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 1:30 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Sep 23, 10:58 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2:42 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > 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.

>
> the max I could get correct was 11, so this is misleading.


OK, I'll grant you that. It's misleading to say you got 7 of 11
correct, since you really made 47 guesses, but it's also misleading to
say you got 7 of 47 correct, since the 47 guesses were to only 11
questions. I suppose the best way to state it is to say that you
correctly matched 7 of the 11 questions using a total of 47 guesses,
having made multiple guesses per question.

> > > 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.

>
> Your secret question was
>
> "Will Obama get troops OUT OF Iraq?"
>
> My BLIND CHANNELED ANSWER was something like
>
> "let's get OUT OF here"
>
> Then the OPTION YOU GAVE ME was
>
> "Will Obama end the war".
>
> CANT YOU SEE THAT YOU CHEATED?


No, I did not cheat. In fact, if you had paranormal ability to match
your channels to my questions, it seems to me that you should have
matched "let's get out of here" to "Will Obama end the war". Then
again, you've misstated the munged question. I'd actually given it to
you as "Will our occupation of Iraq end this year?", which should have
been an even more obvious match to "let's get out of here". Then
again, it looks like that wasn't one of your channels anyway. Why do
you keep misquoting things like this? Don't you realize people will
check the actual text, and see what you're doing?

> > > 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?
>
> 11/11 (using 4 guesses from 11 options each turn)
> is STILL 100% ACCURATE!


In one very limited sense it is. However, consider that this claim
holds true even if you have 11 guesses per question. You can still
claim you were 100% accurate, but nobody will be at all impressed.

> If you respond "but Graham... you didn't score 11/11"  I'll hit you!

Since we all know very well that you didn't, I'll leave that as an
example being used to back your nomenclature. See above for why it's
misleading.

> > > 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?

>
> Most of the mistests were using appending digits to the MP3.
>
> Both times the TESTER used different techniques I got good results.
>
> You flatly refused to do 2 demo words before the test.


You said in one thread that you were all done with the demo phase and
were ready to do real tests. Then, when I offered to do the real test
with you, you reverted to wanting to do a demo phase.

> The power is evident when any of you skeptics come crawling out of
> your shells of denial.
>
> Takes 5 days to do 1 section, 1 post a day, up to 24:1 ODDS possible
> to demonstrate.


I keep offering to do a test that would provide an opportunity for any
real paranormal ability to shine, and you keep refusing, preferring to
trust to lucky guesses. I'm still open to a test with a very small
chance of lucky hits.



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.