Coin toss truely random?
Wouldnt a coin toss be constantly the same result if the same conditions were used?:
1) Exact same amount of force used
2) Same side face up apon tossing the coin
3) Same atmospheric conditions (resulting in same force used coming to same amoutn of flip and height on the coin toss)
4) No reverb/bounce when the coin hits the ground- the side that hits down stays down.
5) The force is applied to the exact same part of the coin on each toss.
Id have to imagine if all these were exactly the same on each flip the coin would have the same result each time- of course you wont get all these variables met exactly for each flip thus causing the variation.... or is it somehow truely random?
chances are- someone here does care!
Quote: dmWho cares? I am amazed that all these impossible scenarios garner such attention.
You know the joke about the farmer who hires a physicist to solve a problem he has with his chickens? The physicist solves the problem, but warns the farmer "Of course, the solution only applies to spherical chickens in a vaccum."
That's what all these scenarios remind me of.
Quote: Malaru
Id have to imagine if all these were exactly the same on each flip the coin would have the same result each time- of course you wont get all these variables met exactly for each flip thus causing the variation.... or is it somehow truely random?
Things are truly random in quantum mechanics. Beyond that, on larger scales, it is like you say. Nothing is "truly" random, only unknown enough to count as random for all intents and purposes
On the other hand, given the proper rules and a tosser who is not practiced or interested in achieving a particular result, I believe the toss is entirely random.
What was the question?
I might start responding with "wgaf". That will mean I think the question does not deserve a considered response.
If I wasn't tossing and we were deciding anything by a coin flip I always insisted it hit the ground or I wouldn't accept the results.
Quote: MalaruI say no- but I could be wrong.
Wouldnt a coin toss be constantly the same result if the same conditions were used?:
1) Exact same amount of force used
2) Same side face up apon tossing the coin
3) Same atmospheric conditions (resulting in same force used coming to same amoutn of flip and height on the coin toss)
4) No reverb/bounce when the coin hits the ground- the side that hits down stays down.
5) The force is applied to the exact same part of the coin on each toss.
Id have to imagine if all these were exactly the same on each flip the coin would have the same result each time- of course you wont get all these variables met exactly for each flip thus causing the variation.... or is it somehow truely random?
It is a foundation of the scientific method to say that if exactly the same experiment is done, then each time the result will be the same. If a different result is obtained, then some factor was different, perhaps unknown. Thus the procedure involves 'the control' and also someone else must be able to duplicate the results.
So in theory the toss could be done in such a way as to not be random.
Quote: ChesterDogHere's an article regarding research by the magician-mathematician Persi Diaconi on a bias in coin flipping.
that article was perfectly what I was needing0- and very interesting- thank you.
Quote: odiousgambitIt is a foundation of the scientific method to say that if exactly the same experiment is done, then each time the result will be the same.
"50% probability of heads or tails" is "the same result" every time. Nearly all the results in quantum mechanics are of this nature, and nobody will deny they are scientific.
Quote: weaselman"50% probability of heads or tails" is "the same result" every time. Nearly all the results in quantum mechanics are of this nature, and nobody will deny they are scientific.
Einstein had a problem with such things. He liked to say "God does not roll the dice"
Quote: dmWho cares? I am amazed that all these impossible scenarios garner such attention.
Since your question was rhetorical, why did you post it at all? Especially since posing that rhetorical question implies that the topic holds no interest for you.
Quote: odiousgambit
Einstein had a problem with such things. He liked to say "God does not roll the dice"
Indeed. He also assumed that the Universe was static, and invented a Cosmological Constant to allow for that possibility ... and then, when Hubble discovered the expansion, he changed his mind, and said that it was "the greatest mistake of his life" ... and now it appears, that the constant is actually needed, and wasn't a mistake at all. And Newton thought that time and space were two separate and absolute entities, and Maxwell was sure about the luminoforous ether.
So what? Things change ...
Quote: mkl654321Since your question was rhetorical, why did you post it at all? Especially since posing that rhetorical question implies that the topic holds no interest for you.
It holds no interest for hardly anyone, apparently. Look at the posts that resulted, with only very few even relating to his question. Why consider all the impossible ifs? Just like I wouldn't waste time trying to explain infinity with a bunch of zeros. And speaking of
of motives, your post pretty well proves my point. You didn't very well answer his question.
I don't know how to start a new thread, but my urgent question is: if you were the wealthiest person in California, and you were 45 years old, and had blond hair, and stood exactly 6 feet tall, what kind of underwear would you buy? To wear of course, and what would be your reasons? Bras not applicable.
Quote: dmIt holds no interest for hardly anyone, apparently. Look at the posts that resulted, with only very few even relating to his question. Why consider all the impossible ifs?
Well, it's one way to come up with ideas for science fiction stories. Of course, the impossibility need be more interesting than the randomness of a coin
Quote:I don't know how to start a new thread, but my urgent question is: if you were the wealthiest person in California, and you were 45 years old, and had blond hair, and stood exactly 6 feet tall, what kind of underwear would you buy? To wear of course, and what would be your reasons? Bras not applicable.
To start a new thread go to the appropriate section and click on the buttong marked "new thread."
As to your question, if I were blond and in California I'd perforce buy satin thongs, because that's the kind of slutty underwear a natural blond is expected to buy. If I bleached my hair, on the otehr hand, I'd wear cotton, boy-short cut panties (known also as granny panties), because those are the most comfortable ;)
Its sort of like that RNG chip in a slot machine. It is close enough to random to make the casinos happy... and wealthy.
Quote: dmIt holds no interest for hardly anyone, apparently. Look at the posts that resulted, with only very few even relating to his question. Why consider all the impossible ifs? Just like I wouldn't waste time trying to explain infinity with a bunch of zeros. And speaking of
of motives, your post pretty well proves my point. You didn't very well answer his question.
I don't know how to start a new thread, but my urgent question is: if you were the wealthiest person in California, and you were 45 years old, and had blond hair, and stood exactly 6 feet tall, what kind of underwear would you buy? To wear of course, and what would be your reasons? Bras not applicable.
That's a pretty ridiculous comparison. What you term--badly--as "impossible ifs" (a self-canceling phrase), the OP and several of the responders don't consider trivial or beneath considering at all. Many important things are decided by flipping a coin. And SINCE A COIN IS ASYMMETRICAL, the question of whether it can be flipped so as to produce a biased result is non-trivial.
Perhaps you didn't see all that--but the question stands: given that the topic held no interest for you, why did you feel compelled to grace us with the radiant light of your opinion on the worthiness of the subject? If you don't like what's being discussed in a thread, in other words, why not just keep a cork in it?
And I didn't answer the OP's question because I didn't HAVE the answer--but I was thinking some people might. So I browse this thread for that reason--even if, O mighty one, you think this thread is unworthy.
