Re: TIB: wieghted dice (discussion sliding off-topic)
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TIB: wieghted dice (discussion sliding off-topic)
TGaArdvark wrote:
[snipped a lot about logic and the like]
Instead of confronting my logic you steer right into an argumentum ad
hominenm. Attacking my person does not change facts. You accuse me of
using faulty logic, and say that I don't know enough about it. Well,
without trying to sound arrogant, I will have to inform you that I have
received top grades in Philosophy which IIRC involves a LOT of logic. I
know how to expose basic errors, and I just did. If you are in doubt you
should look it up in a book on the subject. That is how I learned.
> Anyone here disagree?
Your appeal to the public will not support your case anywhere.
Sheer weight of numbers does not change an argument. If it did, this
planet would still be flat as pancake.
Again, an implication that you are prone to basic logical flaws.
[snipped a lot about what this thread's topic is]
> Why would I care? Even if you came from TI, that wouldn't change
> ANYTHING.
You asked me if I liked programming. If you had bothered to look at the
"organization" header you would have noticed that it says "DAIMI -
Department of Computer Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark.".
I'd say that should answer your initial question.
> > I agree that the posts I have received _today_ (about ln() and such) are
> > of high mathematical interest to me, but these have nothing to do with
> > the first (very simple and crude) program, nor with real dice rolls
> > which was what the original question was about.
>
> I thought it would be helpful to retrieve the original letter:
> >> >> >> >> 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). Does
> >> >> >> >> anyone know how I would go about doing that?
>
> He did NOT ask how to make the dice roll more realistic. He specifically
> asked how to make one integer come up slightly more times than
> another. I won't accept any argument about this being "crude".
That is all very fine, now listen to this (I have already stated this
but I will now try and sum it up for you.):
To begin with, I noted the "(like it is with real D&D dice)" part, and
asked if these were in fact loaded dice. They weren't.
Someone then stated that dice are slightly off-balance by default.
_This_ is what I also replied to. I stated that it was pointless to try
and make up for that as it is simply _IMPOSSIBLE_ to measure in an
adequately accurate way. If you do not understand this, then let me
know, I will be happy to explain why.
The program that I referred to as easy was the "2+2"-ish program from
the beginning.
The pointless thing is to try and make up for reality when you don't
know how to do it.
You then come in and accuse me of having said this about the other
thread (and if you have the slightest level of abstraction available to
you, you will see that this is metaphysically speaking, not merely a
statement that "there is another thread on this list")
simplification of expressions.
[snipped more about pointlessness]
> > To start with, I asked if the so-called D&D dice were loaded (and nobody
> > answered me directly :-/ ). If not then why do it? Someone then pointed
> > out that there is a minute difference in weight because there are more
> > holes on the six end than on the one end. What I then pointed out was
> > that it would be pointless to try and emulate that difference, and that
> > one was more likely to obscure it.
>
> All of that is fine. But you didn't stop there.
Aha! If this is fine, then why do you still persist in arguing that I
said this about all the other programs?
> > 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.
> >> The point (and
> >> fun) is writing the routine.
You are absolutely right. However, this was about one particular
routine, and the point here was "why?" before "how?"
[snipped more pointlessness]
> >> Not making war games with millions of tanks.
> >> You are so hung up on the most efficient way of doing it, you didn't
> >> realize that we are discussing it for the programming experience.
> >
> > The discussion (started by me) was in fact about efficiency. The other
> > thread isn't.
>
> There is only one thread here.
Try being just a _bit_ abstract. Just because they have the same header
(and in fact there ARE two different header going - three if you count
this discussion) does not mean that they contain the same discussion.
Sub-discussions are prone to happen almost every time someone posts a
letter, and people just filter out the sub-topics they don't want to
discuss.
> It was started by the letter quoted above.
> You made a point that the routine did not serve a purpose. You are
> entitled to tell us that. You are not entitled to try to stop us,
I didn't.
> insult
> other's intelligence ("This routine is so EASY, why are you having
> trouble?")
Come on now, are you trying to argue that the routine _I_ am talking
about is _not_ easy?
Get real.
> , or flame in any way.
There is a subtle difference between flames and critique. I didn't flame
anyone, I merely pointed a few facts out.
> >> >> And just because you or I could whip it out
> >> >> in 5 mins doesn't make it necessarily easy.
> >> >
> >> > Actually that _is_ the definition of easy, something that can be whipped
> >> > out in five minutes.
> >>
> >> Actually it's _NOT_. Ease is based on skill and changes per person.
> >
> > This is a forum of programmers. I hardly think anyone had any problems
> > overseeing the program.
>
> Then explain to us the best way to "weight the dice so that the higher
> numbers have a slightly higher chance to come up than the lower ones,"
> since you're so much more intelligent than us. *sarcasm again*
Insulting people's intelligence is when you let them know you are being
sarcastic when it is obvious. I don't really care though, keep on if you
want to.
Try reading what I have stated. There is no such thing as a best way to
do it.
> >> Also,
> >> the amount of time it takes you to do something has nothing to do with
> >> it's hardness. There are many things that, if they took me 5 minutes to
> >> do, I would consider them VERY hard.
> >
> > Leave everything else out of it, this is about programming, and when it
> > comes to making a program, five minutes is easy.
>
> Often so. Sometimes not.
Come on. If you can make a program in five man-minutes it can't be hard.
Prove me wrong, I dare you.
> And the point is, someone brought it here
> because he couldn't do it at all.
No, the point was that it was pointless to try and make up for reality.
> So you insult his intelligence.
Actually, I don't. He asked for help to construct a program that lets
you weight the dice, I never said that doing so was easy, I said that
about a particular program. "Weighing dice" without further
specification is indeed a difficult task with an infinite number of
solutions.
> Lay off.
I am really not in the mood to take orders from someone as intrusive and
thickheadedly persistent and stuborn as you.
[snipped the nature of the discussed routine]
> >> Um, that wasn't even the routine in question.
> >
> > In fact it was. I know, because I was the one to hit "reply" when it
> > came.
>
> How about you scroll back up to that original letter and discover that
> you are wrong.
How about you consider the fact that my letters addressed, and replied
to, that particular routine, and nothing else?
> >> If you have something
> >> better, feel free to show us.
> >
> > I don't. As said, the particular problem is not solvable.
> > And when it comes to the other thing in question (generally loading
> > dice) I could make all the programs you want, each one different from
> > the other, and the best one? A matter of preference really. There is no
> > royal way to computer science.
>
> Then how about helping instead of flaming?
I am. I was the one to simplify the second or third routine. I also
corrected someone in his use of the int(.
If there is anything you would like to know, post it, and maybe I can
help.
> >> But if we don't care (like now), then drop
> >> it.
> >
> > If you don't care then why did you get involved in the first place? I
> > entered the discussion first, and I am not leaving because of you. Also,
> > try not to speak for everyone on the list. Thank you.
>
> If anyone on the list would like to speak on this for himself, that's great.
> Until then, I'll make accurate assumptions.
According to you.
> I didn't ask you to leave, just
> change your position to one of ASSISTANCE.
Look above, I have assisted more than once.
> And I am involved because
> I do care about the topic. I don't care about how purposeful the routine is.
Then you shouldn't be replying to letters that address this particular
sub-thread ("sub" inserted to make sure you don't start another
pointless discussion about thread numbers)
> And nobody else does anymore either. Otherwise, they would've spoken
> up.
Not an argument for anything, they could be lurking.
> >> We are talking about accurate probability routines,
> >
> > In the other thread, yes, not this one.
>
> OTHER THREAD?! You REPLIED to a letter, therefore, it's the same
> thread BY DEFINITION.
Abstractness again. Think it over.
Sincerely,
--
Rene Kragh Pedersen
------------------------------------------------------------------
man: Why did you get a divorce?
man:: Too many arguments.
Follow-Ups:
References: