probability of coin toss

Nope. He came by the name honestly. He's also known as Nymbecile and DimBulb, for good reason.

Please demonstrate.

Any coin toss acceptable to common coin tossers would have such chaotic res ults as to be truly random by any reasonable measure of randomness. Such a coin toss is typically done by flipping it from your fist using your thumb. Half flip? I don't think you could even manage that.

If you want to toss the coin two inches by dropping it, then maybe you coul d find some correlation. But you just like saying silly pointless things l ike this, don't you?

Rick C.

• Get 6 months of free supercharging + Tesla referral code -
  formatting link

The only problem is this time you are the one who is wrong with your statement about coin tosses. Then you try to weasel out of it by defining a "coin toss" to be dropping it flat.

You are not only silly, your need to insult people with silly names is pretty lame.

Rick C.

-- Get 6 months of free supercharging -- Tesla referral code -

I suspect it is much smaller than that perhaps a few ppm at most so you might have to throw the coin something like 10^9 times to get the random noise statistics comparable with the systematic bias.

The one thing that is repeatable is the coin being used and the exact position of the centre of gravity within the coin.

There will be a tiny intrinsic bias for either heads or tails depending on exactly where the centre of gravity of the coin sits in relation to the two sides. The bias is likely to be in the ppm range but it will be present. You would have to throw very many times to obtain sufficient statistics to detect it. So many times that edge wear possibly would be an issue and slowly alter the behaviour.

Put simply it is energetically favourable for the coin to fall down with its centre of gravity at the lowest possible point. If there are borderline cases then more of them will find the configuration with the lowest potential energy. It doesn't matter how many times it bounces.

To see it writ large make a model coin out of 1mm thick aluminium on one side and 1mm thick lead sheet on the other glued together. That will provide enough gravity bias for which side falls face down most often (lead).

Bias in cheap dice are more common than people imagine with the simplest drilled dice having a measurable bias in favour of 6 over 1. I have already pointed to the Wolf's dice experiment in the late 1800's. The worst samples of casino dice back then had a mean of nearly 3.6 rather than the 3.5 you would expect in a fair dice (and they were the best).

Did he say the effect would be measurable? I am only suggesting a conceivable way that it could happen, not that I think it would be big enough to measure, with any effect swamped by other influences and noise.

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

You are full of shit. You never 'named' me anything.

I never named you anything. I did, however, properly describe you as being totally retarded.

Fuck you and your immature dipshits.

snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote in news:hpbi4el1g7i66g54v5fkp5uo7hq5epmdhg@

outcome?

time.

coin.

balanced,

in

way

be

here.

previous

same

over.

have

as I

horseshit. pure horseshit.

I would expect it to be much smaller even than that. But randomness is har d to prove or disprove. Each and every sequence is unique and equal probab ility. There are many more sequences near 50-50 than far from it. However , a number near, but not 50-50 is almost as likely as an exact 50-50 which would appear to show bias. Break your quantity down into a series of tosse s and see which ones have a preference for heads vs. tails and you will see the same effect at that level. Zero bias (to whatever accuracy you requir e) is hard to prove without a LOT of data. I don't think 10^9 coin tosses would even approach what is needed, possibly 10^12.

Hmmm... "repeatable" refers to the variables. So, yeah, I think the size a nd shape of the coin is not a variable. But 1 ppm... maybe.

Let's not forget the shape of the table. Every time the coin hits the surf ace is deformed in a new way. 1 ppm is pretty small.

Larkin is not talking about the coin. He is talking about the coin tosser showing skill in making it land the way he wants. I guess at the 1 ppm lev el that "skill" could include picking the coin.

Yep, it's hard to create something perfectly random. Good thing that's not the issue.

Rick C.

-+ Get 6 months of free supercharging -+ Tesla referral code -

My mom did that. I was born in a 1936 Ford on the way to Touro hospital, on the streetcar tracks at the intersection of St Charles Avenue and Napoleon. There was one faction that wanted to call me Charles Napoleon Larkin, but they couldn't mess with Mom.

What's your name?

Maybe "small way." I was estimating tenths of a per cent.

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

DecadentL>

Charles

Fuck you, John. You don't get to talk out of one side of your face one moment and then jack off at the mouth out of the other side of your face like you never did it. FOAD, putz.

You're not very good at this game. Some people aren't. Are you equally foul and angry in real life?

You could start using your real name, be friendly and helpful, do a reset, maybe make some friends.

Think about it.

invert every other result to remove bias?

Hmm you'd get 50:50 but there would still be some 'non' randomness in the number string. (Imagine the weighting was such that the outcome was 90:10 before the inversion.)

George H.

the

irst

eally

ie:

ways

The article states:

"The mathematics show that the contents of that window will hold "HHHT" mor e often than "HHHH" ("H" and "T" stands for for heads and tails)."

The statement is either true or false. It is easy enough to demonstrate one way or the other. I don't see anyone doing it, preferring to blab about im perfect coins and other irrelevant blather. Hint: It's rather simple and doesn't involve much math.

Wrong.

AlwaysWrong.

Almost 100%. Every time (except when I dropped the coin or otherwise fumbled the catch). I have no idea why it worked.

You just proved him right, once again, AlwaysWrong.

You just proved him right, once again, AlwaysWrong.

You just proved him right, once again, AlwaysWrong.

Your perfect record is still intact.

I can catch a boomerang with one hand by just reaching up and grabbing it. That is something that people are capable of, timing a catch to short millisecond precision.

Flipping a coin in any way that would actually be considered a coin flip is not something a person is capable of doing so as to impact the resulting heads or tails. The landing is far too chaotic.

Rick C.