|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jan 10, 2018 7:59:32 GMT
Holy cow. This is like reading an undiscovered Ignatius J. Reilly monologue. I was going to quote that bit and say... something... hopefully clever; but you beat me to it and with something better than I could've thought of. Well played, sir. Tell me you can’t hear “These hot dogs are delectable!” in the same posting voice. I honestly can’t believe I didn’t place this before. The only thing missing is complaints about his “valve” when people give him grief.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jan 10, 2018 8:14:49 GMT
You are officially not real life then. In real life not one person dares berate my work except people who have never read it or much of anything else. C'mon, someone has to sig this. There's gold in them thar hills. I gotta be honest... I think thIs thread has made me an Arlonite. He tilts at the windmills of coherence with reckless abandon and his casual arrogance in the face of his own complete befuddlement borders on endearing. I might just be viewing him through J.K. Toole-tinted glasses, though.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 9:37:38 GMT
C'mon, someone has to sig this. There's gold in them thar hills. I gotta be honest... I think thIs thread has made me an Arlonite. He tilts at the windmills of coherence with reckless abandon and his casual arrogance in the face of his own complete befuddlement borders on endearing. I might just be viewing him through J.K. Toole-tinted glasses, though. Oh, I've been a closeted Arlonite for a while, and I think you nailed what makes him perversely appealing. Despite how adversarial I am with him, he's also kinda my favorite poster. Who else could possibly come up with a stone-cold classic like "I've argued with dictionaries and won" or a future classic like "In real life not one person dares berate my work except people who have never read it or much of anything else?"
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 10, 2018 11:43:15 GMT
I gotta be honest... I think thIs thread has made me an Arlonite. He tilts at the windmills of coherence with reckless abandon and his casual arrogance in the face of his own complete befuddlement borders on endearing. I might just be viewing him through J.K. Toole-tinted glasses, though. Oh, I've been a closeted Arlonite for a while, and I think you nailed what makes him perversely appealing. Despite how adversarial I am with him, he's also kinda my favorite poster. Who else could possibly come up with a stone-cold classic like "I've argued with dictionaries and won" or a future classic like "In real life not one person dares berate my work except people who have never read it or much of anything else?" My favorite Arlonism is from the old IMDb board about a year ago. Someome made a thread with mathematical and logical riddles. The answer to one of them was 50%, but Arlon insisted it was something else. After other posters patiently explained why he was wrong, instead of admitting his error, he started two more threads trying to explain why he was right. He got his ass handed to him in both, and eventually dropped the subject. But on this board he declared again that he is knowledgable about maths and science. Maybe he hopes that people have forgotten the episode with the riddle. I haven't. Bottom line: Arlon can be mildly amusing, but it can be frustrating to try to reason with him as if he were a rational poster.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 12:03:47 GMT
Oh, I've been a closeted Arlonite for a while, and I think you nailed what makes him perversely appealing. Despite how adversarial I am with him, he's also kinda my favorite poster. Who else could possibly come up with a stone-cold classic like "I've argued with dictionaries and won" or a future classic like "In real life not one person dares berate my work except people who have never read it or much of anything else?" My favorite Arlonism is from the old IMDb board about a year ago. Someome made a thread with mathematical and logical riddles. The answer to one of them was 50%, but Arlon insisted it was something else. After other posters patiently explained why he was wrong, instead of admitting his error, he started two more threads trying to explain why he was right. He got his ass handed to him in both, and eventually dropped the subject. But on this board he declared again that he is knowledgable about maths and science. Maybe he hopes that people have forgotten the episode with the riddle. I haven't. Bottom line: Arlon can be mildly amusing, but it can be frustrating to try to reason with him as if he were a rational poster. Yep, I was one of the frequent posters in those threads trying to explain to Arlon why he was wrong. This was the puzzle. Arlon and I were both initially struggling with it. I worked it out manually with 3, 4, and 5 passengers getting the same answer (1/2) each time and it clicked for me why that was. I posted the answer but Arlon didn't believe me. He wrote a computer program to solve it and got a different answer. I told him he programmed it incorrectly because if a probability is 1/2 with 3, 4, and 5 passengers it's mathematically impossible for the probability to change by adding passengers. He assured me I was wrong and that he was both an expert at math and programming. This went on across three threads until someone pointed out where his program was wrong, he changed it and finally got the correct answer. I've often reminded him of that as being the ultimate example of his Dunning-Kruger syndrome, how he can be so cock-sure he's right even when he's provably wrong. He obviously didn't learn his lesson, and is still amusing us with his Room-esque fails.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 12:20:01 GMT
My favorite Arlonism is from the old IMDb board about a year ago. Someome made a thread with mathematical and logical riddles. The answer to one of them was 50%, but Arlon insisted it was something else. After other posters patiently explained why he was wrong, instead of admitting his error, he started two more threads trying to explain why he was right. He got his ass handed to him in both, and eventually dropped the subject. But on this board he declared again that he is knowledgable about maths and science. Maybe he hopes that people have forgotten the episode with the riddle. I haven't. Bottom line: Arlon can be mildly amusing, but it can be frustrating to try to reason with him as if he were a rational poster. Yep, I was one of the frequent posters in those threads trying to explain to Arlon why he was wrong. This was the puzzle. Arlon and I were both initially struggling with it. I worked it out manually with 3, 4, and 5 passengers getting the same answer (1/2) each time and it clicked for me why that was. I posted the answer but Arlon didn't believe me. He wrote a computer program to solve it and got a different answer. I told him he programmed it incorrectly because if a probability is 1/2 with 3, 4, and 5 passengers it's mathematically impossible for the probability to change by adding passengers. He assured me I was wrong and that he was both an expert at math and programming. This went on across three threads until someone pointed out where his program was wrong, he changed it and finally got the correct answer. I've often reminded him of that as being the ultimate example of his Dunning-Kruger syndrome, how he can be so cock-sure he's right even when he's provably wrong. He obviously didn't learn his lesson, and is still amusing us with his Room-esque fails. There was a brief delay while I trusted faulty computer equipment. I cannot afford new computers. All of mine are built by me from inexpensive parts on Ebay and Henrico County's sale of their thoroughly used equipment (with hard drives and OS removed before the sale). I'm often reminded of the saying attributed to Einstein, "if you can't explain it to a six year old you don't really understand it yourself." And you didn't really understand it yourselves. Several of you had already accepted the "right" answer without much analysis. It was only through our writing of a program (correctly at last) to solve the problem that the full explanation was brought to light. I don't have to "remember" how you are wrong about everything else, you remind us all every day. Why do you do that?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 12:44:12 GMT
Yep, I was one of the frequent posters in those threads trying to explain to Arlon why he was wrong. This was the puzzle. Arlon and I were both initially struggling with it. I worked it out manually with 3, 4, and 5 passengers getting the same answer (1/2) each time and it clicked for me why that was. I posted the answer but Arlon didn't believe me. He wrote a computer program to solve it and got a different answer. I told him he programmed it incorrectly because if a probability is 1/2 with 3, 4, and 5 passengers it's mathematically impossible for the probability to change by adding passengers. He assured me I was wrong and that he was both an expert at math and programming. This went on across three threads until someone pointed out where his program was wrong, he changed it and finally got the correct answer. I've often reminded him of that as being the ultimate example of his Dunning-Kruger syndrome, how he can be so cock-sure he's right even when he's provably wrong. He obviously didn't learn his lesson, and is still amusing us with his Room-esque fails. There was a brief delay while I trusted faulty computer equipment. I cannot afford new computers. All of mine are built by me from inexpensive parts on Ebay and Henrico County's sale of their thoroughly used equipment (with hard drives and OS removed before the sale). I'm often reminded of the saying attributed to Einstein, "if you can't explain it to a six year old you don't really understand it yourself." And you didn't really understand it yourselves. Several of you had already accepted the "right" answer without much analysis. It was only through our writing of a program (correctly at last) to solve the problem that the full explanation was brought to light. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/tek3suwt5/laugh.gif) So now you're blaming your failure on faulty computer equipment? All you proved with that Einstein quote is that you have the cognitive abilities of someone younger than 6. Dude, I remember working it out manually with fewer passengers and showing you how it was always 1/2, and that it's mathematically impossible for the probability to change by adding passengers because of how probability works. I can't help you rejected that proof and only relented once someone fixed your bad programming.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 10, 2018 12:45:24 GMT
Yep, I was one of the frequent posters in those threads trying to explain to Arlon why he was wrong. This was the puzzle. Arlon and I were both initially struggling with it. I worked it out manually with 3, 4, and 5 passengers getting the same answer (1/2) each time and it clicked for me why that was. I posted the answer but Arlon didn't believe me. He wrote a computer program to solve it and got a different answer. I told him he programmed it incorrectly because if a probability is 1/2 with 3, 4, and 5 passengers it's mathematically impossible for the probability to change by adding passengers. He assured me I was wrong and that he was both an expert at math and programming. This went on across three threads until someone pointed out where his program was wrong, he changed it and finally got the correct answer. I've often reminded him of that as being the ultimate example of his Dunning-Kruger syndrome, how he can be so cock-sure he's right even when he's provably wrong. He obviously didn't learn his lesson, and is still amusing us with his Room-esque fails. Several of you had already accepted the "right" answer without much analysis. It was only through our writing of a program (correctly at last) to solve the problem that the full explanation was brought to light. Nope. For this riddle, you didn't need a computer program. You could solve it with induction. I don't have to "remember" how you are wrong about everything else, you remind us all every day. Why do you do that? Thanks for proving Eva's point again.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 12:52:40 GMT
Several of you had already accepted the "right" answer without much analysis. It was only through our writing of a program (correctly at last) to solve the problem that the full explanation was brought to light. Nope. For this riddle, you didn't need a computer program. You could solve it with induction. I don't have to "remember" how you are wrong about everything else, you remind us all every day. Why do you do that? Thanks for proving Eva's point again. Thanks for admitting you used induction. You and Eva did depend on "fewer passenger" scenarios. I did object to that and still do. I was distracted by that (it gets complicated with more than a very few) and taking much time to test different computers, find and test better "random" number generators and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 13:00:05 GMT
Nope. For this riddle, you didn't need a computer program. You could solve it with induction. Thanks for proving Eva's point again. Thanks for admitting you used induction. You and Eva did depend on "fewer passenger" scenarios. I did object to that and still do. Why? Because at this point you're just arguing with basic math and losing.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 13:20:07 GMT
Thanks for admitting you used induction. You and Eva did depend on "fewer passenger" scenarios. I did object to that and still do. Why? Because at this point you're just arguing with basic math and losing. Occam's Razor. Ordinarily I don't call in Occam's Razor. It is an assumption and I don't like assumptions. In this case however please note that the solution we finally found saved tons of pencil work and is most convincing.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 13:29:07 GMT
Why? Because at this point you're just arguing with basic math and losing. Occam's Razor. That doesn't explain anything. I'm a big proponent of Occam's Razor and think ignoring it leads to all kinds of absurdities (like the God hypothesis), but there's nothing in Occam that says probabilities can change by multiplying entities when the probabilities are the same with fewer entities. That's just not how probability works, and there's surely some kind of formal proof for it.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 10, 2018 13:34:09 GMT
That doesn't explain anything. I'm a big proponent of Occam's Razor and think ignoring it leads to all kinds of absurdities (like the God hypothesis), but there's nothing in Occam that says probabilities can change by multiplying entities when the probabilities are the same with fewer entities. That's just not how probability works, and there's surely some kind of formal proof for it. Feel free to provide that formal proof. And don't call him Shirley.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 10, 2018 13:38:21 GMT
That doesn't explain anything. I'm a big proponent of Occam's Razor and think ignoring it leads to all kinds of absurdities (like the God hypothesis), but there's nothing in Occam that says probabilities can change by multiplying entities when the probabilities are the same with fewer entities. That's just not how probability works, and there's surely some kind of formal proof for it. You said you tried fewer passengers scenarios using 3, 4 and 5 passengers. Why not just 3 and 4? Why not just 3? Do you see your own doubt at play here? It is not the same as testing 100 passengers. You are making a jump. My solution developed in pursuit of a program doesn't require any jump. It is whole as well as simple.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 13:49:01 GMT
That doesn't explain anything. I'm a big proponent of Occam's Razor and think ignoring it leads to all kinds of absurdities (like the God hypothesis), but there's nothing in Occam that says probabilities can change by multiplying entities when the probabilities are the same with fewer entities. That's just not how probability works, and there's surely some kind of formal proof for it. Feel free to provide that formal proof. That would require someone more mathematically inclined than myself. I just know how probabilities work because of my poker career. If the probability of the problem is 1/2 for 3, 4, and 5 passengers, it's not going to start changing by adding more. Perhaps theoncomingstorm or tickingmask could help (I think I recall Cash saying he used to teach math, and I remember the latter was involved in those threads).
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 13:53:52 GMT
That doesn't explain anything. I'm a big proponent of Occam's Razor and think ignoring it leads to all kinds of absurdities (like the God hypothesis), but there's nothing in Occam that says probabilities can change by multiplying entities when the probabilities are the same with fewer entities. That's just not how probability works, and there's surely some kind of formal proof for it. You said you tried fewer passengers scenarios using 3, 4 and 5 passengers. Why not just 3 and 4? Why not just 3? Do you see your own doubt at play here? It is not the same as testing 100 passengers. You are making a jump. My solution developed in pursuit of a program doesn't require any jump. It is whole as well as simple. You test 3 and 4 to see if it changes. 3 and 4 being the same convinced me. I tested 5 additionally to try to convince you. Past that it gets too long to work out manually. So, no, there was no doubt once I got the answer with 3 and 4. It is the same as testing 100 or 1000 or 10,000 passengers because of the nature of probabilities. If it doesn't change between 3 and 4, it's not going to.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 10, 2018 13:59:11 GMT
Feel free to provide that formal proof. That would require someone more mathematically inclined than myself. I just know how probabilities work because of my poker career. If the probability of the problem is 1/2 for 3, 4, and 5 passengers, it's not going to start changing by adding more. Perhaps theoncomingstorm or tickingmask could help (I think I recall Cash saying he used to teach math, and I remember the latter was involved in those threads). Perhaps tickingmask could help, but theoncomingstorm is a complete joke.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2018 14:06:30 GMT
That would require someone more mathematically inclined than myself. I just know how probabilities work because of my poker career. If the probability of the problem is 1/2 for 3, 4, and 5 passengers, it's not going to start changing by adding more. Perhaps theoncomingstorm or tickingmask could help (I think I recall Cash saying he used to teach math, and I remember the latter was involved in those threads). Perhaps tickingmask could help, but theoncomingstorm is a complete joke. I know you don't like Cash, but not liking him says nothing of his mathematical qualifications.
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Jan 10, 2018 16:58:20 GMT
Yep, I was one of the frequent posters in those threads trying to explain to Arlon why he was wrong. This was the puzzle. Arlon and I were both initially struggling with it. I worked it out manually with 3, 4, and 5 passengers getting the same answer (1/2) each time and it clicked for me why that was. I posted the answer but Arlon didn't believe me. He wrote a computer program to solve it and got a different answer. I told him he programmed it incorrectly because if a probability is 1/2 with 3, 4, and 5 passengers it's mathematically impossible for the probability to change by adding passengers. He assured me I was wrong and that he was both an expert at math and programming. This went on across three threads until someone pointed out where his program was wrong, he changed it and finally got the correct answer. I've often reminded him of that as being the ultimate example of his Dunning-Kruger syndrome, how he can be so cock-sure he's right even when he's provably wrong. He obviously didn't learn his lesson, and is still amusing us with his Room-esque fails. There was a brief delay while I trusted faulty computer equipment. I cannot afford new computers. All of mine are built by me from inexpensive parts on Ebay and Henrico County's sale of their thoroughly used equipment (with hard drives and OS removed before the sale). I'm often reminded of the saying attributed to Einstein, "if you can't explain it to a six year old you don't really understand it yourself." And you didn't really understand it yourselves. Several of you had already accepted the "right" answer without much analysis. It was only through our writing of a program (correctly at last) to solve the problem that the full explanation was brought to light. I don't have to "remember" how you are wrong about everything else, you remind us all every day. Why do you do that? Well, you’re certainly not lacking for confidence.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 10, 2018 17:28:03 GMT
Yeah I know a few artists and yes it is hard for them to get a break, it seems like part of art school should be marketing. I understand that my (ex) step daughter is going to art school, I really hope she makes it, but I fear they will not teach her the skills she needs to make money out of it. You should watch (and/or have her watch) this: I'm guessing the art world is much like the poetry world; very few who do it make money at it, so most do it while doing something else (often teaching it) to make a living. Poetry is even harder because there aren't any rich collectors/patrons, and outside of a few fellowships/grants there's no way to make significant money. Yeah as I say unfortunately at this point she does not talk to me any more, that may change in the future she is just a kid.
|
|