Recent content by Volkl

Gravity has the same effect on time. I.e. Flying a clock in a plane can cause a difference. Would flying around the sun at 1/2 the speed of light in a gravitational field that was immensely stronger than that on Earth cause the clock to differ in the same manner as they would if there was no...

It's nice to see that people are finally coming around. Does everyone agree that the computer simulation that you are all desperate for would reveal that 100 blacks in a row would be less prevalent than 10 blacks in a row? Then why wouldn't that same logic hold true for 11 blacks in a row being...

If you wait for ten blacks in a row and bet against black only in this situation I.e(after ten blacks in a row), you will win more than 50 percent of the time, because it is less likely to have 11 blacks in a row over time.

Well in theory I think it is a safe bet to say that the chances of 100 blacks in a row is less likely than 10 in a row in the same way as I believe 11 blacks in a row is less likely than ten.

We should be comparing the total number of groups of ten to the total number of groups of 100. Do you believe the total number of groups of 10 as related to 100 would be in the same ratio as the ratio of probabilities you displayed?

If the bottom coin is moved at the speed of light the top coin will simply drop, therefor in this case the correct answer is that it moves perpendicularly to the bottom coin. I'd like to see your teachers face when you explain that :)

This is in the context of the original question which is a sample size of 50,000,000.

The chances of the values all being alternating is the same as them all being alike. I already talked about this being basically impossible previously. Let me ask you this, if you believe that 100 blacks in a row will be less prevalent than ten blacks in a row, then how does this come about...

Sure it is likely to be random because the values change, values tend to like doing that when things are random.

The same concept holds true when comparing to 99, or 98, or 97...or 2. Doesn't it?

Do you think there are just as many sets of 100 blacks in a row as there are individual blacks? Do you really need a simulation for this?

Three blacks in a row does not count as two combinations of two blacks in a row I.e. Only two blacks in a row count as two blacks in a row.

Imagine a longer set? You would be even more incorrect as the length approaches infinity.

You took that bet even after the post of the 100 random numbers? -you loose - now pay up ;)

That sequence of a hundred, displays the tendency for the groups of consecutive like numbers to be small. Whatever the reason, it means that a change is not only inevitable, but most likely frequent. Thanks for displaying it!