Re: TIB: wieghted dice (discussion ....... off-topic)

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: TIB: wieghted dice (discussion ....... off-topic)


>Yes, let's take a look at the archives, shall we:

Lets.
To avoid a lot of objections, I'll use the sources Rene provided...

[Quoted from ti-basic archives at ticalc.org]

Not an large amount of weight, just a very slight amount.  Try rolling 
the
dice about 20 or 30 times.  You'll normally get higher numbers a little 
more
often than lower numbers.

J

>>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*
>
[end quote]

Please note J's response right there, with his observations concerning 
the real dice (in order to answer Rene's supposedly ignored question)

[Here's the second quote]
But then I don't understand, why should I get higher numbers more often 
than lower ones?
take a look at 2d6 for instance:

[snip]

It's a perfect bell-curve, averaging 7.0 a roll.
Fill me in ?! :-/
[end quote]

Here, Rene refers to "2d6", that is, the ideal mathematical 
probabilities of rolling two dice with six sides each.  Of COURSE that 
will fit predicted models of perfect, six-sided dice, since this is such 
a model itself.  As such, it is irrelevant to the discussion of the 
observed differences by the person asking for help, Jeremy Mullins.

[And now for the last quote]

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.
[...]

--------
A.K. replied later, telling people to ignore the above post, so please 
don't use it for any more arguments blaming the experimental deviation 
on a physical property that may not be consistent with D&D dice, but let 
it go.

[Quoted from
http://www.ticalc.org/mailarchive/ti-basic/current/msg00204.html
check it out]
That' quite nice, forget my letter posted before                A.K.


>------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is how it started. "Help me simulate D&D dice rolls"
>This was what I addressed.
>Any objections to that fact?

[My objection: THE post whose topic matters most, aka the original post]

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?
 
Jeremy Mullins.

[end quote]
He is asking explicitly to weight the dice in the program so that higher 
numbers have a slightly higher probability of coming up.  Rene admits 
not having any knowledge of D&D dice, as do I, but I trust Jeremy's 
observations to be accurate to him, the program writer.  As such, his 
program's dice should have the same bias he wants them to have, which is 
not necessarily the same as the perfectly simulated D&D dice from which 
this thread is drifting away.  Write a formula and be done with it so we 
can all be on our own way.

>Didn't think so.
What's _that_ doing up there?

>It is pointless to try and do it, as it can't be done + the
>difference
>is insignificant as a whole.
>Objections?

As a matter of fact, yes.  The effect is insignificant to everyone but 
the programmer who requested the advice from the nicer people of this 
group, and I guess myself, since I personally dislike the phrase "It 
can't be done" being applied to something you earlier described as 
"easy"


>Didn't think so.
Look harder...

>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 have clarified your facts.  I do not want to take sides, but the 
arguing must cease between everyone, whether anyone holds it personally 
or not.  I ask that these quotes are not taken personally against me 
since they are not from me.

>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.

Please refrain from trying to declare what is at fault and try to stay 
on topic.
You too, TGaArdvark!

>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.

It is true that there is more then one sub-thread under the same name. 
However, replies to the original post was not just made by Rene but also 
by others, myself included.

>Now, are we finished?

Until there is an understanding, I don't believe either of you will let 
go of this thread in such a manner.  Rene, I must apologize for taking 
it so hard on you, but there is no room for argument on this topic.  
(nice touch by the way, quoting yourself)
TGaArdvark, I also ask that you don't egg Rene on with all of this... I 
think everyone would rather be programming than fighting over who or 
what is right over a weighted-random number generator.

Tavis

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com