On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:48:04 -0700, Ned Batchelder wrote: > I apologize, I'm sure I've been using the mathematical terms > imprecisely. We are all intelligent people, so I still believe we > disagree because we are talking about different things.
Neil, I believe that your actual mistake is assuming that Thomas is arguing in good faith. I see no evidence that he is, especially given the content of his latest posts. Multiple people have repeatedly explained the difference between his argument and what everyone else is talking about. Others, including me, have demonstrated empirically that he is mistaken, using both simulated tests and direct calculation of the probabilities. At this point, his insistence that we are making the gambler's fallacy is clearly not a mere misunderstanding due to confusion. It is wilful and deliberate misrepresentation of what we are saying. Thomas is correct for a completely different question. Rather than acknowledge that he has misunderstood the question, at every point he doubles down harder and insists that he is right and we are wrong. We have given *absolutely no reason* to think we have fallen for the Gambler's Fallacy. Throughout this thread, Thomas has repeatedly picked on trivial and unimportant errors in terminology as an excuse for dismissing what others have said, while ignoring the substance of their argument. When people have given mathematically indisputable and correct arguments, he has ignored them, or misrepresented them. -- Steven D'Aprano -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
