Then concentrate. Read it again.
You do not have enough software literacy to describe clearly what you want. I’ve read it as much as anybody can be expected to, I don’t get it, no software dev is gonna get it.
We’ll take it step by step. Can you modify your program to give the total amount of a’s and total amount of b’s, regardless of what preceded each?
If you mean what I suspect you mean, then what you’re asking for is completely isomorphic to how I wrote the first software anyway. You just can’t see that it is.
Can you humor me? This doesn’t seem like a complicated thing to ask.
I’ve humored you quite far already, but I’m happy to keep going, because I want you to see the truth.
“Can you modify your program to give the total amount of a’s and total amount of b’s, regardless of what preceded each?”
Of course, that’s easy enough to do. Are you asking me to do that, or just asking if it’s possible?
I’m asking you to do it.
If possible, it would be good to have them like in the one you wrote already, where it gives it as distributions rather than raw numbers.
Let’s skip ahead a bit, this is too fucking slow, because if I did do that, it wouldn’t answer anything.
Go faster, go to the next step, keep telling me shit until you describe software that’s meaningful for the question at hand.
Ok, the thijng is this:
Step A: total number of a’s and b’s for a million repetitions.
Steb B: subtract all a’s and b’s that make part of aaax combinations.
Step C: give total distribution of remaining a’s and b’s.
Not really a programmer here, so not sure how complicated that would be to do.
Why is step b “subtract all as and bs that make part of aaax” instead of “count the Xs of all aaax combinations, see how many are As, see how many are Bs”?
Can we do it first, or do you really insist that I tell you before hand?
Your original claim was, after flipping 3 heads in a row, the 4th flip is not as likely to be heads.
What you’ve just asked me to do is some weird weasel experiment that has nothing to do with the original claim. Both of my pieces of software already written tackle the original claim, not some weird other claim that isn’t under discussion.
No, we can’t do it, you’ve moved the goalposts so far with that description, there’s no fucking way I’m gonna do that. “If we remove all streaks of Heads, what’s the distribution of heads and tails now?” How is that gonna answer the question? That’s meaningless here, one of the most absurd goal post moves I’ve ever seen.
This reminds me of using DNA to ID people. What’s more likely… repeating nucleotide patterns that don’t code for proteins, but are only common between identical twins… or… the sort of dna that is in common between all carriers?
I have sooooooo many related questions.
It may or may not make you angry, but it is standard statistics theory.
If you wrote the program I am describing here, what would happen is that the remainder would not be a roughly equal distribution of a’s and b’s.
So the times x=b in aaax combinations within those million repetitions would occur in a b-deficient distribution.
You have weaseled your way out of accepting the experimental results. Congratulations, I knew you could do it.
In his “step 3” - I imagine you would just get three b’s for every a.
Have you ever heard of badly designed experiments?
bingo
I designed both of my experiments to test your exact claim directly. The experiment you just proposed does not do that. I have heard of your experiment, so yes, I suppose I have heard of badly designed experiments.