Testing random
Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info
Tue Jun 16 21:35:41 EDT 2015
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
More information about the Python-list
mailing list