Testing random

[Steven D'Aprano]

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