Moderated Coin Flipper

[jeremyp]

Pseudo-random in computer random number generators means that an algorithm generated the sequence.... and the set of data is random in its arrangement.... but because it is algorithmic then the sequence will always generate the same set of random numbers if the same starting point is used (i.e. a seed).

And therein lies the BEAUTY of pseudo-random number generators.

The fact that you can have a set of random numbers that can be repeated is vital for testing and experimenting.

But... if the SEED... i.e. the atarting off point for the algorithm is changed then a totally different set of numbers is generated that is RANDOMLY different than the previous set.

Which is yet another very useful quality of pseudo-number generators.... in that you can now have two sets of random number randomly different from each other but can be repeated because you know the starting off SEED and of course the algorithm

However... if you do not know the SEED and you use a different seed all the time that you have no way of knowing or determining then the total set of random numbers is not pseudo-random anymore despite it being still algorithmic.

Of course all this is because we are using a computer and we want to SIMULATE things like REAL LIFE randomness.

Moreover... if the SEED is random then the whole process is random....

So despite the limitation of using a computer you can still have a TRUE random number generator by having a NATURAL SOURCE of randomness from REALITY... e.g. TIME for the easiest way to do it on a computer... but more fancy equipment can use radio signal noise or even the noise in the computer's own circuitry or for really fancy stuff using background microwave noise or radiation sources etc.

For the system I am using the SEED is randomized by using microsecs ticks of the computer's clock and thus every time you run the algorithm unless you can repeat the exact same microsecond of time and can predict when the key stroke happened to start the process off... it is random.

The other way to do it... is to actually get a coin and start tossing for 10,000,000 times and recording the results and then repeating that for say 150 times... how long do you think it will take?

However... this is a simulation of reality... reality is still random... fully random and the computer simulation gives us an extremely good simulation of this... without having to spend the rest of one's life doing the experiment.

Back when I was a college student I wrote a program that required me to simulate coin flips. I naively used the C library random number generator and took the last bit of the result as my coin flip. Turned out the C library random number generator was not very good and the numbers it produced were alternately even and odd.

It really would be useful if you told us exactly which RNG you are using and how you choose heads and tails.

 

[Leumas]

As I opined earlier, I don't get where you are going with the app thingy. AFAICT, it's a pseudo random generator. That has little relevance to the mechanics of actual coin tossing.

What do the mechanics of a coin toss have to do with the outcome if they result in a random outcome?

As long as the outcome is random H/T with a 50-50 chance then any process that results in a 50-50 chance of outcome can simulate an unadulterated coin toss.

The results were predictable: odds floated around the 50 yard line.

what? What does this mean? What does American football have to do with it?

What might be more interesting would be how many times in a given set the probability hit precisely 50/50 (assuming v1). I would say it did so many, many times, and it is likely that if you sat there doing it over and over, a truly random generator would show hitting the 50/50 line many times each set.

Why don't you try... you evidently have not even tried once.

But without seeing the generator, you could have made an app that outputs percentages that are closer to 50/50 as trial sizes are increased, and has nothing whatsoever to do with actual coin flipping odds. It may simply be a program which will never read 50%, but always a small percentage off.

Ok... so now you are accusing me of cheating with the app.... hahahaha.... and you have not even tried to use it once to verify for yourself whether what you said is correct or not.

Talk and talk without any attempt to verify if what you said is true when it is so easy to do so and find out how untrue it is.

Maybe that is why you won't even try.... you don't want to find out you are definitely WRONG so that you can keep your opinion.

Amazing!!! It explains oodles!!!

 

[theprestige]

Read the OP.

You are Agnostic about randomness in the natural world... as you said...

So that means you lack knowledge about randomness in the natural world.

So until you gain knowledge about it and stop being agnostic and you know one way or the other if there is randomness or not in the natural world... forgive me if I am not at all interested in any of your further Argumenta ad Ignorantiam.

I apologize for not being clearer. I'm affirmatively agnostic about randomness in nature. It's not that I don't have the knowledge. It's that I don't think the knowledge can be had. Not by me, not by you, not by anyone.

You finding the idea of determinism philosophically offensive doesn't convince me it's wrong. That's just your appeal to incredulity. Your demonstration of pseudorandomness in an artifical setting doesn't convince me of randomness in a natural setting, for obvious reasons.

You say randomness in nature can be known, and that you know it. As far as I can tell, this is a matter of faith for you.

 

[jeremyp]

Yes, it was a literal everyday gold coin. If you don't get a chance to see the actual play, a movie was made by the same name featuring Tim Roth, Gary Oldman, and Richard Dreyfuss. Really outstanding humor, and I think you would thoroughly enjoy the wordplay.

ETA: if you meant a scammy "con", then not really. It was symbolic of an otherworldly kind of foreshadowing, about fate and our lack of control or understanding of it. Really excellent show.



As I opined earlier, I don't get where you are going with the app thingy. AFAICT, it's a pseudo random generator. That has little relevance to the mechanics of actual coin tossing. The results were predictable: odds floated around the 50 yard line.

What might be more interesting would be how many times in a given set the probability hit precisely 50/50 (assuming v1). I would say it did so many, many times, and it is likely that if you sat there doing it over and over, a truly random generator would show hitting the 50/50 line many times each set.

But without seeing the generator, you could have made an app that outputs percentages that are closer to 50/50 as trial sizes are increased, and has nothing whatsoever to do with actual coin flipping odds. It may simply be a program which will never read 50%, but always a small percentage off.

If the coin tosses were truly fair, the more coins you have, the less likely you are to hit 50/50. If you have two coins, the probability of one head and one tail is 1/2. If you have four coins, the probability of two heads and two tails is 3/8. Six coins, you are down to 5/16 and so on.

 

[Leumas]

Back when I was a college student I wrote a program that required me to simulate coin flips. I naively used the C library random number generator and took the last bit of the result as my coin flip. Turned out the C library random number generator was not very good and the numbers it produced were alternately even and odd.

Why did you do that?

Do you know how to use arrays in C... use an array of randomly generated numbers and then use an algorithm on those numbers to generate a Heads or Tails outcome from the array of random numbers.

It really would be useful if you told us exactly which RNG you are using...

I already told you that... have you read that post?

It really would be useful if you told us exactly which RNG you are using and how you choose heads and tails.

I gave you a hint above as an advice against that simplistic one you used.

Go use the app... you clearly have not used it.

All this criticism without even bothering to open the app... AMAZING!!!

 

[Leumas]

I apologize for not being clearer. I'm affirmatively agnostic about randomness in nature. It's not that I don't have the knowledge. It's that I don't think the knowledge can be had. Not by me, not by you, not by anyone.

You believe that ... but your belief is unfounded.... and WRONG!!!

As proven by science and REALITY of the natural world.

You finding the idea of determinism philosophically offensive doesn't convince me it's wrong.

Nope I do not find it offensive... I find it WRONG... not out of navel gazing... out of SCIENCE.

Just like the idea of Leprechauns and Gods.

That's just your appeal to incredulity.

When you deny science and say that

... I don't think the knowledge can be had. Not by me, not by you, not by anyone.

It is precisely an appeal to denial of facts of science and reality.

Your demonstration of pseudorandomness in an artifical setting doesn't convince me of randomness in a natural setting, for obvious reasons.

How would you know... you have just admitted YOU CANNOT know... so anything you bare assert out of not knowing is a fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

You say randomness in nature can be known, and that you know it.

Yes... it is called SCIENCE.

As far as I can tell, this is a matter of faith for you.

how do you know ... you have just admitted that you cannot know... so anything you opine about the matter is a fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

 

[Leumas]

If the coin tosses were truly fair, the more coins you have, the less likely you are to hit 50/50. If you have two coins, the probability of one head and one tail is 1/2. If you have four coins, the probability of two heads and two tails is 3/8. Six coins, you are down to 5/16 and so on.

Wow... thanks for that lesson in probability... I did not know that.

Now... go use the app and see what you can find out... and if you find a problem then please come and let me know.

But until you have used a computer program you cannot criticize it because you do not know how it was programmed without having even used it. And demand that you be told how it was programmed before you would bother to use it...and just carry on criticizing it without knowing anything about it.


ETA: try to toss some real coins and see if they come out as is expected by the probabilities you mentioned above.... say you toss 1 coin 10 times... according to your numbers above there should be 5 heads and 5 tails... right? Do it 2000 more times see what you get... let me know in how many rounds out of the 2000 did you get 5 heads and 5 tails.

.

 

[Leumas]

This is the result of repeating 10 times, the flip of a coin 10 times.​

[IMGW=450]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipper2/CoinFlipper10.png[/IMGW]​

This is the result of repeating 10 times, the flip of a coin 100 times.​

[IMGW=450]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipper2/CoinFlipper100.png[/IMGW]​

This is the result of repeating 10 times, the flip of a coin 1,000 times.​

[IMGW=450]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipper2/CoinFlipper1000.png[/IMGW]​

This is the result of repeating 10 times, the flip of a coin 1,000,000 times.​

[IMGW=450]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipper2/CoinFlipper1000000.png[/IMGW]​

 

[theprestige]

Yeah that's definitely converging on 50/50.

 

[Leumas]

Yeah that's definitely converging on 50/50.

No it is not converging... it gets close then misses then goes higher then lower and keeps doing that no matter how many times you try....

If you know about probability distribution that is how it goes.... the higher the number of trials the thinner the spread around the mean, because of the high number of data points that are supposed to SPREAD around the average... but it never has NO spread.

Do you what a bell curve looks like... it never looks like a vertical line.

Why don't you try for yourself... you have clearly not tried it at all... why? Do you not want to challenge your agnostic stance at all???

Note: Do you know the difference between converging to a value and a random spread around a value?

ETA: Why don't you try doing it with a real coin... do the same tables as I did above... see what you get... can you report on the results please??

 

[psionl0]

@Leumus, Since you are having problems convincing others that your PRNG proves anything about random numbers in nature, I have uploaded a 16 K file of random bytes that I obtained from https://www.random.org/bytes/ for your use.

You won't be able to simulate 1,000,000,000 coin tosses with if but 65,536 bits should give you enough tosses to form a pattern.

 

[Leumas]

@Leumus, Since you are having problems convincing others

Only the ones who already made up their minds and REFUSE to use the app... reminds me very much of people who refuse to view the live feed of the ISS on NASA YouTube channel.

Have you used the app???

I have uploaded a 16 K file of random bytes that I obtained from https://www.random.org/bytes/ for your use.

You won't be able to simulate 1,000,000,000 coin tosses with if but 65,536 bits should give you enough tosses to form a pattern.

Thanks for that... but I recall you said you are an excellent programmer... so why don't you make an app that others can use with a mouse click on a link like I did for my app.

Then I and the others you mentioned can use your better and superior app to generate tables like the ones I did above and demonstrate how much more random your tables are than mine and settle the matter once and for all.

I would love it if you did that... PLEASE!!!

 

[Olmstead]

It is unfalsifiable claptrap.

I completely agree. I just want to check whether anything in science actually contradicts it because ... well, fun. I like weird science ficiton.

 

[Thermal]

What do the mechanics of a coin toss have to do with the outcome if they result in a random outcome?

As long as the outcome is random H/T with a 50-50 chance then any process that results in a 50-50 chance of outcome can simulate an unadulterated coin toss.

Ok. Who cares? What is this exercize demonstrating that a slow 10 year old couldn't tell you?

what? What does this mean? What does American football have to do with it?

Who said anything about American football? I was thinking of soccer. But you went ahead and made up some weird thing and then acted like it was confusing. Y U do this?

Why don't you try... you evidently have not even tried once.

Then you are asleep at the wheel. Again. Not only did I try it (the most mind numbingly dull waste of time I can imagine), but I specifically used one of my findings in an example.

So which is it: are you playing dumb or are you sincere about it?

Ok... so now you are accusing me of cheating with the app.... hahahaha....

No. Please pay attention. To the end user, there is no difference if it was one or the other. It doesn't do anything remotely interesting. It gives results that a child could approximate, with nothing of value added. Which is why I asked you what this was about.

In the OP, you seemed to find it fascinating that your randomly selected end of series would not always be exactly 50%. Any member of this board could have told you just that without clicking on the useless app. The odds get closer to an even 50/50 with more and more trials. Duh.

and you have not even tried to use it once to verify for yourself whether what you said is correct or not.

Talk and talk without any attempt to verify if what you said is true when it is so easy to do so and find out how untrue it is.

Maybe that is why you won't even try.... you don't want to find out you are definitely WRONG so that you can keep your opinion.

Still demonstrably untrue. Repeating your untruths don't gain you any credibility.

Amazing!!! It explains oodles!!!

Yep. It explains that you either can not or will not understand the words repeatedly
posted in front of you.

You keep asking everyone why they won't "try the app". I'll answer: because it is more excruciatingly boring than watching paint dry and gives no new information nor provides any interesting results.

 

[Thermal]

OP premise disproven. Took Less than a minute of mindless clicking.

ETA:apologies for poor quality screenshot. Seems that it doesn't like the size of the image although I've never had a problem before

 

[Leumas]

... I have uploaded a 16 K file of random bytes that I obtained from https://www.random.org/bytes/ for your use...

Thanks very much for the website link.

I went there and downloaded my own 16K bytes and used them.

As the web site says

This form allows you to generate random bytes. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs.

So I hope this will not be argued against as being anything other than a TRNG based on the "randomness of the natural world".... and thus is arguably better than the cryptographic PRNG I am using in v2 and much better than the one I am using in v1.

So here is Coin Flipper 3... using a TRNG.

Due to the amount of the True Random data obtained from the site you can only go up to 10,000 flips at a time.... not 10,000,000 like in the other versions.
Have at it!!!

Thanks to psion10.


Note: I am still hoping psion10 will do his own too.... I will be posting some tables of results anon.

 

[Leumas]

OP premise disproven. Took Less than a minute of mindless clicking.

ETA:apologies for poor quality screenshot. Seems that it doesn't like the size of the image although I've never had a problem before

What premise is that?

Did you click one more time and see what happens? I suggest you do that.

Do you know what a probability distribution means?


Also... try the TRNG V3 of the app based on atmospheric noise data.


ETA: when did you do that test? I am tracking usage of the app and I do not see that the number has increased since yesterday??? Are you sure you did not Photoshop the whole thing?
Not that it matters... you are mistaken as regards to my "premise" anyhow.

 

[Thermal]

What premise is that?

Oh, stop acting like an Idiot. See your OP below, highlighting and bolding added...just because.

Did you click one more time and see what happens? I suggest you do that.

Do you know what a probability distribution means?

That's what I just patiently explained to you a couple posts ago, and you denied it.

Y U DO DIS?????

Also... try the TRNG V3 of the app based on atmospheric noise data.

I wasted quite enough time on the dullest exercize in recent memory. Should you post something remotely interesting, I'll be here.

Now, back to your OP premise which you seem to think you are evading now:

The above post led me to write a little WebApp to play with to see the result of coin tosses varying from 10 at a time to 10,000,000 at a time

So you can set the number of coin tosses you would like to see the results for and then tell the app to flip the coin that many times.... it will give you a table of the % of heads and tails for each round you go... and also a running average for the rounds.

Use it to see how even if you go up to 10,000,000 tosses you still are not going to get a precise 50% and even the running average still is not 50%.
If you try 10,000,000 it might take some time depending on the computer you are using... on a good computer should not take more than 0.5 secs for each try... on my computer takes much less and it is a 5 years old computer.... on my iPhone 6plus it takes fraction of a second and on my iPad6 it takes much less than a second.

 

[Leumas]

Oh, stop acting like an Idiot. See your OP below, highlighting and bolding added...just because.

Projection my dear fellow...

You have no idea what a probability distribution means.

 

[bobdroege7]

Answering the question of whether the real world is deterministic or not is a super task.

You will never finish.