snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote in news:be6a5ep2maksppgqit4bjmovq4ibk8qn02@
4ax.com:
Yeah... all you need is a cheap chromebook to troll Usenet with.
Whereas I actually perform work on my machines.
Only an idiot unable to reply correctly cries about bragging. And you are the only 'stupid computer' on this bus, child.
Only an idiot thinks all other men are as concerned with their penis as they are.
Sorry, punk. You couldn't be farther off the mark.
Now you lie, AlwaysWrong. _Every_ time you're pinned down you evade the issue with weasel words (not that we don't expect anything more from you).
No one "needs" any more if one were to "troll Usenet", AlwaysWrong but any moron could tell that I'm not using a chromebook. Since you can't...
I can see that you're as hard as you can, here, AlwaysWrong.
You really are a fool, AlwaysWrong.
...and you trip over your own tongue. Again.
But you can't come up with the number.
No, AlwaysWrong, you're the master of stupid.
You really should try it, Nymbecile.
There's always a metastable state between two logic states.
In this case the width of the metastable state depends on the hardness and roughness of the floor and the sharpness of the coin edge.
that's not right
that formula is wrong:
try P(1,2) with p=0.5
the answer should be 0.5
I think you want (p^k)*q^(n-k) * n! / (n-k)! / k!
John S wrote in news:q35335$ouv$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
You are the clueless one. Because A: That is NOT "the formula", due to
B: You are NOT getting all the factors involved at each moment throughout the 100 toss session.
It does not have to be with coins. Use math rules, idiot.
Two outcomes, and a random generation of the 'chosen' outcome.
The probability of the computer having 100 like outcomes in a row.
Even with a very weak random number generation schema, the odds are absolutely astronomical.
Having a 100 like result set within a trillion 'tosses' is astronomical.
It really is that simple. No factor of "coin balance", 'edge deformation''perfect toss machine'... NONE of that changes ANYTHING.
Jasen Betts wrote in news:q35ui3$62p$ snipped-for-privacy@gonzo.alcatraz:
No, there is NOT. What do you think 'radiation hardening' is for?
NO... It DOES NOT!
You have seriously overthunk it. They should give you a real- ality TV show. You and Hulk Hogan's son... NOT!
Ever throw a nickel onto the ground and make it bounce right back up to your hand over four feet away? They bounce very nicely when thrown in a very precise perpendicular fashion. Slightly off and no upward bounce.
So even with a nice and squared off nickel, you would still fail to prove your lame assertion. And no coin design 'bulge' or imbalance of bulges from the front side to the back side matter either. WAKE UP. They are the extreme of insignificance in this situation! NOT a factor! EVER!
Your record is still perfect, AlwaysWrong.
Still is and likely will remain perfect as long as you're on the planet. Idiot.
Robert Baer wrote in news:_KQ5E.74842 $ snipped-for-privacy@fx28.iad:
No, they do not. They BOUNCE straight. That is about it. Landing on and staying on the edge? VERY low likelyhood. Likely less than one in a million. Likely orders of magnitude less than that even.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required