me. I don't get it.

I don't understand why a disagreement has to become an attitude problem.

---

There's no shame in not being able to work this one out either, but claiming repeatedly that it is a trick question when it has an answer is just ridiculous.

Indeed there isn't. But there is shame in being unnecessarily condescending.

[pocaracas]

Let it go, Hamster.... let it go...

Nor do I know why people always say that to me. I don't get it.

I don't understand why a disagreement has to become an attitude problem.

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.

It's a useless battle... a useless waste of your resources... a useless waste of everyone else's resources... Let it go!

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

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.

---

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:

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.

[pocaracas]

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.

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

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).

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

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

I always nitpick. I don't think there's anything wrong with nitpicking. It's just being accurate as far as I'm concerned.

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

[Edwardo Piet]

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 'simulate' 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'.

I always nitpick. I don't think there's anything wrong with nitpicking. It's just being accurate as far as I'm concerned.

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.

By the way... the very moment to redefine a problem is the moment you haven't actually tackled it. If we achieve the same results as flipping a coin... then that's great. But we still haven't actually simulated a coin flip. We've just redefinined it and ignored certain results in order to achieve the same effects. If we redefine what a coin flip is then we by definition haven't actually flipped a coin in the same way by definition (e.g For starters if H/H and T/T sequences are said to 'not count' then it's effectively as if we haven't flipped those times even though we did flip them. I.e. it's cheating). Discounting certain flips is clearly cheating as it's completely ignoring certain results. Equivocating =/= simulating.

If the OP was:

"How can we use an unfair coin to achieve the same results as flipping a fair coin to get 50/50 fairness?" then fair enough. If the answer is: "We can achieve the same effect by flipping it several times the normal way... but then completely ignoring certain sequences... that will achieve the same 50/50 fairness that a normal coin flip is supposed to achieve. The truth is not actually a simulation of a flip, it's just achieving the same effect that a fair coin flip is supposed to achieve by ignoring certain sequences... but that doesn't sound as impressive so if you like you can call that 'simulating a flip'."

That's the thing. It's suddenly not so spectacular when you come to terms with the fact that the only way we can simulate the very purpose of a coin flip (and not a coin flip itself) is by completely ignoring certain sequences of actual coin flips. But everything is better demystified anyways.