Moderated Coin Flipper

[Leumas]

1 in 2^(10^9)

Aka 1 in a really large number

The universe is allegedly 14,000,000,000 years old....

2^1E9 is so huge that ~ 2^1E9 universe life spans will fit into it

So to get 1 in 2^1E9 one MIGHT have to have ~2^1E9 universe life spans of waiting for it.


ETA: but yet it is not exactly infinite... so 1 into it is not quite ZERO.... unlike the god existing probability.

 

[psionl0]

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!!!

I don't recall bragging about my programming prowess. In any case, user apps are not my specialty. The GUI programmer has to learn about too many libraries.

In any case, it was about the integrity of the RNG. Your interface seems to be fine (in any case, it would be better than the CLI that I would probably use).

 

[jt512]

I also forgot to add... in Coin Flipper 2 I took account of the edge landing...

What function are you using that would allow for an edge-landing?

 

[Leumas]

In any case, it was about the integrity of the RNG. Your interface seems to be fine (in any case, it would be better than the CLI that I would probably use).

Thanks... but the TRNG data I got from the site you linked to and used in Coin Flipper 3 proves that the integrity of the PRNGs I used is very solid... both... but... the cryptographic one I used in Coin Flipper 2 is one used by banks and other very stringent applications so although I did not design it the standards it meets assure its very high level of integrity.

But do not take my word for it... please use the apps (V2 and even V1 and compare them to V3) and see for yourself.

Do all the testing of the outputs as you clearly know how... and PLEASE tell me if you spot any problems. From my own tests so far... I maintain that V2, and even V1 also, are as good as V3.

Please do me the favor of testing this well based assertion of mine and let me know if you can debunk it... I would be very grateful.





.

 

[Leumas]

What function are you using that would allow for an edge-landing?

What would you do? Let me know maybe I can change mine if yours is better... I doubt it very much though.

Why have you not bothered at all to use the apps? You just criticize but have no bases whatsoever as evident by your refusal to use the apps you are criticizing....


ETA: by the way... do you think randomness is an illusion too? Or are you agnostic? or are you gnostic about being agnostic?

 

[jeremyp]

Why did you do that?

Because I didn't know what I was doing. This is often the case with people who treat random number generation naively.

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.

No. It's better to choose a good random number generator and use its algorithms to narrow the result down to the range you want. For example when needing a number in the range [0, N), many people will naively use the modulus operation. This can easily result in biases if, for example the original range is not divisible by N or if there are artefacts in the algorithm that show up when you take a modulus.

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





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!!!

I did try the app out. I didn't download its source code to figure out how it was generating random numbers. However, if you are not using the built in cryptographically secure Javascript random number generator or you are not an expert on random number generation algorithms, there are almost certainly biases in you coin flipping method.

 

[jt512]

What would you do? Let me know maybe I can change mine if yours is better... I doubt it very much though.

Could you please just answer the question: how did you program the possibility of an edge-landing?

 

[Leumas]

Could you please just answer the question: how did you program the possibility of an edge-landing?

You have not answered my question... do you think randomness in the natural world is an illusion... or are you agnostic or are you gnostic about being agnostic???

 

[Leumas]

Because I didn't know what I was doing. This is often the case with people who treat random number generation naively.

I am glad you know it... but assuming things you cannot know about others is yet another thing you are wrong about.

No. It's better to choose a good random number generator and use its algorithms to narrow the result down to the range you want. For example when needing a number in the range [0, N), many people will naively use the modulus operation. This can easily result in biases if, for example the original range is not divisible by N or if there are artefacts in the algorithm that show up when you take a modulus.

Again assuming things when you do not know is never a good way to proceed rationally.

I did try the app out. I didn't download its source code to figure out how it was generating random numbers.

Testing a program does not require that you know how it was programmed... any programmer who ever tested programs knows that.

However, if you are not using the built in cryptographically secure Javascript random number generator or you are not an expert on random number generation algorithms, there are almost certainly biases in you coin flipping method.

Assumptions compounded over more assumptions but nary an attempt to actually verify any of the assumptions.

If there is a bias in the app's results you can verify that by using the app and testing the results.

This is how testing a program is done... it is not done by reading the code.

Try and see for yourself whether your BARE ASSERTED ASSUMPTIONS are baseless or not... you have the app... test it.

Let me know what you find.

 

[jt512]

You have not answered my question... do you think randomness in the natural world is an illusion... or are you agnostic or are you gnostic about being agnostic???

You haven't answered my question. And I asked mine before you asked yours. You answer my question, and then I'll answer yours. So, for the third time: how did you program an edge-landing?

 

[Leumas]

Could you please just answer the question: how did you program the possibility of an edge-landing?

Here... I have a suggestion... you create your app... and give us a link to run it.

I will test your app and compare it to the results of mine.

And let's see if there is any difference.

OK... until then you have no possibly rational bases for anything you have bare asserted so far.

Or just test the apps' results and see if you can spot a problem.

Until then whatever you have to say as bare assertions is baseless and just Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacies.



.

 

[Leumas]

You haven't answered my question. And I asked mine before you asked yours. You answer my question, and then I'll answer yours. So, for the third time: how did you program an edge-landing?

The fact that you refuse to answer a very simple question about whether or not you think randomness in the natural world is true or not bespeaks oodles about why you keep assuming and bare asserting baseless criticisms of my app that you refuse to even try to test to see if any of your bare assertion are correct or not.

Thanks... by not answering you have already answered.... QED!!!



.

 

[jt512]

Here... I have a suggestion... you create your app... and give us a link to run it.

I will test your app and compare it to the results of mine.

And let's see if there is any difference.

OK... until then you have no possibly rational bases for anything you have bare asserted so far.

Or just test the apps' results and see if you can spot a problem.

Until then whatever you have to say as bare assertions is baseless and just Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacies.



.

OK. So, I have asked you three times how you programmed an edge-landing into version 2 of your app. You have refused to answer each time.

Therefore, I am going to assume, as I suspected, that your version 2 app does not allow for an edge landing; rather, it, like your version 1 app, just uses a canned bernoulli (pseudo) random number generator. Worse yet, I don't think you actually understand that your own app can't simulate an edge-landing, which is, actually, pretty sad.

 

[jt512]

The fact that you refuse to answer a very simple question about whether or not you think randomness in the natural world is true or not bespeaks oodles about why you keep assuming and bare asserting baseless criticisms of my app that you refuse to even try to test to see if any of your bare assertion are correct or not.

Thanks... by not answering you have already answered.... QED!!!



.

At the time you had posted this, I had not made any criticisms of you.

 

[Leumas]

At this point, I had not made any criticisms of you.

No just assumptions about how naïve I am and how you know better.... and now you call me a liar....

And I have not made any criticism of you either... just of your fallacious bare assertions based upon baseless assumptions which you have all you need to verify how wrong they are but refuse to do so.

But thanks... I now know why.


ETA: why don't you make an app... let's see what you produce... I promise I will test it very rigorously and won't pester you by REPEATEDLY demanding you hand out the code either.

 

[Leumas]

OK. So, I have asked you three times how you programmed an edge-landing into version 2 of your app. You have refused to answer each time.

Therefore, I am going to assume, as I suspected, that your version 2 app does not allow for an edge landing; rather, it, like your version 1 app, just uses a canned bernoulli (pseudo) random number generator. Worse yet, I don't think you actually understand that your own app can't simulate an edge-landing, which is, actually, pretty sad.

 

[jt512]

No just assumptions about how naïve I am and how you know better.

And I have not made any criticism of you either... just of your fallacious bare assertions based upon baseless assumptions which you have all you need to verify how wrong they are but refuse to do so.

But thanks... I now know why.


ETA: why don't you make an app... let's see what you produce... I promise I will test it very rigorously and won't pester you by REPEATEDLY demanding you hand out the code either.

In the coin-flipping model you programmed in version 2, what probability of an edge-landing did you use?

 

[Leumas]

In the coin-flipping model you programmed in version 2, what probability of an edge-landing did you use?

Make an app... and prove your accusations of me being a liar... until then your assumptions and bare assertions are just fallacies.

If you are as amazing as you claim, you ought to be able to make an app and show how its output proves my apps' output to be as you bare assert out of baseless assumptions not what you think it should be... no?

Why don't you do it???

 

[jt512]

In case it isn't clear to anyone by this point, Leumas's version 2 does not allow for the possibility of an edge-landing, as he claimed.

 

[Leumas]

In case it isn't clear to anyone by this point, Leumas's version 2 does not allow for the possibility of an edge-landing, as he claimed.

In case it is not clear to you... baseless unproven accusations are nothing but SLANDER.

So prove your accusations or apologize... you will never do either.


Why all this tenacious and relentless CONCERN about the edge landing if as you clearly think randomness is not inherent in the natural world???

If randomness is not real then whether or not it is TRNG or PRNG or trinary or binary is all rendered pointless and moot in the first place.

So why all this CONCERN for the edge condition of what you evidently think is not a random event anyhow???

In any case... bare assertion and assumptions compounded with slander is the highest affirmation of my app's efficacy.... combined with your inability to ever use it to even try to see if the slander you hurled is not a pure lie.

Appreciate it... QED!!!


Note: By the way... all you need to prove how your slander is egregious lies is use the apps and test the results... or... better still make your own app and show how it is not inferior to mine.... hmmm... why don't you do either???