every time it happened, it was.
You are wrong again.
Only that is possible without rigging. You bet? 
That’s BS.
If you have a 100 tails out of 100 toss on a real coin, then the game is rigged. The contraposis is, if the game is not rigged, you can’t have 100 tails.
Period.
But you have previously in a post wrote it yourself that its possible without rigging, If math is correct, its possible. Can math be wrong in predicting what is possible and what isnt? Can you be wrong? 
Only we have to resolve one issue, how off are those hardware randomness methods from actual person throwing the coin? Kind of have to check that out someday.
Yes, if the model is not realistic.
That’s why I was talking to you about a REAL case and not simulations.
They are off-topic.
Again, would have to check that experimentally. 
No.
You can just define the error margin of the model. What’s the chance that someone dies after having tossed n coins ? What is the chance that the coin is caught by a flying bird ? Those chances are higher than getting 100 tails. And yet you don’t take them into account, therefore your error margin is bigger than your result : your result is therefore wrong.
Your model in which there is no death, no bird is unrealistic for a big enough number of toss . Even for 1000 toss you have to take sleep, boring, thirst, etc. into account.
Wait, you want to simulate whole universe not coin toss.
No. I tell you that your simulation is unrealistic for big numbers, and I explain why.
But what if we are living in a simulation already? How realistic that simulation would be? How different randomness would be in it from actual universe we are simulated in.
The answer is in the question.
Out-of-topic.
Not even worth asking.
So you admit simulation can be realistic? That it can cover the random nature of coin toss?
1 Like
Funny that all your interventions are completely out of the topic.
The answer is like previously in the question.
A realistic simulation will provide the same results as reality. And thus will fail at making more than a ±1000 tosses. If it’s able to make more, then it’s not realistic. That’s just one reason for it to be unrealistic, there are a lot more.
What iif we use simulated universes, how absurdly would that sound.
After enough simulated universes being run for eternity, will we stumble upon the coin being tossed 100 times and not being rigged, it happening to be tails 100 times in a row?
If you have enough universes, what can be impossible when it comes to randomity? 
If you don’t understand how that is unrealistic, I’m sorry but your opinion is as relevant as the opinion of a stone.
What IS absurd, is that you claim that a computer simulation is realistic.
What is absurd, is that you claim that if you have 100 tails the game is not rigged.
You claim that we have to run universes to get random results, which is absurd for a simple 1 or 0.
THAT is absurd.
Where exactly did I make such a claim ?
All your questions about randomness I said were “out of topic”. That means, no opinion provided on that topic.How can you be so bad as to make me say something about a topic I said “no opinion” about it ?
Ограничения на покупку г.у. может изменить картину
Here.
Also claiming that you need a realistic (100% predictable) result to be realistic. But randomness is the apparent lack of pattern or predictability in events. Paradoxical thinking. There, it is error in your thinking.
So you claim you cant get lack of predictability and lack of pattern without getting whole universe, for 0 and 1?