What's the difference between "probability" and "pattern" though? The "pattern" is that your "probability" of reward is twice as great if you change your initial choice than not. If one group opts to change and ther other group opts to stand pat, the first group has recognized that pattern while the 2nd group has not.
Honestly, as addressed by someone else before, the term " pattern" really needs to be defined more tightly for this discussion. I readily agree that my usage of the term in the preceeding paragraph does not comport with its definition as used in mathematics. If that is the definition being used for the term, however, then the discussion becomes far less interesting on the macro and micro level (at least to me).
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: allen-walker@sbcglobal.net
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 21:18:28 +0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest
Gee, Frank, did you think that the religion aspect would turn out to be the definition of randomness?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, David Silvus <djsilvus@...> wrote:
>
> And sometimes it refuses to see patterns based on preconceived assumptions.
> http://www.livescience.com/animals/pigeons-monty-hall-problem-100304.html
So, in the Monty Hall problem, can we perceive a pattern in the remaining two doors? When 1 and 2, more likely to be 1, when 2 and 3 more likely to be 2, etc.? I don't think the pigeons did - they learned to make a choice based on probability, not patterns, and I didn't see evidence that they then chose the correct door with any edge.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
>
>American Coin scandal, the machines would still be operating today.
American Coin involved gaffed machines - no randomness there.
>even coin flips are up to dispute:
>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1697475
Diaconis' work proved that if we flip a coin, with the same initial conditions, we can predict, nay, control, the outcome - similar to placing a coin in our palm and turning our palm over - the coin still "flipped" - with predictable results - until we lose muscular control. This is not randomness.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator
Do certain hardware (and pseudo) random number generators decay? Yes, pseudos will even repeat. Do they all? I don't know - counting neutrino arrival rates, e.g., may not. Even with decay, and absent of knowledge of initial conditions, I say such devices produce sequences that are random as far as we can tell. Do we think that we can track past output from such devices and discern a future pattern? I don't.
I think that's Frank's question - 3 reds in a row so now bet black (or red)?, trip 6s in a row so now hold a single 6?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
vpFREE-digest@yahoogroups.com
vpFREE-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
