Believe it or not, this is one of the dumbest things you have said in this thread.

There is a 1/2 chance of each value being a head, I can't know the total odds because I don't know what the unknown values are, so it must be ?/10, once I draw one, the odds that it's a head is 1/2.

I edited your sentence so you could read it back easier.

The computer is not necessarily programmed to output probabilities with any particular standard deviation. You could program a computer to generate a normalized value based on a particular mean and standard deviation, but it basically is programmed to do whatever a person programs it to do. So in this case, it would be programmed to generate a value from 1 to 52 in a uniform distribution, meaning each number has an equal chance of being selected.

Would that be different from rolling the dice?

So you are stating 5 of the unknown values are heads?

In an infinite amount of time no, over short periods of time , maybe.


{1/52} / t may not be equal to {1/52}/t

added- so time would be the variable, a computer programmed to give 1/52 over a certain period of time.

So, you want to say that the chance that I draw a coin that is a heads is indeterminable and the chance that the coin that I draw is a heads is 50%? That doesn’t just sound obviously stupid to you?

No.

I have no clue what that means, but it does seem that you agree over a long time period there is no difference between a computer picking numbers or a die picking numbers. So why would there be a difference between a computer picking a card and a random shuffle picking a card?

You have now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You are putting words together that you have heard someone once say in a word-salad sentence that sounds correct (syntactically and epistemologically) to you that is, alas, neither.

If I were you I would stick to a quantum entanglements explanation going forward.

Seriously, quantum entanglements.

In my mind it does not sound dumb to me. I understand randomness at a whole new level.
I might be just crazy and suffering Dunning and Kruger, but how would I know that, I could just be smart.

Also, why isn't your answer to my question 3 (probability of at least 1 of a particular number out of the 52) ?/52 since you don't know how many of that number were rolled?

The most perceptive thing I've seen you post.

12 posts to go!

The computer has memory, it knows to evenly distribute over time to its programming, a deck of cards has no memory, it does what it wants over time .

Shocking to see that in addition to not understanding probability as well as you think you do, you also don't understand how RNGs work as well as you think you do.

You would not believe how perceptive I am , or am I , objectively I would not know. I am either a misunderstood genius or I am messed up in the head and think I am a misunderstood genius.
Lucky we are not doing quantum mechanics if you think this is bad.

Well, if you believe that computer randomization is actually programmed to use its memory to be evenly distributed over time (and thus not actually random) this thread makes a lot more sense.

Anyway 2.30 am here, good night all.

I will tell you all about the limits of boundary randomness, tomorrow ,if the thread is still open.

Or (wait for it) a computer selects each number randomly from a uniform distribution, and (here it comes) the statistical law of large numbers evens things out over time (as if by "magic").

Anybody who has taken any probability and statistics courses, anybody who has taken any computer science courses, and anybody who has played any amount of online poker knows which of those two possibilities is true and which of those two possibilities is the ravings of a lunatic.


P.S. I'll even add anybody who has done any amount of programming games or simulations or anything remotely involving a random number generator also knows how computers generate "randomness". And it is not by keeping track of its prior millions or billions of outcomes in order to "even things out over time". The very notion is patently absurd, but may seem "reasonable" to someone who doesn't have a clue about any of this. Dear Lord I am getting riled up over this.

I find it hard to believe moderators allowed nearly 1000 postings arguing with someone who admits to the following:

“I am either a misunderstood genius -- or -- I am messed up in the head and think I am a misunderstood genius.”

when it is clear that the latter is the case.

No, it doesn't have to be one or the other. When it comes to probability, it's clearly not the first. But that doesn't mean you're "messed up in the head". Definitely some eccentricities, though, given how fervently you believe in things in spite of how everyone explains to you in dozens of different ways why you're wrong.

Finally - we've gotten to the heart of all of this, and it took almost 1000 posts (maybe more by the time I submit this). This is the perceived difference that accounts for all of these seemingly absurd questions. If, indeed, the computer were programmed to keep track of all of its deals and make sure that it evened things out with respect to which cards were selected in each order, then they wouldn't be coming out randomly, and there would be a problem.

But this just isn't how the randomization of cards works. Each shuffled deck is completely independent of each other, and they don't need to keep track of everything to make sure there is an equal distribution. The simple act of doing this a large number of times is what makes things come out with an equal distribution. Exactly the way a deck of cards works - the cards will come out randomly, and if you shuffle and deal them a large number of times, each card will be first off the deck about 1 out of every 52 times (and ditto for every other position off the deck). In this way, an array of a large number of cards dealt by hand will resemble an array of a large number of cards dealt by computer.

Lol. This is so pointless. You are ignorant of almost every subject you try to discuss.

1,000!!!

There was no response to this.

So, stating this again, you want to say that (i) each of the 10 coins has a 50% chance of being a heads, (ii) the chance to draw from the 10 coins a coin that is a heads is indeterminable and (iii) the chance of a coin that is drawn from the 10 coins being heads is 50%?

That doesn’t just sound obviously stupid?