Testing random

[Ian Kelly]

On Jun 12, 2015 4:16 PM, "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" <PointedEars at web.de>
wrote:
>
> Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote:
> >> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >>> The probability of 123456789 and 111111111 are equal. The probability
> >>> of a sequence containing all nine numbers and a sequence containing
> >>> only 1s are *not* equal.d
> >> There is a contradiction in that statement.  Can you find it?
> >
> > Yes. I phrased my statement as if I were addressing a rational
> > individual, in clear contradiction of the current evidence.
> >
> > Seriously, if you reject even the statement I made above, in spite of
> > all the arguments that have been advanced in this thread, in spite of
> > the fact that this is very easy to demonstrate empirically, then I
> > don't think there's any fertile ground for discussion here.
>
> /Ad hominem/ when out of arguments.  How typical.

No, it's ad hominem on top of the other arguments, all of which you have
failed to refute.

> Do you deny that “123456789” *is* “a sequence containing all nine numbers”
> (digits, really), and that “111111111” *is* “a sequence containing only
1s”?

No.

> Do you deny that therefore your second sentence contradicts the first one?

Yes. There are 9! - 1 *other* sequences that all contribute to "the
probability of a sequence containing all nine numbers".

I also think your explanation betrays that you understood my meaning
perfectly well and rather than engaging in honest discussion chose to
deliberately and obtusely misconstrue it in order to pick it apart in some
puerile form of one-upmanship.

I have no interest in wasting my time engaging with dishonest people.
Welcome to my kill file.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20150612/704d70d3/attachment.html>