Re: TIB: wieghted dice (discussion ....... off-topic)
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TIB: wieghted dice (discussion ....... off-topic)
TGaArdvark@aol.com wrote:
> > Well, seems I'm being told what I've said and what I haven't, and what I
> > said it about. Quite a feat, don't you agree? =^]
>
> Just for that remark, I'm going to paste my closing argument to the list.
> It turns out I _AM_ telling you what you said and what you didn't. Only
> the mail archives seem to agree with me.
>
> (What I said is on the even numbers of bullets.)
>
> >>> I also pointed out that the resulting
> >>> program was rather easy. And in a forum of programmers, it is.
> >>
> >> You are incorrect. You are considering an incorrect routine.
> >> :int (rand*6)+1 is not being discussed here.
> >
> > As stated above, this was what I replied to, and therefore what was
> > discussed in the replies to me. No one changed the subject in that
> > particular discussion. It seems that the one making things up is you. I
> > would like to believe otherwise; that you are in fact merely a bit
> > confused.
>
> I decided to go to the ticalc.org archives and see for myself. Once
> again, you are wrong. EVERY SINGLE letter with that topic talked
> about a routine to weight dice. Nothing about normal random routines.
>
> Check this excerpt out (something you said to me at the start of
> this flame):
>
> > Using a
> > program to "unbalance" the dice is more likely to obscure the
> > probabilities rather than provide a realistic image. Easy, but
> > pointless.
>
> Ooo... In fact, I am going to end my argument with this.
>
> After all, your entire argument was based on the fact that we
> were talking about different routines.
>
> > I never said that doing so was easy...
> Yes you did.
>
> > ...this was what I replied to... [Referring to ":int (rand*6)+1"]
> No, it actually wasn't.
>
> Be glad I didn't send this to the list.
>
> [the remainder snipped]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, let's take a look at the archives, shall we:
http://www.ticalc.org/mailarchive/ti-basic/current/msg00121.html
[...]
>> I have created a program in TI-85 BASIC to roll dice for AD&D. I
>> would like to know how to weight the dice so that the higher numbers
>> have a slightly higher chance to come up than the lower ones (like it
>> is with real D&D dice).
>
>What 'real D&D dice' are these? Not any that I've heard of. Are you
>suggesting that TSR sells loaded dice...?
>*puzzled*
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ticalc.org/mailarchive/ti-basic/current/msg00126.html
[...]
But then I don't understand, why should I get higher numbers more often
than lower ones?
take a look at 2d6 for instance:
P(2) = 1/36
P(3) = 2/36
P(4) = 3/36
P(5) = 4/36
P(6) = 5/36
P(7) = 6/36
P(8) = 5/36
P(9) = 4/36
P(10)= 3/36
P(11)= 2/36
P(12)= 1/36
It's a perfect bell-curve, averaging 7.0 a roll.
Fill me in ?! :-/
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ticalc.org/mailarchive/ti-basic/current/msg00136.html
Well think of the holes in the dice, on perfect dice they are filled
with the
accurate amount of colour, so that there is no side prefered, but the
dice
usually sold are cheap, and so the 6 isn't as heavy as the 1.
A.K.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------
This is how it started. "Help me simulate D&D dice rolls"
This was what I addressed.
Any objections to that fact?
Didn't think so.
It is pointless to try and do it, as it can't be done + the difference
is insignificant as a whole.
Objections?
Didn't think so.
As to flaming or not flaming, it seems that you take things very
personal. I can't do anything about that. I pointed out the facts.
I you took any of this in any other way, too bad. It might be your own
fault, it might be because this is a mailing list and not a newsgroup,
the latter making it easier to follow sub-threads.
And BTW, to clear up on the issue of "threads": We obviously don't speak
of the same thing. You speak of the physical notion of a thread, I speak
of the abstract. Even though we basically use only one header, this
subject has created more than one sub-thread. This is what I am talking
about. I was obviously not precise enough in pointing this out to you.
Now, are we finished?
--
Rene Kragh Pedersen
------------------------------------------------------------------
man: Why did you get a divorce?
man:: Too many arguments.
References: