Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )

Time is the key ingredient. It's the one thing we least understand. Lola points out how time can effect possibilities, muddling the entire picture.

I don't need Maths to predict the next particle on the Periodic chart will be found. Just add another sub-particle of some color and it will be discovered. To find it, Maths are used to look in the right direction. But the Math itself is not what is the proof of it's existence. The actual discovery will be. Along the way, there will be many mathematical representations of the new particle. All will be wrong but for one, which only becomes known to be correct after observation and empirical evidence.

okay. I did a 3-sample die roll earlier. (1,2 = 1....3,4 = 2....5,6 = 3)

after 150 rolls i ended up w/ (48,51,51). which wuz way closer than i woulda thought ! I reached parity after the 1st (3) rolls. (3 then 2 then 1). after that ?....never reached parity. so. to reach parity, i would need (3) straight 1's (51,51,51). they say that's 8/1 in LV.

uknow, it may be tied to a derivative form of the ln = x. iow's, as the sample count increases, the odds to make parity INCREASES too ! (and NOT decreases)....hmmm. that'd blow e/t outta the water, now wouldnt it ? lol !! 

iows, time would actually hurt the chances to make parity...not render it inevitable....hilarious !!

A coin flip gives the odds of 50/50. 

Where a mistake is made is believing that the odds are 50/50 the coin lands heads 

or believing the odds are 50/50 the coin lands tails. 

An assumption. With only two variables at work we can know but one thing. The coin will land EITHER heads or tails. 

i just did a 200-roll die (1,2,3  = 1....4,5,6 = 2).

I reached parity (12) parities after 92 samples. Didnt hit parity after that. ended up w/ (88/112).

interesting is that as more samples were pulled ?....the # of times parity wuz reached kpet dropping off until it reached zero after 92 rolls (parity was reached after roll 4, 6, 8, 14, 18, 22, 32, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 92).

at this point, math theory says I would need 24 (88-112) straight 1's to make parity. or about 16.8MM to 1 odds (2^24) to do so (tho parity isnt reqd to be reached in the next 24 rolls to satisfy).

a key takeaway in this test (w/ only two #'s mind u !!) is that the distance btwn parity 'reaches' is actually expanding. iows, as more samples get drawn ?....could it be that parity becomes ever more elusive ?

....interesting thought that could be slapping math theory on its face.

maybe s/o could write s/t simple like:

initial a=0, b=0, c=0, RNG=0

*hardware random number generate (RNG)* (1 or 2)

RNG=RNG+1

let a=1 and b=2

a=a+1 and b=b+1

a = b ?....no > continue....a=b....yes > c=c+1

run to RNG = 10^9

stop

....and see how many parities (c) u get. and also u write in at what point when a equaled b.

Well ... I think the math theory remains in tack, as the numbers and symbols are thought to add up to represent an equality.  What gets the slap in the face is "believing" it's predictions represent HOW things really work, that over Time the odds will even out. Even when presented with evidence otherwise, as it's easy to state give it more time and samples, the math is representative as the numbers don't lie ! 

Added after the last post - how true ! Mathematicians write in a variable that creates harmony, when it is found the original equation had not foreseen something. 

Presenting people's misunderstandings of what maths implies as if was truth is outrageous!

A gambler's fallacy is that when you have had a lot of blacks on the roulette wheel a red is more likely.

A mathematician knows that with a perfectly balanced roulette wheel, the ratio of black's and reds becomes as likely as you want (probability (1-epsilon) for any positive epsilon) to become as close as you like to 1:1 (between (1+delta):1 and (1-delta):1, say) after some number of rolls which you can calculate and rely on.

The former is a falsehood, based on a misunderstanding. The latter is a truth based on mathematics.

Another interesting fact, provable with mathematics, is that, with probability 1, if you keep tossing a perfect coin, the proportion of heads will go over and under 0.5 an infinite number of times.

To put it another way, however big a head start heads has (say you start by saying heads is 1000 ahead), you can bet at any odds that after some number of tosses of the coin, tails will be ahead, and have positive expectation. (It could easily take millions of tosses to wipe out a lead of 1000, so best not to actually try this for real money, unless you have a LOT of time!).

Well, I can be sure enough of more than that (based on knowledge that coins are quite near fair). I could make a bet with you about the number of heads after, say, 1000 tosses. You indicate that all you know is that there will be some number of heads between 0 and 1000. As I know more, I could make money from you.

A wrong assumption ! I'll take your money every time. You know only the odds.... and will bet accordingly. You rely on Bayesian logic, reduce everything to formula. This is evident by all of your response, which always include "mathematical logic" as explanation. You don't want to bet me in gambling scenarios. I made my living by gambling with cards and other forms for many a year, and learned how to calculate the odds. I also learned, not everything goes according to the odds. I'd invite you to the table any day, knowing exactly how you will be wagering. 

The Bayesian probability that p(tails) >=0.499 (say) goes down quite rapidly with the empirical data. If you look at the curves, the area in the left half of each is this, and the area under the right half is the probability that the coin has p(heads) >= a similar value. (I am using 0.499 so a fair coin is on one side).

Let me be clear, arithmetic is certainly part of mathematics, but mathematics becomes a great deal broader than arithmetic (even in high school, and more so later).

The latter is correct (and the former is insane). A person who bets against the (actual) probabilities loses money (with this becoming more certain as time goes by). The least bad way to bet against the odds is to do it just once (people occasionally walk into casinos with a lot of money and put it all on red. This has negative expectation, but almost half the time they walk out winners.

Mathematics adds symbols to the numbers. The symbols are in abstract form, same as the numbers are. 

"If you can't spot the sucker at the table in the 1st 30 minutes, you are the sucker !

Gamblers like you who play strictly the odds are a dime a dozen. They walk out the door broke far more often than the times they make a few extra bucks. We have an open seat ! Bring lot's of cash

 This has negative expectation, but almost half the time they walk out winners. - Elroch

Wrong ! They never walk out the door after a single bet. They'll wager again, according to the odds, and walk out the door losers !

The current Jeopardy Champion is a Gal in her 30's.  Profession is Nuclear Physicist. Part time stand up comic. Hobby is a professional Beer taster. 

Random ?

Provably wrong. I know of someone (Ashley Revell) who famously sold all his belongings, walked into a casino in boxer shorts and T-shirt, placed all his money on red and happened to win. He was offered to try again and declined.

This post identifies you as the sucker. Everyone who bets while knowing they have negative expectation is (obviously) a sucker (unless they realise they are just increasing variance for no mean return, like Ashley Revell).

Too funny. Incorrigible ! A one perspective mind that knows all !

Expectation? Reveals how little is known about successful gambling vs losers. The play is against what is REAL, and not against the mathematical odds. Naturally, knowing the odds provides a great advantage, but it is NOT always the play to come out on top. I think you are speaking solely of playing against the house. I'm addressing a much bigger picture.

 Your concept that mathematics rules all decisions of choice, that  best decision is based in mathematical odds is made by many. The odds are easy to learn for anyone. Are these gamblers successful ? Sometimes for short periods. They soon learn to expand if they want to prosper. It's a cut and dry world for you. No if's ands or but's. 

I'll explain. 1st, I don't deny the validity of the odds. A valuable tool in making decision. The odds are based on a period of time. Logically, it's assumed they'll average out, whether 2 variables or a dozen are in play. 

But PATTERNS emerge short time. Predicted results are long term interpretation. Trends occur and when recognized by the astute, provide opportunity to beat the odds player, who thinks all is RANDOM and is happening uni-formally at any given moment. Successful gamblers beat the odds and other players by recognizing when such patterns are happening which defy the odds, but nonetheless are happening at present Time.