The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Replies: 35   Last Post: Sep 23, 2011 4:11 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
BruceS

Posts: 153
Registered: 8/23/05
Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Posted: Sep 23, 2011 12:42 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Sep 20, 4:40 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 8:27 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Graham Cooper wrote:
> > > On Sep 19, 6:02 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
> > >> Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Sep 19, 11:07 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Will anyone volunteer to think of a word while I mind read it?
>
> > >>>> Yes. I just thought of a word. Tell me what it is.
>
> > >>> BOW-DITCH = RENEGER!
>
> > >> Wrong.
>
> > >>> Too easy!
>
> > >> Too hard.
>
> > > aus skeptics are a bunch of geriatrics spouting bullshit about
> > > scientific method.

>
> > > what are their catalogued results?  the experiments that went in their
> > > favour.

>
> > Where are the catalogued results from your tests, that went in your favour?
>
> > Oh that's right, 10 years and no favourable results at all, only results
> > that with almost all certainty prove that your claims are false.

>
> Nope!  I scored nearly 100% reading BruceS mind.


It amazes me that you say such things when the actual test and results
are available for anyone to see. Did you forget that Google keeps an
archive of this stuff? You made 47 guesses on a matching test of 11
questions, and got 7 of those 47 correct.

> He 'shifted the answer' away from 2 of my guesses,
> in order the munge the results to make sure I didn't
> use a dictionary attack.


Since we were working with questions, not single words, the problem
wasn't really a dictionary attack, but I'll let that stand since it's
close enough. The changes in the question phrasings did not change
the nature of the question, so it should not have had any effect on
your success. This was a case of you doing a good bit better than
pure chance on a single test, and trying to rearrange the results to
make it look like you did even better. No matter how many times you
misstate the results, you did not ever come anywhere close to 100%
success on any of these tests. Oddly, you seemed to have done far
better with the reworded questions I did than with any of the tests
you've done with random numbers at the end. I would think you'd be
happy that I munged the questions as I did, given the results.

> The 2 answers he munged were easy to score a hit too. (Go figure!)
>
> My actual score was 7 right out of 11. (+2 bad munges = 9/11 possible)


Are you forgetting that you made multiple guesses for each question?

> I defeated 20:1 ODDS on the first mindreading test of this kind.

It was more like 18:1 (still very good), and the test was one of many
you've started. You have a habit of starting these tests, then
changing the rules partway through when you keep failing. Given your
rule changes, I suppose you could call every one of your tests "the
first of its kind", but to any outside observer, it isn't a reasonable
description.

> If someone else was tested in the matching phase using my guesses
> and scored 9/11 it would demonstrate closer to 200:1 ODDS BROKEN!
>
> It was Serendipity I passed at all!
>
> Bruce refusing to append a random private key to his answers like
>
> 4 WILL I BUY A RETIREMENT HOUSE IN 2011? 329829874239823789
>
> Instead BruceS (against my wishes) just munged the question
>
> 4 WILL I BE ABLE TO GET THE RETIREMENT HOUSE IN 2011?


Actually, I don't believe you had made the "append a number"
suggestion at that point, or at least I hadn't noticed it.
Rearranging the question's phrasing seemed then (and now) a reasonable
way to avoid the sort of minimal brute force approach to picking the
correct answer by way of running the MD5 on every question and
matching them up. Again, since you did much better with this approach
than with the appended number approach, it's odd that you complain
about it.

> This is what I had to go on..
>
> That actually worked!  And the 32349834843894389 DOESN'T
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.mensa/browse_thread/thread/e51...


It looks like you *do* realize that Google keeps archives. For anyone
interested, you can see the results starting with the 60th post
(sorted by date) in the thread. The link gets truncated in my post
(thanks Google!), but is good in Graham's post above. Graham had
about a 5.5% chance of getting at least 7 correct, according to
another poster (Richard) who seems to have a solid grasp of the stats
involved. If it had been me doing the guessing, I'd have called that
"great" and accepted it.

> No one has offered to duplicate the test except Brad who stuffed
> around every turn and didn't follow the protocol posting template 80%
> of the time.


I admit freely that I'm not happy with tests that have a high random
factor to them. I much prefer tests where the effects of random noise
are distinct from the effects of some sort of paranormal ability.
I've offered many times to do tests with less random noise effect, but
you always prefer to trust to luck rather than any special powers.
What does that say about your faith in your powers?


Date Subject Author
9/18/11
Read SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Government Shill #2
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Government Shill #2
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
DavidW
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Peter Bowditch
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Government Shill #2
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Government Shill #2
9/19/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Peter Bowditch
9/19/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/20/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Clocky
9/20/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/23/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
BruceS
9/23/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/23/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/23/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
BruceS
9/23/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/23/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
BruceS
9/23/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/23/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
BruceS
9/23/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
DavidW
9/19/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Wotawonderfulworld
9/19/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
HOPEINCHRIST
9/19/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/19/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
mjc
9/18/11
Read Re: Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Someone Else
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Graham Cooper
9/18/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Government Shill #2
9/19/11
Read Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Don Stockbauer

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.