IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags probability

Reply
Old 23rd February 2011, 08:49 PM   #121
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
It was whether or not you'd ever actually encounter a run of 100 heads or tails in a fair coin-flipping system, or a human one, on earth.
If was? Because that's not what you said, and it's not what everyone here is responding to.

The odds that you'd ever actually encounter a run of 100 heads or tails in a fair coin-flipping system are exactly the same as the odds of encountering any other unique string of 100 heads and tails. That's true by definition of "fair". That is what everyone is trying to explain to you.

Yes, those odds are very very tiny - but it's quite literally nonsense to assert they are zero, as has now be explained ad nauseum.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2011, 08:58 PM   #122
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
The issue was never whether a series of 100 values of "T" or "H" was impossible for any system you could imagine.

It was whether or not you'd ever actually encounter a run of 100 heads or tails in a fair coin-flipping system, or a human one, on earth.

Ah, you're right, I never meant that it was possible to throw 100 heads in a row on earth, I always thought you were talking about doing it on Mars.

On earth (where physics and probability may work differently from the rest of the universe..?), maybe it's not possible.

Huh??
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 23rd February 2011 at 09:01 PM.
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2011, 09:14 PM   #123
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
I'm talking about the physical system. After all, what other system is there? When we're talking about coin flips, we're necessarily talking about some physical system, whether it's a machine or my right hand.

If you want to say that any particular system has a particular results-space, and not some other, you're going to have to show why that is.

It's not enough to demonstrate what all the possible combinations are. You also have to demonstrate that the system will achieve them all.
Sure, and to do that you look at the actual properties of the system, our understanding of the physical laws of the universe, and deduce the implications of that.

So, for instance, in the case of coins, as sol pointed out there are no fair coins, but we can figure out the probabilities of coming up heads vs. tails. We can then deduce (from the fact that neither is impossible and that subsequent flips are in no way influenced by past flips) that all combinations are possible. If we use the abstraction of a fair coin, that's fine, and in that case we find that all combinations are equally probable.
It really is that simple, and it really is based on the actual physical system involved.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2011, 09:39 PM   #124
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Piggy's viewpoint here seems to me to be increadibly unscientific, from two perspectives.

The first, and most important, is the view that we can't know anything if we haven't done that specific experiment. It comes down to something like this: we've measured the speed of light to come out to approximately 3x108 m/s. There are some valid questions about whether or not that value has changed with time or is different in different parts of the universe. But Piggy's view is like asserting that we don't know that speed of light is on sunny wednesday afternoons when the temperature is exactly 10.005oC and the finance minister of Kenya has just given a live speech for French television, because we haven't done that experiment.

When asked how those things could possibly affect the speed of light he'll reply that he doesn't know, but you can't possibly know either.

Now, that may be true in a way, but I'm confident that if we do measure it in those circumstances it will come out to be the same as it was that last time we made the measurement. And if we refuse to make those sorts of assumptions, science becomes basically useless, because we can no longer put confidence in any conclusions. The point of science is to make useful predictions, but they are predictions about a universe that is different than it was at any time when previous experiments were made.

The second problem I have is that Piggy actually goes further than this: he accepts the abstraction of a fair coin, from which the conclusion that any possible combination is equally likely necessarily follows, and then goes on to suggest that the messiness of the world will make the coin not fair (not in so many words, but that's what his argument amounts to) but doesn't realise that he has just changed the scenario by doing so.

Either we can discuss fair coins (in which case what colour underwear Tom Cruise is wearing today doesn't affect the results of our coin tosses), or we can't. But it's silly to talk about fair coins and then suggest that there are outside forces that affect their results - if those outside forces exist the coin isn't fair.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2011, 09:41 PM   #125
69dodge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
The Diaconis machine remembers 100%.
I don't think that's right. The machine doesn't remember the results of previous flips and change future flips based on them. It has no mechanism by which to do that. Flips are independent. It's just that the machine can be set up so that, on each flip, the probability of getting heads is 100%.
69dodge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2011, 11:29 PM   #126
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
...a computerized switch that excludes runs of, say, over 25, but randomizes the results otherwise, and nobody in our world will be able to detect that it's not truly random.

Here's one way a fair random binary bit generator (equivalent to a fair coin flipper) that was rigged not to permit any runs longer than 25 might be detected, in the real world.

You own a chain of 10 casinos. Each casino has 500 one-dollar slot machines in it of a certain type, each of which gets 2000 plays per day. That type of machine pays (among the rest of its payout schedule) a jackpot of 5 million dollars, with the odds of winning the jackpot on a one-dollar bet set at 1 in 67.109 million.

The odds of generating 26 1's in a row (i.e. all "heads") from a fair random binary bit generator are 1 in 67.109 million, so the Gaming Control Board okays a machine design based on using one of those as a randomizer and scoring a jackpot win whenever 26 1's come out. They do not know that the particular circuit you use in the machines has been rigged to prevent any runs of more than 25 1's. After all, it's impossible (or so you think) to tell the difference.

And yet, after only two weeks, when no jackpot has been won despite 140 million plays, the authorities start to get suspicious. After four more weeks, they launch a full investigation. Shortly thereafter, you go to jail, unless you've already fled the country with the money.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote

Last edited by Myriad; 23rd February 2011 at 11:30 PM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2011, 11:34 PM   #127
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
True, but it doesn't stop it from being indistinguishable from randomness from the perspective of the people using it.

Set up a Diaconis device with a computerized switch that excludes runs of, say, over 25, but randomizes the results otherwise, and nobody in our world will be able to detect that it's not truly random.
Sure, but you seem to be suggesting that the we should assume the existence of such a switch when there is no known mechanism that could cause it and no evidence that it exists.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 01:37 AM   #128
MetalPig
Illuminator
 
MetalPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 22, Acacia Avenue
Posts: 3,356
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
It was whether or not you'd ever actually encounter a run of 100 heads or tails in a fair coin-flipping system, or a human one, on earth.
Unlikely. Only about 1 in 2^100 runs will show 100 heads, so divide the number of runs you 'encounter' by that number and you get an idea of the likelihood that you encounter a run of 100 heads.

Now perform 100 fair flips and note the sequence. That sequence had the exact same likelihood of appearing as 100 heads. Yet, it happened, so it can't be impossible.
__________________
Just drive.
MetalPig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 02:43 AM   #129
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,924
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
It was whether or not you'd ever actually encounter a run of 100 heads or tails in a fair coin-flipping system, or a human one, on earth.
I'm not understanding why you keep bringing up whether or not the "coin-flipping system" is "fair".

As Sol pointed out many posts ago, even if it was weighted 90% tails to 10% heads, a run of 100 heads would still be entirely possible.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 08:46 AM   #130
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
How on God's green earth should I know?
Here's the important point. You made a claim - that a run of 100 heads is not possible. You have no evidence to support that claim, since the only evidence that you haven't seen one also supports the null hypothesis. You also have now made it clear that you have no theory to suggest how it could possibly be the case. That's pretty much a textbook definition of blind faith.

Edit:
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
I'm not understanding why you keep bringing up whether or not the "coin-flipping system" is "fair".

As Sol pointed out many posts ago, even if it was weighted 90% tails to 10% heads, a run of 100 heads would still be entirely possible.
This is the point I was making with the monkeys as well. As long as there is a finite chance for any key to be pressed each time, you are guaranteed to eventually get the works of Shakespeare. It's exactly the same situation. As long as the scenario isn't artificially constrained, such as the biased generator above preventing runs of more than 25, changing the weightings only changes the exact probability, not the qualitative result.

Last edited by Cuddles; 24th February 2011 at 08:49 AM.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:10 PM   #131
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Originally Posted by Piggy
It was whether or not you'd ever actually encounter a run of 100 heads or tails in a fair coin-flipping system, or a human one, on earth.
It was? Because that's not what you said, and it's not what everyone here is responding to.
Well, the OP isn't mine, btw. And there's more than one train of conversation going on, as usual.

Originally, I was talking about whether you'd ever get a series of 100 heads or tails by flipping a coin (with your hand) here on Earth -- even assuming that the task of flipping might have to be handed on from person to person.

Then I got into a conversation with Ivor about the possibility of designing a fair coin-tossing system (which a human may or may not be) that could be fair and limit streaks.

And by that time there were other posters discussing other things.

Anyway, by now I've had to turn tail on the "can't get to 100" idea. That didn't pan out too well.

But there's still no way to know whether human coin-flipping actually is fair or actually does allow non-bounded runs. And I'm certain that it's possible to create a system which is indistinguishable by humans from a random system, but which excludes streaks beyond a finite boundary.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:11 PM   #132
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
Ah, you're right, I never meant that it was possible to throw 100 heads in a row on earth, I always thought you were talking about doing it on Mars.

On earth (where physics and probability may work differently from the rest of the universe..?), maybe it's not possible.

Huh??
Are you going to argue that coin-flipping on Earth and on Mars must be identical physical systems?
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:14 PM   #133
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
So, for instance, in the case of coins, as sol pointed out there are no fair coins, but we can figure out the probabilities of coming up heads vs. tails. We can then deduce (from the fact that neither is impossible and that subsequent flips are in no way influenced by past flips) that all combinations are possible.
You're talking about a human brain operating a human hand.

You have no grounds for stating that a given flip is uninfluenced by past flips.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:14 PM   #134
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Are you going to argue that coin-flipping on Earth and on Mars must be identical physical systems?

Of course not. The point is that the same probability and the same laws of physics apply on Mars as on Earth.

You can get 100 heads in a row on Mars, and you can on Earth as well.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:18 PM   #135
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
But there's still no way to know whether human coin-flipping actually is fair or actually does allow non-bounded runs.
Actually, there is:
Originally Posted by me
So, for instance, in the case of coins, as sol pointed out there are no fair coins, but we can figure out the probabilities of coming up heads vs. tails. We can then deduce (from the fact that neither is impossible and that subsequent flips are in no way influenced by past flips) that all combinations are possible.
Quote:
And I'm certain that it's possible to create a system which is indistinguishable by humans from a random system, but which excludes streaks beyond a finite boundary.
Sure, but we have no more reason to believe that human coin flippers are such a system than that the earth will suddenly pause in it's orbit tomorrow. You can invest in nails are rope if you like, but I'm taking my chances.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:28 PM   #136
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Illustronic View Post
It's also entirely possible to bowl a 300 game, though very much less likely than any other bowling score.
Not even 576.279?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:29 PM   #137
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Piggy's viewpoint here seems to me to be increadibly unscientific, from two perspectives.

The first, and most important, is the view that we can't know anything if we haven't done that specific experiment. It comes down to something like this: we've measured the speed of light to come out to approximately 3x108 m/s. There are some valid questions about whether or not that value has changed with time or is different in different parts of the universe. But Piggy's view is like asserting that we don't know that speed of light is on sunny wednesday afternoons when the temperature is exactly 10.005oC and the finance minister of Kenya has just given a live speech for French television, because we haven't done that experiment.
My understanding is that if you're dealing with the results space of a random system, it's literally impossible to know what it will be until the calculations are actually performed.

The speed of light in a vacuum isn't comparable, because it is a constant (as far as we know).

On the other hand, very different sorts of real-world values, such as the price of oil, do indeed depend on weather, politics, and media.

So if we're dealing with a brain controlling a hand, what sort of system are we looking at, precisely? What will its results space look like when it comes to coin-tossing? Is there anything in that system that will limit streaks, such as unconscious sabotage, for example? Is it truly random, or is there actually a very few number of states that don't vary perfectly randomly?

I don't believe answers to those questions are yet available.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
When asked how those things could possibly affect the speed of light he'll reply that he doesn't know, but you can't possibly know either.
I'd never suggest that for the speed of light in a vacuum, but for a brain and a hand, you bet.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Now, that may be true in a way, but I'm confident that if we do measure it in those circumstances it will come out to be the same as it was that last time we made the measurement.
What measurement? You've never made any measurements of people flipping coins that would allow us to draw conclusions about whether it actually does run through all possible combinations or not. Neither has anyone else.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
And if we refuse to make those sorts of assumptions, science becomes basically useless, because we can no longer put confidence in any conclusions. The point of science is to make useful predictions, but they are predictions about a universe that is different than it was at any time when previous experiments were made.
No, it's actually good science not to overgeneralize or overstate.

Look at the decelerating universe or the ever-expanding black hole.

We don't know enough about people flipping coins to say if it's true that all mathematically describable combinations will actually be demonstrated, given enough time.

Why is that so difficult to accept?

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
The second problem I have is that Piggy actually goes further than this: he accepts the abstraction of a fair coin, from which the conclusion that any possible combination is equally likely necessarily follows, and then goes on to suggest that the messiness of the world will make the coin not fair (not in so many words, but that's what his argument amounts to) but doesn't realise that he has just changed the scenario by doing so.

Either we can discuss fair coins (in which case what colour underwear Tom Cruise is wearing today doesn't affect the results of our coin tosses), or we can't. But it's silly to talk about fair coins and then suggest that there are outside forces that affect their results - if those outside forces exist the coin isn't fair.
Actually, this was the point I concede to Ivor. You can't have a fair coin that limits streaks. The two are incompatible by definition.

But you can certainly have a coin that is "locally fair" in that its behavior is literally indistinguishable from the behavior of a fair coin by the people using it, even though it limits streaks.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:31 PM   #138
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by 69dodge View Post
I don't think that's right. The machine doesn't remember the results of previous flips and change future flips based on them. It has no mechanism by which to do that. Flips are independent. It's just that the machine can be set up so that, on each flip, the probability of getting heads is 100%.
The machine has a perfect memory, because its construction gives it one. Feed coins into it in the same configuration -- heads or tails up -- as long as you like, you'll see how well the Diaconis machine remembers.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:34 PM   #139
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Here's one way a fair random binary bit generator (equivalent to a fair coin flipper) that was rigged not to permit any runs longer than 25 might be detected, in the real world.

You own a chain of 10 casinos. Each casino has 500 one-dollar slot machines in it of a certain type, each of which gets 2000 plays per day. That type of machine pays (among the rest of its payout schedule) a jackpot of 5 million dollars, with the odds of winning the jackpot on a one-dollar bet set at 1 in 67.109 million.

The odds of generating 26 1's in a row (i.e. all "heads") from a fair random binary bit generator are 1 in 67.109 million, so the Gaming Control Board okays a machine design based on using one of those as a randomizer and scoring a jackpot win whenever 26 1's come out. They do not know that the particular circuit you use in the machines has been rigged to prevent any runs of more than 25 1's. After all, it's impossible (or so you think) to tell the difference.

And yet, after only two weeks, when no jackpot has been won despite 140 million plays, the authorities start to get suspicious. After four more weeks, they launch a full investigation. Shortly thereafter, you go to jail, unless you've already fled the country with the money.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Oh, no doubt. Which means that the machine was badly rigged.

But that doesn't change the fact that no human being is going to get suspicious in any real-world coin-flipping situation, when 25 consecutive heads or tails fails to come up.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:35 PM   #140
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
Is a sequence of 100 heads in a row literally impossible to get without cheating?

This was discussed in another thread but a mutual decision has been made to start a new thread about it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=200394

My position is that it is entirely possible to get that sequence without cheating.

Each flip is approximately 50/50, regardless of what came before. All heads is as likely as any other single sequence.
My position is that it is imposible to deal out a randomized deck of cards because 1 chance in 8.06581751709439E+67. Clearly impossible.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:35 PM   #141
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
So if we're dealing with a brain controlling a hand, what sort of system are we looking at, precisely? What will its results space look like when it comes to coin-tossing? Is there anything in that system that will limit streaks, such as unconscious sabotage, for example? Is it truly random, or is there actually a very few number of states that don't vary perfectly randomly?

I don't believe answers to those questions are yet available.
There are a few problems here: one is that to limit streaks requires a memory: now certainly a human brain has a memory, but in order to be effective it has to actually be able to affect the outcome of the toss. So the human brain has to have a tendency to get the hand to flip the coin in a way that it will come up tails when there are too many heads in a row. I can't control a coin toss when I want to. You are suggesting that people just naturally do this unconsciously.
Furthermore, they have to be able to do so flawlessly. If their control is less than 100% there will still be a chance of getting heads, and that means that while it's less likely because of this mechanism, it's still possible, and will happen with enough iterations.


Quote:
What measurement? You've never made any measurements of people flipping coins that would allow us to draw conclusions about whether it actually does run through all possible combinations or not. Neither has anyone else.
Actually, I have, I just haven't done the specific measurement you're referring to. But I've done measurements that show that it is a random process, which is enough.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:40 PM   #142
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Sure, but you seem to be suggesting that the we should assume the existence of such a switch when there is no known mechanism that could cause it and no evidence that it exists.
Oh, no. I've already said, the results-space appears to be infinite.

So I can't say that 100 heads would never come up.

But by the same token, I can't assert that they're possible, because I don't know whether or not there's something in the system that could limit them.

It's possible, for instance, that any given human's arms and hands will exhibit only a small number of actual configurations when flipping coins, so the pool of results is much smaller than we might think. And it's possible that the person's understanding of the previous results might somehow influence which one of those configurations will be executed.

I'm not saying that this actually occurs. All I'm saying is that I don't know enough information about the system to conclude that it will in fact run through every mathematically possible combination of states.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:43 PM   #143
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by MetalPig View Post
Now perform 100 fair flips and note the sequence. That sequence had the exact same likelihood of appearing as 100 heads. Yet, it happened, so it can't be impossible.
You don't know enough about the system to say that.

You don't know that it will actually, in practice, produce an equal distribution of patterns over very large sequences.

Or if you do, you should at least explain why.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:45 PM   #144
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
I'm not understanding why you keep bringing up whether or not the "coin-flipping system" is "fair".
Because it makes a difference in what you're talking about.

If you assume a truly fair coin-flipping system, which is what Ivor asked about, that's one thing. If you're talking about real human beings flipping real coins, that's not necessarily the same thing.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:48 PM   #145
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
This is the point I was making with the monkeys as well. As long as there is a finite chance for any key to be pressed each time, you are guaranteed to eventually get the works of Shakespeare.
No, you're not guaranteed that at all.

Because the question is actually one of predictability.

It may be impossible to predict, by looking at one keypress, which key will be pressed next, but still to be looking at a system which will never produce a single work of Shakespeare.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:53 PM   #146
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
Of course not. The point is that the same probability and the same laws of physics apply on Mars as on Earth.

You can get 100 heads in a row on Mars, and you can on Earth as well.
The same laws of physics apply, but the set-up is not identical.

I don't think that the difference will affect coin-tossing, but it can certainly affect other systems we might want to measure, and I can't absolutely swear that it won't affect the results you get from people flipping coins.

It would certainly be possible to rig a 2-state Diaconis machine to produce results that are indistinguishable from random by humans, while limiting the absolute length of streaks.

And unless you claim to know all the relevant influences in a system comprised of a human and a coin, you simply cannot assert that the results-space of this system will include all mathematically describable combinations.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 06:55 PM   #147
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Sure, but we have no more reason to believe that human coin flippers are such a system than that the earth will suddenly pause in it's orbit tomorrow. You can invest in nails are rope if you like, but I'm taking my chances.
Equally, we have no more reason to believe that human coin flippers aren't such a system than that the earth will suddenly pause in its orbit tomorrow.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 07:02 PM   #148
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
There are a few problems here: one is that to limit streaks requires a memory: now certainly a human brain has a memory, but in order to be effective it has to actually be able to affect the outcome of the toss. So the human brain has to have a tendency to get the hand to flip the coin in a way that it will come up tails when there are too many heads in a row. I can't control a coin toss when I want to. You are suggesting that people just naturally do this unconsciously.
Let's keep some perspective here.

I conceded that my notions about streaks of 100 not being possible were indefensible. Not because I thought a streak of 100 likely, but because I had to concede that I can't find any absolute barrier to it.

By the same token, if you really do want to assert that streaks of 100 actually are possible in a particular system then you have to demonstrate why this is so.

I cannot say that streaks of 100 are impossible, but I also cannot say that they must be possible, given any particular system of flipping coins.

I cannot claim to know that human coin-flipping is in fact unbiased -- no matter how unlikely that might turn out to be, short of zero -- for the same reason that I cannot claim to know that a streak of 100 is impossible.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 07:04 PM   #149
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Actually, I have, I just haven't done the specific measurement you're referring to. But I've done measurements that show that it is a random process, which is enough.
Are you saying that there's a point at which you can determine that the process is actually random, and doesn't just appear to be random given the sample size?

If so, then I'd love to know where that point is.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 07:28 PM   #150
69dodge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
The machine has a perfect memory, because its construction gives it one. Feed coins into it in the same configuration -- heads or tails up -- as long as you like, you'll see how well the Diaconis machine remembers.
You can set the machine up so that whichever way the coin is facing before it gets flipped, it will face the same way after it gets flipped. So set up, the machine, in a sense, remembers which way you put the coin in. But it doesn't remember the results of previous flips. Those results have no effect on the current flip. If the current flip results in heads, that's because you put the coin in heads up this time; it has nothing to do with what happened last time. That's what I meant.
69dodge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 07:36 PM   #151
69dodge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
I cannot claim to know that human coin-flipping is in fact unbiased ...
It's easy to believe that it might be slightly biased---e.g., perhaps the probability of heads is 53% instead of 50%---but it's very hard to believe, at least for me it is, that after getting 99 heads in row, the next flip is absolutely certain to come up tails. I mean, there's nothing special about that particular flip. Presumably, whoever's flipping the coin flips it more or less the same every time. If all the other times, the probability is roughly 50:50, why not this time too?
69dodge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 07:40 PM   #152
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by 69dodge View Post
You can set the machine up so that whichever way the coin is facing before it gets flipped, it will face the same way after it gets flipped. So set up, the machine, in a sense, remembers which way you put the coin in. But it doesn't remember the results of previous flips. Those results have no effect on the current flip. If the current flip results in heads, that's because you put the coin in heads up this time; it has nothing to do with what happened last time. That's what I meant.
Yeah, I know, but in practice it amounts to the same thing.

The Diaconis machine has a memory in practice.

As an origami expert once pointed out, folding a piece of paper changes its memory... and physics takes care of all the rest.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 07:46 PM   #153
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by 69dodge View Post
It's easy to believe that it might be slightly biased---e.g., perhaps the probability of heads is 53% instead of 50%---but it's very hard to believe, at least for me it is, that after getting 99 heads in row, the next flip is absolutely certain to come up tails. I mean, there's nothing special about that particular flip. Presumably, whoever's flipping the coin flips it more or less the same every time. If all the other times, the probability is roughly 50:50, why not this time too?
Is it any more difficult to believe that a brain-hand system might actually limit streaks than it is to believe that 100 consecutive heads might actually turn up?

In other words, if we're talking about what can't be proven impossible, then certainly 100 consecutive heads shares the same greenroom with a streak-limiting human brain-body.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 07:49 PM   #154
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Let's keep some perspective here.

I conceded that my notions about streaks of 100 not being possible were indefensible. Not because I thought a streak of 100 likely, but because I had to concede that I can't find any absolute barrier to it.
Cool.

Quote:
By the same token, if you really do want to assert that streaks of 100 actually are possible in a particular system then you have to demonstrate why this is so.
Which has been done over and over again in this thread. It really is simple Piggy: as long as there is some non-zero chance that each flip will come up heads, then a streak of all heads is possible.

So, for a streak (however long) to be impossible, at some point it has to be impossible for a particular flip to result in heads. That is counter to the reality of the system: it is never impossible for a human coin flipper to flip a coin and get heads. If you don't disagree with that then the issue seems closed.

Quote:
I cannot claim to know that human coin-flipping is in fact unbiased -- no matter how unlikely that might turn out to be, short of zero -- for the same reason that I cannot claim to know that a streak of 100 is impossible.
There is a very big difference between biased and deterministic: I'm happy to accept the (rather far off) possibility that as streaks get longer people unconciously start affecting the flips in such a way that continuing the streak becomes less likely than predicted. That's very very different from saying that it becomes impossible. As I said, that requires 100% control of the flipping.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

Last edited by Roboramma; 24th February 2011 at 07:51 PM.
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 07:56 PM   #155
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Equally, we have no more reason to believe that human coin flippers aren't such a system than that the earth will suddenly pause in its orbit tomorrow.
Actually we do, because we know what the components of the system are. The only component of that system that has a memory is the human brain. And we also know that it is not capable of unconscious and perfect control of the flipping. So, even if we make the somewhat odd and un-evidenced assumption that humans tend to unconsciously affect their coin flipping in such a way as to limit streaks, they are still incapable of doing so perfectly, and thus all streaks are still possible.

Furthermore, if this is your argument it seems that you concede that if, for instance, the human flipper were unaware of the outcome of the coin tosses (and thus any possible memory were taken out of the system) that all sequences would be possible, correct?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 07:57 PM   #156
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Is it any more difficult to believe that a brain-hand system might actually limit streaks than it is to believe that 100 consecutive heads might actually turn up?

In other words, if we're talking about what can't be proven impossible, then certainly 100 consecutive heads shares the same greenroom with a streak-limiting human brain-body.
No, because one is a conclusion based upon what we actually know about the world and the system in question, and another is just something dreamed up.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 09:13 PM   #157
69dodge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Is it any more difficult to believe that a brain-hand system might actually limit streaks than it is to believe that 100 consecutive heads might actually turn up?
It's not at all hard for me to believe that the chances of getting 100 heads in a row are about 1 in 2100. In fact, that's exactly what I believe. 1 / 2100 is very small, to be sure, but it's not zero.

It's much harder for me to believe that the chances are precisely zero, because that would imply that the 100th flip is qualitatively different from the first 99: each of the first 99 might come up heads or tails, but if they all happen to come up heads, then somehow the 100th flip inexplicably must come up tails. What could possibly be special about that particular flip, compared to all the others that have ever taken place in the history of the world, which makes it certain to come up tails?
69dodge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 11:00 PM   #158
MetalPig
Illuminator
 
MetalPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 22, Acacia Avenue
Posts: 3,356
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
You don't know enough about the system to say that.

You don't know that it will actually, in practice, produce an equal distribution of patterns over very large sequences.

Or if you do, you should at least explain why.
I thought I covered that by mentioning *fair* flips.
What I mean by that is flips where heads and tails both have a 0.5 chance of occurring.
__________________
Just drive.
MetalPig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 12:11 AM   #159
brainmeat
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 26
It's been mentioned a few times, and I am baffled that the thread didn't stop dead...non-zero probability means possible. Why would not having perfect knowledge of a particular system mean anything, unless it somehow affected the probability of a given set of outcomes?

Is a given sequence possible? What's the probability of that? Oh, it's a real number between 0 and 1 that happens to not be zero? Then it is possible.
brainmeat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 01:19 AM   #160
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,924
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
I'm not understanding why you keep bringing up whether or not the "coin-flipping system" is "fair".

Because it makes a difference in what you're talking about.

If you assume a truly fair coin-flipping system, which is what Ivor asked about, that's one thing. If you're talking about real human beings flipping real coins, that's not necessarily the same thing.
Why did you remove the second half of that quote and then type something that is contrary to the removed part:

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
I'm not understanding why you keep bringing up whether or not the "coin-flipping system" is "fair".

As Sol pointed out many posts ago, even if it was weighted 90% tails to 10% heads, a run of 100 heads would still be entirely possible.
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
It's possible, for instance, that any given human's arms and hands will exhibit only a small number of actual configurations when flipping coins, so the pool of results is much smaller than we might think. And it's possible that the person's understanding of the previous results might somehow influence which one of those configurations will be executed.
So even if your "human brain/arm/hand" idea reduced the chance of heads to 1%, any run of heads would still be possible.

The only way your theory would work is if somehow the "human brain/arm/hand" idea reduced the heads possibility for a particular flip to zero.

Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Anyway, by now I've had to turn tail on the "can't get to 100" idea. That didn't pan out too well.
Good.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.