If I did that it was completely intentional: like I said in the quote, I focused on what the quote said literally and I interpreted it to be what I said.
I already acknowledged that the other part of the question which has been addressed is fair: I agree with your stance on probabilities being equal and all the rest of that which has been discussed in depth.
Again, I'm not trying to hide anything: I just looked at the quote and interpreted it to mean what it meant in the way that I described.
I thought I made it clear when I was talking about parameter estimation, but I think that perhaps I should have been clearer. I'll keep that in mind for future conversations.
For what I was talking about I was only concerned with the problems where a sequence was given. Again I thought I made that very clear. I am, as you have pointed out, addressing the last point in the list.
In terms of a sequence being generated by a non-die process (but still has the same probability space), we can't really know this based on Marilyn's circumstance: we have assumed that someone else rolled a dice and therefore we construct the constraints we construct. Does that seem like a fair thing to do? If not why not?
I am specifically solving problem 6 yes, but I've outlined my reasoning above.
Yes I have found that statistics and probability has a habit of getting people falling into that trap, and even for people that have been doing this for a long time it still can happen. But with respect to the answer, I thought it was clear what I was saying.
I agree with you on this, but again I wasn't focusing on this.
I never argued about that part of the problem. You might want to look at the response I had for those parts of Marilyn's statement. You made a statement about this and I agreed with you: again I'm not focusing on that part and I made it clear before what my thoughts were.
Again, I agree that if a process has specific characteristics then regardless of what we 'think' it doesn't change the process. I didn't argue that and in fact I agreed with you if you go back a few pages in the thread. The process is what the process is.
The big thing I have learned from this is that in a conversation like this (and especially one this heated) we need to all be clear what we are talking about. It includes me but I think it also includes the other participants as well.
I will make the effort on my part to do this for future threads, especially ones of this type.