Re: TIB: wieghted dice (discussion ....... off-topic)
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TIB: wieghted dice (discussion ....... off-topic)
> 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]
Follow-Ups: