Yes. The longer any particular pattern continues the more improbable it will be (if it is supposed to be a random process) and one would then suspect a non-random influence.
I was just laughing at the academics spending the time and money to construct such a machine. I would surmise that this is really academic tom-foolery (in cahoots with the university's mechanical department). Or at least it should be considered as such. I find the result entirely unsurprising (and uninteresting from a rational point of view) and wouldn't hail it as any kind of discovery (as the writer of the article alludes). I say this, because if all conditions are controlled then there IS no more random influences and one should not of course expect a random result. If there was, then I would really be surprised--totally shocked even! It would be similar to the kind of situation where I was baking a vanilla cake and when I took it out of the oven, behold it's a chocolate cake! Their coin-flipping machine is no different in principle from me repeatedly placing a coin heads-up on the table and saying "Oh look, the result isn't random!", "Oh look, the result isn't random!", "Oh look, the result isn't random!".... If I were actually surprised at my results, then I think I would need to check into a sanitorium (but of course, if I actually were surprised, I would be too far gone to realize....I digress) And, my method is a lot cheaper! Besides, I know I can influence the flip of a coin the way I want if I know what position I start from, and if I don't "flip it too much". ---One of your comments: "I think somebody, somewhere found something similar when carrying out Pi to an infinite number of digits but I can't remember which journal I read it in." -- Given that that's impossible, I would really like to meet that person! -- just joking around :) --Mike On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Mike Palij <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:30:27 -0700, Michael Smith wrote: > >"The machine could make the toss come out heads every time" > > > >Maybe it was just an extended pattern that we all know sometimes > >occurs in random sequences! lol > > Indeed but couldn't we calculate the probability of such an extended > run under the assumption that the process producing it has p=q=.50? > As the run becomes more improbably, alternative hypotheses would > have to be seriously considered as replacements for the original > assumptions. > > Then again, if such a coin tossing experiment was continued for > an infinite number of trials under constant conditions perhaps something > peculiar, something wonderful could happen, like a new pattern of > outcomes emerge under the constant conditions which, when interpreted, > turns out to be the plans for how construct a machine that would > transcend time and space, an intergalactic subway system, if you will. > > I think somebody, somewhere found something similar when carrying out > Pi to an infinite number of digits but I can't remember which journal I > read it > in. > > Send me something. > > ;-) > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
