Can Any One Really Control The Dice?
Quote: odiousgambitQuote: RSNow, let's say there were 10,000 wheel spins, and of those spins, X hits 450 times. Okay, now you may have something to work with.
even 10,000 spins is not enough data to be sure of much - unless the wheel is so biased it stops in the same zone half the time.
It's both sample size and results -- or rather, how far the results are from expectation. Landing a coin on heads 7/10 isn't abnormal. Landing a coin on heads 70/100 is abnormal.
The thing with craps though, is it's not that obvious. Since the "DI" is only changing (or trying/thinking to change) his results by a tiny chance, the required sampling is much larger. Imagine if he flipped a coin 100 times and 52 times it landed on heads. Definitely no "proof" of coin-influence. But if he can do 5,200 heads out of 10,000 flips, now you're onto something!
Quote: odiousgambitthat's why I am slow to accept that someone has 'seen DI' based on how well someone rolled when they saw them play.
Agreed.
Very short sessions only ;-)
Quote: TwoFeathersATLTelekinesis is the path you should choose to influence the dice........
Casinos mastered that long ago: they "get in your head" and "influence" you to give them your money.
I 'was' talking about beating them at their 'own game' wasn't I? ;-)Quote: MrVCasinos mastered that long ago: they "get in your head" and "influence" you to give them your money.
Quote: AxelWolfI had friends that were more enthusiastic and moved forward. Eventually they were up 10's of thousands(with actual verification). Meanwhile they were getting chased out of casinos. Luckily they quit while they were ahead, partly due to the slow motion videos.
Why were they chased out of casinos?
In the end, did they look at the slo-mo videos and realize "it's impossible!" and quit craps cold turkey, "up 10's of thousands?"
Sounds like they had a long lucky streak and quit while they were ahead.
As for Alan and his belief in the Three Magi, I mean the three DI: just shows the fallacy of prioritizing the anecdotal over the empirical: three guys had a soft toss and a bit of luck.
You didn't read the paper. Dice rolls are chaotic, which means they are sensitively dependent to initial conditions. That means that for all but a very small set of controlled criteria -- such as dropping the dice from a height of two inches -- the dice will *not* bounce and roll from a given impact point the same way each and every time.Quote: AlanMendelsonPredictable for what I am saying is simply this:
A machine throws two dice that are set in a particular combination so that the dice travel to a predetermined point on a table with a predetermined angle, velocity, rotation. Given all other variables being unchanged, those two dice will bounce and roll from that point the same way each and every time.
A machine can do that.
Specifically, I do not believe it is possible to construct a dice throwing robot that will be effective under circumstances equivalent to a casino table. If a robotic arm is mounted at the far end of the proposition box on a craps table, tosses the dice the required four or five feet, and the dice bounce off the back wall enough to make the house allow the roll 100% of the time, I do not believe that machine will lead to predictably altered results. If a machine can't do that, neither can a person. That's the machine that should get built if someone's going to.
I know what a person *can* do because I've seen it with my own eyes. A person can reliably implement a slide or a whip shot. Neither are consistently allowable in casinos, which is why you need to "get away with it" if you're going to try. That's not an interesting inquiry. What I'm interested in is whether someone can develop a shot that meets actual casino requirements for an allowable roll yet also leads to predictably altered results. You've told stories in the past of people throwing the dice gently so they barely came to rest against the back wall. You also said they got no-rolled a lot by the dealers, so that's not an interesting technique given the goal. I don't care about whether someone can alter the dice probabilities under non-realistic conditions like "throwing them two inches" or "throwing them onto sand" or "throwing them without bouncing off the back wall". I want to know whether someone can reliably and consistently alter the dice probabilities under casino-realistic conditions.
One toss isn't enough to change an outcome, but some number of tosses rounds the edges. At what point of wear would those dice be changed out for new?
Without engaging in a different bias controversy, different dice of the "same size" can weigh differently, I believe I have seen up to 4 grams.
Same argument for the felt, if the dice continue landing in the same spot, soon it will wear differently from new.
Quote: MrV
As for Alan and his belief in the Three Magi, I mean the three DI: just shows the fallacy of prioritizing the anecdotal over the empirical: three guys had a soft toss and a bit of luck.
And what's wrong with a soft toss and a bit of luck?
These three guys were not stating before each roll of the dice which number they would hit. All they were doing was rolling the dice trying to avoid a 7. And that's what they did.
That's all we can expect for right way shooters using DI. No one claims to be able to hit numbers on command. But it seems that those of you who say DI is impossible need hitting numbers on command to prove DI is real.
So let me remind you: hitting numbers on command is not needed to show influence. I don't know anyone who either teaches DI or wrote about DI who claims they can hit numbers on command. I know players who have hit particular numbers when they wanted them but that was icing on the cake -- and I know random shooters who have hit numbers while praying for it as in "give me a hard 8."
Quote: petroglyphEven the robot will need very similar dice. After the first toss the dice are never the same. Each toss wears off a tiny amount of acetate.
One toss isn't enough to change an outcome, but some number of tosses rounds the edges. At what point of wear would those dice be changed out for new?
Without engaging in a different bias controversy, different dice of the "same size" can weigh differently, I believe I have seen up to 4 grams.
Same argument for the felt, if the dice continue landing in the same spot, soon it will wear differently from new.
As I wrote previously... if all other variables were controlled and the same... the robot's identical toss would lead to identical results. It's physics.
Quote: MathExtremistYou didn't read the paper. Dice rolls are chaotic, which means they are sensitively dependent to initial conditions.
You're right, I didn't read the paper. Were the conditions controlled and identical for each roll? Was there a robot throwing the dice with each throw controlled and identical?
Quote: AlanMendelsonAnd what's wrong with a soft toss and a bit of luck?
These three guys were not stating before each roll of the dice which number they would hit. All they were doing was rolling the dice trying to avoid a 7. And that's what they did.
That's all we can expect for right way shooters using DI. No one claims to be able to hit numbers on command. But it seems that those of you who say DI is impossible need hitting numbers on command to prove DI is real.
So let me remind you: hitting numbers on command is not needed to show influence. I don't know anyone who either teaches DI or wrote about DI who claims they can hit numbers on command. I know players who have hit particular numbers when they wanted them but that was icing on the cake -- and I know random shooters who have hit numbers while praying for it as in "give me a hard 8."
I don't remember anyone (recently) asking for a "DI" to call out what number their going to hit. Nice strawman.
Quote: RSeventually you're gonna see someone who's doing a controlled throw with a soft landing and good back-spin etc. shoot for a long time. And yeah, sometimes they're going to be on fire all night long. Kind of like that one lady who had the dice for a long time in AC (what was it, like 180 rolls over 4+ hours?). But, none of this means they were actually DI's.
You are going to have to tell me how you would define "dice influencing."
If a controlled throw with a soft landing, etc., is not DI what is?
Our friend Ahigh didn't have a controlled throw -- his dice bounced all over the place.
The videos I've seen on youtube don't show controlled throws.
Someone here frequently posts two dozen or more youtube links with throws -- they're not controlled throws.
I'm guessing you never saw a controlled throw, or a shooter who could throw many controlled throw in succession. That's why I've only seen 3 shooters who I would describe as true DIs.
Quote: RSI don't remember anyone (recently) asking for a "DI" to call out what number their going to hit. Nice strawman.
Exactly. DIs don't call out what numbers theyre going to hit because they don't know what numbers they are going to hit.
Strawman?
"they're" not "their"
Quote: AlanMendelsonYou are going to have to tell me how you would define "dice influencing."
If a controlled throw with a soft landing, etc., is not DI what is?
Our friend Ahigh didn't have a controlled throw -- his dice bounced all over the place.
The videos I've seen on youtube don't show controlled throws.
Someone here frequently posts two dozen or more youtube links with throws -- they're not controlled throws.
I'm guessing you never saw a controlled throw, or a shooter who could throw many controlled throw in succession. That's why I've only seen 3 shooters who I would describe as true DIs.
Controlled throw as in it travels through the air in a similar fashion, or perhaps a better word than "controlled" would be "similar" or "practiced"....every throw looks relatively the same [while dice are in the air].
Quote: AlanMendelsonYou are going to have to tell me how you would define "dice influencing."
If a controlled throw with a soft landing, etc., is not DI what is?
Our friend Ahigh didn't have a controlled throw -- his dice bounced all over the place.
The videos I've seen on youtube don't show controlled throws.
Someone here frequently posts two dozen or more youtube links with throws -- they're not controlled throws.
I'm guessing you never saw a controlled throw, or a shooter who could throw many controlled throw in succession. That's why I've only seen 3 shooters who I would describe as true DIs.
Quote: AlanMendelsonExactly. DIs don't call out what numbers theyre going to hit because they don't know what numbers they are going to hit.
Strawman?
"they're" not "their"
And you're trying to make an argument over this -- saying us non-DI-believers think DI's call out or know what number they're going to hit. That's a strawman argument.
Sorry, didn't know this was a spelling or grammar class.
*throws not throw [bolded above]
*whom not who [also bolded]
*they're not theyre [bolded]
*nor not or [bolded...although 'or' is acceptable, nor is more proper]
*have never seen, not never saw [bolded...is more proper]
*which not what [bolded]
Look, I can play grammar Nazi too!
Because back then casinos were foolish enough to believe DI was a real thing.Quote: MrVWhy were they chased out of casinos?
In the end, did they look at the slo-mo videos and realize "it's impossible!" and quit craps cold turkey, "up 10's of thousands?"
Sounds like they had a long lucky streak and quit while they were ahead.
As for Alan and his belief in the Three Magi, I mean the three DI: just shows the fallacy of prioritizing the anecdotal over the empirical: three guys had a soft toss and a bit of luck.
I was slightly mistaken: per the strict definition, dice rolls aren't mathematically chaotic, they're deterministic -- but they're not predictable unless you can control the initial conditions with sufficient accuracy. Read the paper. Here's the abstract:Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: MathExtremistYou didn't read the paper. Dice rolls are chaotic, which means they are sensitively dependent to initial conditions.
You're right, I didn't read the paper. Were the conditions controlled and identical for each roll? Was there a robot throwing the dice with each throw controlled and identical?
Quote:Knowing the initial condition with a finite accuracy ϵ, the viscosity of the air, the value of the acceleration due to the gravity at the place of experiment, and the friction and elasticity factors of the table one should thus be able to predict the outcome. In real experiment, the predictability is possible only for very small ϵ, i.e., an accuracy which in practice is extremely difficult to implement and that is why the coin toss, die throw, and roulette run can be considered as a random process.
The experiments they ran, both physical and numerical, demonstrated that throwing a frictionless die a few inches on a flat, hard surface with no walls could be predictable. Figure 4(a) shows the slow-motion photo series taken when they dropped the die down a ramp from a few inches onto a mirror, and Figure 5(b) shows a graphical model of a die basically tumbling forward about a foot in a blanket roll type of movement. This result has relevance to common tabletop dice games but, unfortunately, not to craps. In tabletop dice games such as Monopoly, the player throws the dice a few inches away from them, usually onto a hard surface, and with nothing to disrupt the natural deceleration of the dice. In craps, the player throws the dice many feet, onto a felt-covered surface with obstacles (chips), a bumpy wall at the end, and has explicit instructions to hit that wall. In other words, the model they used isn't relevant to craps.
It might be interesting to adjust their model to reflect a consistent release and throw, but that wouldn't reveal much that we don't already know. Even I can control the dice if I use the blanket roll on a blanket.
Controlling the dice in the air is trivial. Anyone can quickly learn to impart consistent backspin on the dice and have the axial faces stay more-or-less constant as the dice fly through the air. That's probably why the dice-setting schools were successful early on -- there's an easy, quick win. Unfortunately that doesn't mean anything. As soon as the dice land, the first bounce spoils the consistency.Quote: RSControlled throw as in it travels through the air in a similar fashion, or perhaps a better word than "controlled" would be "similar" or "practiced"....every throw looks relatively the same [while dice are in the air].
That "if" is something that I believe no robot can accomplish on a craps table using allowable rolls. Since humans are of lesser precision than robotics, no human can do it either. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.Quote: AlanMendelsonAs I wrote previously... if all other variables were controlled and the same... the robot's identical toss would lead to identical results. It's physics.
Quote: MathExtremistThat "if" is something that I believe no robot can accomplish on a craps table using allowable rolls. Since humans are of lesser precision than robotics, no human can do it either. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
I am really humored by this discussion, because it has come down to the abilities of robots, and with robots -- technology.
I think about the robots and technology involved in landing spacecraft not only on the moon and Mars, but also on a comet and how it deployed whatever landing gear and transmitter and cameras and sent back images.
And you guys are arguing whether or not a robot can be built to throw a controlled dice throw on a craps table?
Gimme a break.
Even if the dice are oriented exactly the same every time, and always tossed with the exact same force at the exact same speed: well, you know.
Heartbreak Hotel.
Quote: MrVThe key word is "controlled."
Even if the dice are oriented exactly the same every time, and always tossed with the exact same force at the exact same speed: well, you know.
Heartbreak Hotel.
Yes, heartbreak hotel for the naysayers.
If the dice are oriented exactly the same every time, and always tossed with the exact same force at the exact same speed, and so on and so on, and with no other variables such as earthquakes, gusts of wind, a fly being hit by the die on the left and a mosquito intercepting the die on the right, the dice will hit and bounce the same way each and every time. It's called physics.
Is that really too difficult for you to understand?
Craps tables are not moving objects. They are fixed. The table does not rotate or have waves under the felt, and the walls don't move and the pyramids don't vibrate. The dice are also fixed objects of size and weight. Now unless you start changing these parts of the equation -- that "robot" is going to get the same results with two dice each and every time.
Yes, that would be CONTROL.
Quote: AlanMendelsonNow unless you start changing these parts of the equation -- that "robot" is going to get the same results with two dice each and every time.
Yes, that would be CONTROL.
No way Alan. No way is the robot going to control dice. It's a nice read, but you may as well give it up.
BTW, the dishwasher sized thing on the comet sent photos up to the main rocket? which sent them back to earth. An amazing feat as you say. Unfortunately the dishwasher bounced in an odd way and ended up in the shade just like a die would. Nice analogy however, it explains everything. All the brain power in the world, the worlds best, and the thing still bounced and ended up in the shade.
Adios.
Quote: AlanMendelsonThis is insane. Comparing a robot throwing dice on a craps table... to robots and rockets landing on a comet.
Adios.
You're absolutely right. Wait, you brought it up, didn't you? :laughs:
Quote: MathExtremistControlling the dice in the air is trivial. Anyone can quickly learn to impart consistent backspin on the dice and have the axial faces stay more-or-less constant as the dice fly through the air. That's probably why the dice-setting schools were successful early on -- there's an easy, quick win. Unfortunately that doesn't mean anything. As soon as the dice land, the first bounce spoils the consistency.Quote: RSControlled throw as in it travels through the air in a similar fashion, or perhaps a better word than "controlled" would be "similar" or "practiced"....every throw looks relatively the same [while dice are in the air].
That was my point. When I say "controlled throw", I mean "it goes up in the air at the same [relative] angle, it does a similar back-spin, it lands in the same area on the felt, etc." In other words controlled throw = good form. But of course, once the dice hit the table, the pyramids, or anything else, all hell breaks loose. But when they're in the air.....well....at least they have good form?
Quote: djatcRobots can do math and repetitive crap over and over again with no mistakes, but can it learn to love?
I remember a few years ago, when the robot on Mars was losing power after a few days it sent a "good bye" signal back to it's handlers in I think it was Arizona. So yes, there were tears in many eyes including the robot's.
Quote: RSQuote: AlanMendelsonThis is insane. Comparing a robot throwing dice on a craps table... to robots and rockets landing on a comet.
Adios.
You're absolutely right. Wait, you brought it up, didn't you? :laughs:
Yes, he did. And like so often happens, he is now running like a rat from it. The dishwasher sized robot which made the remarkable intriguing landing on the comet did in fact take an unexpected bounce as I indicated causing it to be in the shade as I also indicated and was no longer able to pursue the experiments. This would happen with Alan's prediction that the dice could be controlled with all the variables also controlled...it just does't happen on this great earth or in outer space. Our brain power is strong enough to envision it but not to make the impossible happen.
You're still wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, this isn't the way physics works. If you had read the paper I linked, you'd realize that even when dropped from a height of only a few inches, the trajectory of the die was not perfectly consistent. The results were significantly predictable (mathematically, that is, not 1/6 for each face), but the dice certainly did not "bounce the same way each and every time."Quote: AlanMendelsonIf the dice are oriented exactly the same every time, and always tossed with the exact same force at the exact same speed, and so on and so on, and with no other variables such as earthquakes, gusts of wind, a fly being hit by the die on the left and a mosquito intercepting the die on the right, the dice will hit and bounce the same way each and every time. It's called physics.
Go on, try it yourself. Build a dice-release device that consistently slides a die down a ramp from the height of one foot onto a hard surface. I guarantee that you can't even make that device yield perfectly consistent die trajectories, so how could you possibly think throwing the dice 4 feet forward against a back wall could be more consistent?
Does it get jealous if I use another robot to make my hardways?Quote: djatcRobots can do math and repetitive crap over and over again with no mistakes, but can it learn to love?
Quote: AlanMendelsonYes, heartbreak hotel for the naysayers.
If the dice are oriented exactly the same every time, and always tossed with the exact same force at the exact same speed, and so on and so on, and with no other variables such as earthquakes, gusts of wind, a fly being hit by the die on the left and a mosquito intercepting the die on the right, the dice will hit and bounce the same way each and every time. It's called physics.
Is that really too difficult for you to understand?
Craps tables are not moving objects. They are fixed. The table does not rotate or have waves under the felt, and the walls don't move and the pyramids don't vibrate. The dice are also fixed objects of size and weight. Now unless you start changing these parts of the equation -- that "robot" is going to get the same results with two dice each and every time.
Yes, that would be CONTROL.
Robot or machine can control with great accuracy & consistency during the shooting or release of the dice, but it can NOT control the dice’s bouncing action. Once the dice are released or airborne, the robot no longer has control of the dice.
Robot or machine can maintain very high accuracy & consistency in the throwing of the dices. However, there is a thing call tolerance variable and many other factors that a machine can NOT control and will NOT be able to adjust in real time, and any single itty bitty, teeny-tiny, minute variation or cumulative of variations will cause the dices to LAND & BOUNCE UNPREDICTABLY every time.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: MathExtremistYou didn't read the paper. Dice rolls are chaotic, which means they are sensitively dependent to initial conditions.
You're right, I didn't read the paper. Were the conditions controlled and identical for each roll? Was there a robot throwing the dice with each throw controlled and identical?
Three events to consider in each throwing action: release, landing, and bouncing events. Machine can make identical release or throw every time, but any small variations during the initial releasing event can and will yield different landing outcomes.
In summary, machine or robot can control the release, and to certain extend it can influence the landing due to its complete control during the release of the dice. But it can NOT control the landing and the bouncing of the dice.
Now that post I liked, made me smile. Most of the rest here in this thread, in spite of concerted and serious effort, not so much..Quote: petroglyphDoes it get jealous if I use another robot to make my hardways?
Quote: AlanMendelsonYes, heartbreak hotel for the naysayers.
Craps tables are not moving objects. They are fixed.
Wrong. Very, very wrong.
Quote:The table does not rotate or have waves under the felt, and the walls don't move and the pyramids don't vibrate.
Still wrong.
Quote:The dice are also fixed objects of size and weight.
Even that is wrong.
The movement of the table needs only be the nanometres resulting from the vibration of a car driving by a few blocks away. Or maybe the rumble of the echo of the previous landing thud of the dice.
All those things happen at a molecular or even submolecular scale.
The size and shape and weight of the dice will vary at the atomic level just because of the gravitational force of the fat lady walking by or of the added perspiration of the robot loader who may have had to stretch an extra few cm to pick up the dice.
No. Really. You do understand that the tide goes in and out on the beach quite measurably because of the effect of a bit of rock 250,000 miles away? But on no day can you give 1 hours notice of how many waves will lap over your feet.
You might be able to spend billions on a laboratory with a super dooper precision robot, but you cannot eliminate the really tiny variables whose impact combines to give a chaotic outcome. We haven't even considered the massive variations caused by wear and tear to the whole apparatus by the preceding throw.
Do you think that when they landed on that comet that they did all the calculations and put in place all the precision so that they could click the launch button and then sit back while the spacecraft made its way to its target. No. In simple terms, they gave it a decent shot in generally the right direction and then they constantly corrected the course every metre of the way. That's not just physics: That's engineering, warts and all.
Do that with your precision robot arm. Launch as accurately as you can, then by whatever magic you can muster, keep correcting the course till the dice land.
Oh. That's not allowed is it.
If you watch hundreds of so called DI's, a proportion will be unusually lucky, a few will be unusually unlucky and you will believe the lucky few. That doesn't mean they have ANY talent.
I said using a robot and removing the variables of a craps table and the environment, if you have the robot deliver the dice the same way each and every time, the dice will bounce and end up on the same faces each and every time.
Why? It's basic physics. There is nothing to alter the travel of the dice once released by the robot.
The dice will travel in the air the same way, hit the same spot, bounce and roll the same way -- because there are no variables to change their travel.
In the real world, without robots and a truly controlled throw, both dice do not travel with the same speed, angle, rotation and they do not hit the same spots on the table roll after roll -- hence we would not expect to see the same results.
But using a robot for a uniform throw and removing the other variables and there would be control and the same results over and over again.
Now, with that said, a lot of you are talking about variables that would be excluded. These variables would include air currents, humidity, temperature, table bounce, friction of the felt, weight of the dice changing, nicks and loose atoms falling off the dice.
Now, why did I raise this? Because in discussing DI (there is no such thing as dice control) we have to take into account what the variables are and how much a human can adapt to those variables.
Dice control is not possible for a human unless that human can function like a robot. Everyone agree? I hope so.
Dice influencing is possible on certain levels and those levels depend on the variables present.
Getting back to the robot issue: we have had people demonstrate what they would call robots or crude machines or slides to deliver dice to a table. In reality these are not robots and their demonstrations should be immediately dismissed because these crude machines or slides are just that -- crude -- and cannot deliver two dice the same way each and every time. And yes, they are being demonstrated on tables where there are other variables.
So my point: those of you who use these crude slides and machines to discount the possibility of dice influencing by humans are using faulty data.
I wonder if someone did build a robot that truly delivered two dice the same exact way in a sealed craps table free of variables, would it bust your collective bubble that DI was impossible? Because... you would see that at least a robot could do it.
enter:
Mr. Roboto.
Surely those can easily be overcome ? Now I am starting to believe.
You want to use a robot to throw dice across the void of space? You can't remove the variables of a craps table, and you certainly can't suck all the environment out of a casino. The only question that matters -- because last I checked, the Venetian isn't taking dice bets in orbit -- is whether a robot can perform a precise throw on a dice table under realistic conditions and yield predictable results. That is, I think, worthy of an experiment. But you're going off the deep end by saying that not only would the results be predictable (that is, non-equiprobable), but they would be identical each and every time.Quote: AlanMendelsonLet me try one more time.
I said using a robot and removing the variables of a craps table and the environment, if you have the robot deliver the dice the same way each and every time, the dice will bounce and end up on the same faces each and every time.
That's sadly mistaken. For example, you cannot build a robot that will drop a single die straight down from a height of 3 feet in sealed container onto a hard, flat surface and have the motion be perfectly identical each time. In fact, I'd wager that you can't even build a robot that could drop a die from the height of 3 inches and yield perfectly consistent results, where that means the die ends up in the same position each time after having bounced exactly the same way each time.
Your strange reliance on "identical results" isn't remotely realistic. It's also not necessary. Stop trying to build strawmen and making arguments against positions that nobody holds.
Quote: MathExtremistFor example, you cannot build a robot that will drop a single die straight down from a height of 3 feet in sealed container onto a hard, flat surface and have the motion be perfectly identical each time. In fact, I'd wager that you can't even build a robot that could drop a die from the height of 3 inches and yield perfectly consistent results, where that means the die ends up in the same position each time after having bounced exactly the same way each time.
Yeah, you're right. Absolutely impossible.
Probably can't build a robot to land on Mars or a comet, either.
All of those photos came out of Studio 3 on the Paramount lot in Hollywood.
Do you really believe these concepts are equivalent? Really?Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: MathExtremistFor example, you cannot build a robot that will drop a single die straight down from a height of 3 feet in sealed container onto a hard, flat surface and have the motion be perfectly identical each time. In fact, I'd wager that you can't even build a robot that could drop a die from the height of 3 inches and yield perfectly consistent results, where that means the die ends up in the same position each time after having bounced exactly the same way each time.
Yeah, you're right. Absolutely impossible.
Probably can't build a robot to land on Mars or a comet, either.
Quote: MathExtremistDo you really believe these concepts are equivalent? Really?Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: MathExtremistFor example, you cannot build a robot that will drop a single die straight down from a height of 3 feet in sealed container onto a hard, flat surface and have the motion be perfectly identical each time. In fact, I'd wager that you can't even build a robot that could drop a die from the height of 3 inches and yield perfectly consistent results, where that means the die ends up in the same position each time after having bounced exactly the same way each time.
Yeah, you're right. Absolutely impossible.
Probably can't build a robot to land on Mars or a comet, either.
I think you're afraid that if a robot can control dice it will be a chink in your armor that dice influencing is impossible.
Are you really going to continue this silly argument about technology?
Ad hominem attacks are a sign of poor debating skills. If you recall, I recently proposed a robotic experiment to throw the dice using a consistent release on an actual dice table. But I'm realistic about what I expect to learn. I'm looking for evidence of predictably altered probabilities. You're looking for perfection. You think, wrongly, that a machine can have the magic ability to set aside the laws of physics and instead propel a projectile in exactly the same way every time, including after impact, with zero variance.Quote: AlanMendelsonI think you're afraid
There are no physical systems with zero variance. None. Something is always moving at the molecular level, even at absolute zero (see "zero point energy"), which is much colder than any casino's HVAC system will go. Your magic, perfectly-consistent dice-throwing robot would need to violate the uncertainty principle in order to behave as you suggest. In fact, you've even called that magic behavior "physics." You're wrong about what physics actually means.
But why don't you set aside your rhetoric and actually try it out? I've given you a number of experiments you could run. Drop a die from 3 inches and see whether you can get it to bounce exactly the same way even once. Use whatever mechanism you want, it won't matter.
In fact, I bet you can't even stand a die on its edge on your table, let it fall, and have it come to rest in exactly the same position. Sure, the same face will be upward but the four corners of the bottom will be in different positions, probably several millimeters off each time. That represents a "fall" (w.r.t. the center of mass) of less than 1/4 the width of the die. If you can't even make *that* consistent, how on earth could a machine throw the dice down the table with equal precision?
Quote: AlanMendelsonRidiculous. I'm not talking about using toys.
What I think is ridiculous is someone who knows nothing about physics nor math...is arguing with someone who clearly knows math and other related subjects.
Alan claimed (not verbatim, not gonna look it up), something like, "the robot that throws the dice the same way every time, will get the exact same result...that's Newton's 3rd Law", on his own forum. Interestingly enough, everyone over there disagrees with Alan too!
Quote: RSWhat I think is ridiculous is someone who knows nothing . . .
Sigh. the list is longer than that. Engineering, for sure.
Did Alan ever make good on his conceded wager with Mike? Didn't he say that he'd buy Mike lunch when next conveniently in Vegas. Or did he never make such a visit? Or was it never convenient to arrange? Or did he w***h...?
Quote: OnceDearSigh. the list is longer than that. Engineering, for sure.
Did Alan ever make good on his conceded wager with Mike? Didn't he say that he'd buy Mike lunch when next conveniently in Vegas. Or did he never make such a visit? Or was it never convenient to arrange? Or did he w***h...?
He's been to LV several times since then.
Alan's interpretation of the 2-dice-puzzle was basically Alan rewording the question in a way to make 1/6 the "correct" answer. He thinks "at least one of the dice is a 2" means "take one die, put it on a 2, then roll the other die independently".
Quote: RSHe's been to LV several times since then.
Alan's interpretation of the 2-dice-puzzle was basically Alan rewording the question in a way to make 1/6 the "correct" answer. He thinks "at least one of the dice is a 2" means "take one die, put it on a 2, then roll the other die independently".
He also believes tax forms will prove a system with stop losses and win goals works. Some lady just won $2 million here at Greektown a few days ago. Her taxes next year will show she's way ahead. Does that prove anything? Some civilians will just never learn.
