Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 BruceS Posts: 153 Registered: 8/23/05
Re: SCI.MATH IS JUST A TREE FULL OF PARROTS !
Posted: Sep 23, 2011 4:03 PM

On Sep 23, 12:07 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 3:57 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On Sep 23, 11:35 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 24, 3:30 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 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

>
> > > > > > > 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
>
>
> > > > > > 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.

>
> > > > > 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.

>
> > > er no you're not.
>
> > > it takes 1000 posts to clarify each step of the protocol with you, and
> > > you still refuse to follow it.

>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/WordGuessingTest
>
> > Once again, a protocol with a very high random chance factor.  You
> > propose to guess the order of four words.  Why not bump it to 20, with
> > a single guess at the correct order, so chance doesn't play a
> > significant role?

>
> > > I don't want a SUPERNATURAL PROOF EXPERT dictating the protocol as
> > > they see it, I just want an ACCOMPLICE TO TRY IT ON

>
> > Unfortunately, your proposed protocols are unacceptable, as evidenced
> > by their poor reception.  If you have magic powers, you should be able
> > to demonstrate them under conditions set out by skeptics.  If you
> > don't have such powers (and it appears that not even you have any
> > faith in them), then what's the point of these threads?

>
> none I guess!  You came to me!
>
> Why are you reluctant to allow chatter between 1 week batches?
>
>
> M - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
> W - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
>
> M - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
> W - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
>
> M - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
> W - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
>
> M - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
> W - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
>
> F - post shuffled words | post guesses | score

No, that's really not my protocol. First, I see no reason to skip
Fridays, or even Saturdays or Sundays, so the whole thing could be
compressed into 20 days---less than three weeks. For that matter, I'm
happy to put all 20 words into a single post, so it could all be done
in a day. You're the one who complains that you can't channel more
than one word per day.

> ------------------
>
> This is my protocol
>
> M - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
> W - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
> F - post shuffled words | post guesses | score
>
> M - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
> W - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
> F - post shuffled words | post guesses | score
>
> M - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
> W - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
> F - post shuffled words | post guesses | score
>
> M - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
> W - teleask word | post channel
> T - teleask word | post channel
> F - post shuffled words | post guesses | score
>
> 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other!

These are not equivalent tests at all. Yours has a lot of chance
involved, whereas mine does not.

> I finally accepted your (dimwitted) protocol of a month long channel
> phase
>
> and you started fcking me over again refusing to do 2 demo posts!

do a real test. I (sort of) believed you, and acted on that
statement. You clearly were *not* done with demo posts. Are you
now? If you are ready to do a real test, with low noise from chance,
I'm game. I suggest a set of 20 words. For each, I'd provide a MD5
of the word with some random numbers after it, a random page number,
and a random line number. You could do whatever channeling you wanted
to do for these. Then, I'd provide the list of words (without the
appended numbers) in a random order, and you'd attempt to put them in
the right order, with a single guess for each one. I would then post
the words *with* the numbers so you could verify the MD5s, and would
I predict dodging and weaving on your part. I'm psychic that way.

Date Subject Author
9/18/11 Graham Cooper
9/18/11 Government Shill #2
9/18/11 Graham Cooper
9/18/11 Graham Cooper
9/18/11 Government Shill #2
9/18/11 Graham Cooper
9/18/11 DavidW
9/18/11 Graham Cooper
9/18/11 Peter Bowditch
9/18/11 Graham Cooper
9/18/11 Government Shill #2
9/18/11 Graham Cooper
9/18/11 Government Shill #2
9/19/11 Peter Bowditch
9/19/11 Graham Cooper
9/20/11 Clocky
9/20/11 Graham Cooper
9/23/11 BruceS
9/23/11 Graham Cooper
9/23/11 Graham Cooper
9/23/11 BruceS
9/23/11 Graham Cooper
9/23/11 BruceS
9/23/11 Graham Cooper
9/23/11 BruceS
9/23/11 Graham Cooper
9/18/11 DavidW
9/19/11 Wotawonderfulworld
9/19/11 HOPEINCHRIST
9/19/11 Graham Cooper
9/19/11 mjc
9/18/11 Someone Else
9/18/11 Graham Cooper
9/18/11 Government Shill #2
9/19/11 Don Stockbauer