That is not math. It is gibberish.

Of course its maths, Y is an axis and X is axis , both axis's contain variants, the variants of X remain a constant ratio. Y is made when X stops shuffling and Y is made by a variance of the population of X, represented by the variance symbol
σ².


The formula says Y is made of a variance of X


f is density function, f{y} is saying the density of set Y ,

σ²f{X} is saying the density of Y is made up of a variance of the population of the density of X


= is to express that Y is equal to/made by the X process

What is this? A choose-your-own-adventure book where every page says "You get trolled"?

Not in the slightest, maths and formula is created to fit a process and to express the process, e.g Newtons F=ma , a language that explains a process.

This Paradox has not been noticed , I have produced the maths for it that expresses the event.

You can simply try this formula on this

123
231
123

x=rows
y=columns

x shuffles and stops

hide the values if you like

nnn
nnn
nnn

Go to paragraph 399

*sigh*

A dragon eats you.

For those who does not know what a dragon looks like, here it is in full detail


https://theoristexplains.wordpress.c...this-is-wrong/

Lol! So you're not just trolling 2p2, you started a blog to troll the entire internet! And so far that entry got 3 likes from some stoned ass people. Respect, man.

Somebody said you was one of the top probability people on this forum, I ask you to argue the new maths, and if you can somehow magically make the new maths not to work, then I will back down. The maths is accurate and anyone with half a brain knows this.

A look at your thread history shows that all you do here is troll and make up gibberish math. In a couple threads you even put on a personna different from the one you present here. This thread should be just closed like all your others have been. Apparently you also have another identity that does the same stuff on this forum too.

Interesting, again an attempt at cover up, so be it, close this thread, I will go to the tabloids and national news. I come to you in good faith, hoping we could sort it out here rather than making a big stink about it.

About what, your probability theories?
Did you confuse this with one of your rigged poker threads?

Not at all, on line poker is impossible to rig. It is broken and I know how to fix it maybe.



f{y}=?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.....f{x}=1/52



Nobody knew about this.

The man can sarcasm too!

You can probably take this to the Daily Mail. Based on your work they'll make a piece titled something like, "Censored until now: peer-reviewed mathematical evidence exposes how academics know virtually nothing they think they do." Then in typical Daily Mail fashion, they'll vaguely cite your work but won't link to it, and will pray that nobody googles it.

Hard to know (except when it's Bruce in question), and also such rankings are useless. There are a lot of knowledgeable posters in this forum and SMP, most of whom probably (and some definitely) know more than me overall. I happen to have a knack for a subset of probability topics, and since they're primarily what I post about, I may sound sagely when discussing those particular things and people may falsely extrapolate that my expertise extends farther than it does.

What can I say, your math flies so far above my head that it's like a foreign language to me. Not only can't I understand it, I don't even recognize it as math. If it is math, and if there's truth to it, then you're a once-in-a-millenium brilliant visionary and we're witnessing a mathematical revolution right before our eyes and should be honored to be part of what will be long remembered as a historically significant thread!

After consideration I am considering I must be wrong, so many people have told me so. I am glad you have corrected by probability maths.


So to confirm what you have just learnt me and everybody else, can you confirm my understanding of what you have said please.

You have said that if I pick 52 cards, one from each of 52 decks, and the cards are face up so I can see the values, but in my new deck I only place one ace,

I then shuffle the new deck of 52 values, and the top card has a 4/52 chance of being an ace.?

is that correct?

This is an unexpected twist. Damn, so much for the math revolution.

Bolded was not the original question. In your OP the new deck consisted of a random card from each deck, and there could have been anywhere from 0 to 52 aces in the new deck. Now all of a sudden you're saying you know for a fact that there's only one ace in the deck. If you know there's only one ace then the answer is 1/52.

No. Don't be dumb.

Now I am really confused,'' In your OP the new deck consisted of a random card from each deck, and there could have been anywhere from 0 to 52 aces in the new deck. ''

But you said my chance of this was 4/52 now you are saying my chance is

0_52/52

not that dumb ...

Your chance is

(weighted average of 0_52) / 52

The weighted average is 4, as shown by my equation from many posts ago. So yes the answer to your original question is 4/52.

Weighted average , really? the weighted average is that there will be more or less than 4, 4 will never be an average mean of Y.

4/52 chance for and a 48/52 chance against the card being an ace, 1/52 chance to be a clone card.

Ok , so obviously you accept the first part and a range of aces from 0_52 spread out over a distance of Y.


Do you understand anything about time and continuous time?


I am now going to advance the problem.

"More or less" is not a number. There is a numeric average. You're welcome to dispute my number of 4, but if so, you at least have to provide a number and how you arrived at it. You can't just say, "anything but 4".

Do you even lift bro?

The whole point is there is no magical number, the amount is determined by randomness, that is why it is generally a random top card.

52 random's that change their randomness of amount every shuffle, cant have a value. It can only have a range

P[A]/Y=σ²[A]/Y=0_52/52

The chance of an Ace dived by distance Y equals a variance of aces dived by distance Y

I'll quote the only part of your post that's in any semblance of English. Of course it's random, that's why we have to take an average. When you roll two dice, the average sum is 7. It's not, "There's no magical number because the dice roll is random."

(1/52)/t is not equal to (0_52/52)/t'


Future events brought forward in time, is not the same game, clones and clusters causing offsets.


X(t')=continuous

Y(t')=σ²X(t')


the maths is very readable, roulette is not poker.

I take it you're retracting that comment.

Poker does not operate by different probability axioms than Roulette or Craps. The same math that works in dice works in poker.

Cheers and good luck with your blog. What you should do is make a youtube video blog and then maybe you'll end up on Tosh.0