0110001101101000 wrote:
mdinnerspace wrote:
Yes I completely agree chess king. The world is full of romantics
Ironically you don't realize you and chess king are two romantics yourselves... going with your gut instead of logic.
I am a logical hopeless romantic. I am 100% sure any 2700 beats any 1300, but there is a grey area somewhere. I imagine the odds of the 1300 winning are close to the MPH of hair growing.
0110001101101000 wrote:
mdinnerspace wrote:
Yes I completely agree chess king. The world is full of romantics
Ironically you don't realize you and chess king are two romantics yourselves... going with your gut instead of logic.
I am a logical hopeless romantic. I am 100% sure any 2700 beats any 1300, but ther is a grey area somewhere. I imagine the odds of the 1300 winning are close the the MPH of hair growing.
While I think 10000 consecutive heads is possible, I'm still not sure about a 1300 beating a 2700, simply because I see that while the rating system assigns a probability of winning, we're dealing with aspects that might not all be probabilistic with enough of a disparity in skill. I don't know.
If anyone is interested, the way we argued it in the past (I don't expect anyone to read this ridiculously long topic) is that there is a very small chance of a mate in 1 blunder... to say the 2700 CAN'T play this blunder is not reasonable. There's no force that will physically stop them, and any human can have a brief oversight. So we can say it's not zero chances for the 1300.
Alongside this, we also agreed/argued that for any SPECIFIC pair of 1300 vs 2700, there may be an absolutely 0% chance. The "it's also possible for it to be impossible" thing 
While chess is vast, the number possible moves a human trying to win will play is relatively very small. So an individual 1300 player may not even create the opportunity for a massive game changing blunder.
If anyone is interested, the way we argued it in the past (I don't expect anyone to read this ridiculously long topic) is that there is a very small chance of a mate in 1 blunder... to say the 2700 CAN'T play this blunder is not reasonable. There's no force that will physically stop them, and any human can have a brief oversight. So we can say it's not zero chances for the 1300.
Alongside this, we also agreed/argued that for any SPECIFIC pair of 1300 vs 2700, there may be an absolutely 0% chance. The "it's also possible for it to be impossible" thing While chess is vast, the number possible moves a human trying to win will play is relatively very small. So an individual 1300 player may not even create the opportunity for a massive game changing blunder.
THIS MAKES SENSE
If it's just "in a row" without specifying heads or tails, you have slightly better chances (because the first flip is a guaranteed success).
On some coins, heads is slightly heavier (IIRC) so flipping many tails in a row is slightly more likely if you let it e.g. fall to the ground. If you're snatching it out of mid air then I'm guessing it will be closer to 50/50.
So you think 10,000 consecutive heads (or tails) is more likely?
That's not what I was saying, necessarily. That would depend on the specific odds of a 1400-point difference. The odds of 10000 heads is (1/2)^10000. If the 1400-point difference odds are smaller than that, then the coins are more likely. If not, then no.
Edit: Assuming the coin really is an exact 50-50 thing.
0110001101101000 wrote:
If it's just "in a row" without specifying heads or tails, you have slightly better chances (because the first flip is a guaranteed success).
On some coins, heads is slightly heavier (IIRC) so flipping many tails in a row is slightly more likely if you let it e.g. fall to the ground. If you're snatching it out of mid air then I'm guessing it will be closer to 50/50.
Fascinating
Don't have a clue what chess king is trying tosaying here. All Scientific Theory is open to possibility. I'd be the 1st to say so.
011 wrires:
This reminds me of a person who argued and argued and just couldn't understand that the growth rate of hair could be given in miles per hour. They understood how 0.5 miles per hour was possible, or 1/3 or 1/4, but at some point in their mind, when the numbers were small enough, it just magically went to zero.
Incorrect
Faulty logic. You subscribe to a "belief" anything is possible because any number is greater than 0. You apparantly do not comprehend that 0 exists.
0110001101101000 wrote:
mdinnerspace wrote:
Yes I completely agree chess king. The world is full of romantics
Ironically you don't realize you and chess king are two romantics yourselves... going with your gut instead of logic.
To respectfully disagree, your reasoning is illogical. 100 flips no argument. 10,000 reaches the absurd. At what point does it break down? Absolutely before this. I get your arguement and loguc. I just don't subscribe to it. Call me ignorant, whatever. I do not believe everything is possible, or that nothing is impossible. Our reality is the way it is because of the natural laws governing the universe. There is no alternative.
Every number can be divided in half. Mathamatical formulas/concepts as infinity do not prove the chanch or possibly of something happening.
Although, there is some theory that speculates, at some point an absolute size restriction applys, regarding how small any mass can be (Plank sizes) (every number can be divided in half as I stated is open to theoretical debate.)
I'll attempt to make my thinking clearer. 10,000 flips all tails is 0.000000.......1. How many decimals I do not know. (or 10 to the x power). Whatever the answer is, it is greater than 0. It seems to me that the arguement being used is because the answer is greater than 0, a conclusion can be made that something is possible.
I disagree with this conclusion. Once the realm of the absurd is reached, the chanches in reality are 0. At what point is this realm reached? Another debate. There will be a wide range of theory. Just because the line can not be delineated is not reason to conclude no line exists, that it is infinite and therefor makes something possible.
I've said multiple things are impossible in this topic... one of them being a case of 1300 vs 2700. Another directly answering you when you asked what people thought about a perpetual motion machine. I don't know why you say to me "you think anything is possible."
How to calculate the chances of a coin flip isn't theory or a guess. It's very concrete. After 1 flip there are only 2 possibilities. After 2 flips there are 4. After 3 there are 8.
This isn't a guess or something strange and abstract. This isn't fancy math with no connection to the real world. Lets look at 3 flips (H is for heads, T is for tails). These are the 8 possibilities:
HHH
HHT
HTH
HTT
THH
THT
TTH
TTT
These are the 8. There is literally nothing else. All are equally likely, so there's a 1 in 8 chance to get one of these.
---
If you flip a coin 10,000 times there are many possibilities (2^10000), but one of them is all H and one of them is all T.
Saying it's impossible is like saying it's impossible to win the lottery... or it's impossible to draw the ace of spades out of a shuffled deck on the first try. It's unlikely, but it's not impossible.
Unlike with elephants being terrestrial now but evolving wings in the future, no parameters need to change for the coin flip example. It could happen the very next time someone attempts it. It's trivially plausible that I could flip a coin five times and get heads each time. From there, it's trivially plausible that the next five could also be heads--unlikely, but very realistic. If I continue to chain those together, at what point do you propose that it breaks down and enters the realm of the impossible, and what do you propose causes that?
Another way to say it.
1 is possible.
2 tails in a row is possible
3 tails in a row is possible
.
.
.
10,000 is not possible.
So this is arguing at some number, lets say 226 tails in a row, that there is a 100% chance the next flip is heads because 227 is impossible.
This is of course absurd. The next flip is always (roughly) 50% chance.
More eloquently put, but exactly! At some point, the logical progression just gets waved away as ridiculous with no rationale, like with your example of hair growth converted to miles per hour, or meters per second, or as a fraction of the speed of light, even.