if random.randint(0,1) == 0:
tail_count += 1
if tail_count == 100:
print(âYouâve broken the Matrixâ)
else:
tail_count = 0
Lemme know when it happens.
How so ?
I claim your model is not realistic for high number.
How is that related to âwe have to run universes to get random resultsâ ?
Thatâs a tautology. Always true. If your result donât conform to reality, that means your model, that produces them, is not by definition realistic.
Realistic is not 100% predictable. 100% predictable is âdeterministicâ : The outcome of a deterministic algorithm applied to the same original state will always produce the same result.
No, you are completely mislead by your lack of understand of what realism and predictability are.
So what, you have made a program that does thing. Itâs till not coin toss.
Apparently realistic is 100% predictable for you. So its your own text.
Also your text.
Again : where exactly did I state that ? where is that âtextâ that states that ârealistic is 100% predictableâ , from me ?
Apparently you have no idea what you are talking about.
You are the one talking about predictability of randomness, and every time I tell you itâs unrelated. Because I am talking bout realistic, not predictable.
You wrote âthe sameâ in your own post. you can check. Soo, how âthe sameâ is precise you did not wrote. 
where exactly ?
Extracting words our of context means you know you are wrong.
Then it closes the case : you know you are completely wrong but canât accept to be corrected and rather keep spreading more BS.
Again, nitpicking because you know you are claiming false things.
The simulation of a random event, that is which can provide several result for the same initial state, should also provide several result for that initial state.
There is no word about the change of predictability.
You add those words, that are not from me, to make it say something different from what it means in the context.
You are lying about what I wrote.
I guess you are too stupid to accept a correct discussion.
bye. I will start doing things more interesting, like listening to my dog.
I actually meant that for Nina, sorry. Just pointing out the absurdity of the notion that a program can accurately and faithfully model reality in all aspects, not just specific ones.
1 Like
Or maybe you did not want to write âthe sameâ.
For me the same means you will get 1 for simulation, 1 for realism, always, which for randomness isnt possible.
Imagine running simulation like that and everything in future will become as you wrote, determined.
That is not however random if you know what will happen, ergo, you will know if run it long enough, what will happen, even with someone actually making a simulated universe and simulates another deterministic universe, then run it in another deterministic universe and each one will eventually see 100 coins being tossed and all of them will be tails.
Imagine the determination. The sheer stubbornness. Energy someone would have to put into it.
When all we really wanted was someoen stumbling upon a math equation and see that its possible.
But you provided algorithm, not actual process of measuring random with the process being measured being random in nature, like with those hardware cards.
The argument is pure theory crafting. Yes you could model conditions in which a coin toss would land tails 100 times. Itâs easy to fudge numbers to get any result that youâre looking for. Even the basic gravity calculation has the unexplainable G constant plugged in just to make the numbers work and make workable predictions of reality. However there are too many variables involved to say that, yes, I can flip a coin and have it land tails 100 times in a row. Thereâs a non-zero chance of me spontaneously turning into a budgie. Quantum mechanics is a weird bitch. There could be invisible luck elves that push the coin one way or another, who the â â â â knows. But at this point the debate devolved into a squabble over details that, in a sane universe, donât really matter in the larger scheme of things.
But we are not talking about forging numbers and initial conditions. That would be scam.
We have to determine whats real randomness apparently. For honest result. Uninterrupted by all things like wind, death, insects, butterflies flapping wings, because it would give to determinism a bit, and all other conditions that would make it deterministic. Or pseudorandom.
Gaten wants to throw coin in a pseudorandom or deterministic ways.
No, you are forging a simulation that can produce something that is actually not possible. Therefore, itâs not realistic.
Asking a computer to get 100 bits is not the same thing as throwing 100 coins. Itâs a simplified representation, and as any simplification the error margin increases with the number of experiments. If you use your simulation for a high number of tosses, you are in the case where the result is lower than the error noise, therefore your simulation is not adequate.
Randomness and determinism are out of topic. You keep bringing in those subjects as a way to derail the discussion, because you know that you are wrong on the topic.
Fact is the real randomness is not what you think that real coin toss is.
Reality is not what you think it is.
1 Like
Fact is, you are claiming BS from the beginning and are creating strawmen to avoid aknowledging your mistakes.
Fact is, if you get 100 tails on 100 coin toss, your game is rigged.
Fact is, this has nothing to do with determinism.
You were wrong from the beginning.
In your reality maybe. 
They should not buy nodes at all, this way scammers will have to buy 100% of tickets or stop doing those relays.