JAMES RANDI 5 QUESTION TEST
in [Math]
|
From: |-|ercules on 4 May 2010 09:04 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... > On 4/05/2010 10:32 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote >>> On 4/05/2010 9:32 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote >>>>> You seem to think your answers are good matches. I cannot for the life >>>>> of me see why. They barely match at all, and even then it requires a >>>>> stretch. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> Do it yourself. There are 1,000,000,000,000,000 different 5 word phrases >>>> with all common words. This is because there are in the order of >>>> 1,000,000,000,000,000 different topics that can be described in 5 words. >>>> >>>> Getting an answer match a question randomly rarely occurs in nature. >>>> >>>> I said "ARE ADAM AND EVE ALIVE TODAY?" >>>> >>>> The answer was "AFTER CREATING BOTH OF THOSE" >>>> >>>> I cannot see the rationale in your comments. >>>> >>>> You're welcome to put a figure on the odds broken. >>>> >>>> Let's hear it Sylvia. >>>> >>>> the odds of that answer being "After creating both of those" is what? >>>> >>>> Flick a book yourself until you get a BETTER answer, and that is the >>>> odds! >>>> >>>> Herc >>> >>> Let's stick to the question and answer in your video. I'm giving you >>> the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you post all the videos you >>> make, not just those that seem to you to be evidence to support your >>> position, but I don't see why I should let you get away with >>> abandoning a question and answer that you're having difficulty >>> supporting. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> >> I don't care what you think. If you think The Earliest Generalizations and >> We cannot deduce and assert all facts don't support religion and suggesting >> how research might be continued answers skeptics "barely match" then I >> can't help you. >> >> Dozens of people have posted the channels are perfect, read the bottom of >> genesisproof and 2nd site review in hercshome. >> >> You just continually ignore my points and fail to provide any stats or >> reasoning >> on probability of phrase matching. Yours is a foregone conclusion and a >> sad one at that. >> >> Herc > > Before I could even start to provide stats that would mean anything to > you on the probability of phrases matching, we'd have to have some > agreement on an objective way of judging whether a phrase matches. > Clearly such an agreement is likely to be a long time coming. > > Rather than railing at me, you should be thinking about methods of proof > that are not vulnerable to the cricitism that they're subjective, or, as > Randi put it, examples of ex post-facto rationalisation. > > You once posted a link to a decription of a protocol that made some > sense. You should use that rather than persisting in attempting to > persuade people that there are matches when those people cant't see > them, since the latter is going to be a futile exercise, particularly > when it comes to convincing the likes of Randi. > > Sylvia. You're putting the cart before the horse. I have to convince Randi to do the objective test. You totally ignored me again and said nobody can see the matches, a lot of people can. www.James-Randi.com is getting 30 hits an hour as we speak on day 2. How about this protocol. You ask me 20 questions, fundamental questions preferred. I answer them consecutively on video, take the phrase from the tip of my finger to the end of sentence so there's no selection going on. We get 40 random quotes and see if you can pick my answer from 3 options. No pass mark, if I do better than chance we work out what odds I broke with a binomial distribution. Herc
From: Ronald Bruck on 4 May 2010 12:09 In article <4bdede8b$0$32083$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > On 4/05/2010 12:25 AM, Darrell Stec wrote: > > |-|ercules wrote: > > > >> "Sylvia Else"<sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... > >>> On 3/05/2010 10:40 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 27/04/2010 4:49 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > >>>>> Here is a test of your debunking powers. > >>>>> > >>>>> 1/ Which of these numbers is prime? > >>>>> 38449548957467356353748457463 > >>>>> 38474646478349487473463636377 > >>>> > >>>> Neither of them. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> What was the intended point of this question anyway? The others looked > >>> as if they were intended to be unanswerable, but this one? > >>> > >>> Sylvia. > >> > >> NO CALCULATORS NO COMPUTERS > >> > > > > Pythagoras knew about prime numbers 2500 years ago and worked out a formula > > for determining them. He didn't need calculators nor computers. Thymaridas > > and Euclid knew about them too. Why are you so hell bound to demonstrate > > your ignorance? > > I suspect that herc has latched onto the difficulty of factoring large > composite numbers. It is indeed diffcult, and I certainly wouldn't be > able to find a factor of the second one by hand. Yeah, but the first one is pretty stupid. The only easier one would be if the number had been EVEN. -- Ron Bruck
From: george on 4 May 2010 16:45 On May 5, 12:14 am, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > Let's stick to the question and answer in your video. I'm giving you the > benefit of the doubt in assuming that you post all the videos you make, > not just those that seem to you to be evidence to support your position, > but I don't see why I should let you get away with abandoning a question > and answer that you're having difficulty supporting. > You -do- realise that this is time that you will never get back. You're trying to make sense where there is none
From: Sylvia Else on 4 May 2010 22:00 On 4/05/2010 11:04 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... >> On 4/05/2010 10:32 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote >>>> On 4/05/2010 9:32 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote >>>>>> You seem to think your answers are good matches. I cannot for the >>>>>> life >>>>>> of me see why. They barely match at all, and even then it requires a >>>>>> stretch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Do it yourself. There are 1,000,000,000,000,000 different 5 word >>>>> phrases >>>>> with all common words. This is because there are in the order of >>>>> 1,000,000,000,000,000 different topics that can be described in 5 >>>>> words. >>>>> >>>>> Getting an answer match a question randomly rarely occurs in nature. >>>>> >>>>> I said "ARE ADAM AND EVE ALIVE TODAY?" >>>>> >>>>> The answer was "AFTER CREATING BOTH OF THOSE" >>>>> >>>>> I cannot see the rationale in your comments. >>>>> >>>>> You're welcome to put a figure on the odds broken. >>>>> >>>>> Let's hear it Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> the odds of that answer being "After creating both of those" is what? >>>>> >>>>> Flick a book yourself until you get a BETTER answer, and that is the >>>>> odds! >>>>> >>>>> Herc >>>> >>>> Let's stick to the question and answer in your video. I'm giving you >>>> the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you post all the videos you >>>> make, not just those that seem to you to be evidence to support your >>>> position, but I don't see why I should let you get away with >>>> abandoning a question and answer that you're having difficulty >>>> supporting. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> >>> I don't care what you think. If you think The Earliest >>> Generalizations and >>> We cannot deduce and assert all facts don't support religion and >>> suggesting >>> how research might be continued answers skeptics "barely match" then I >>> can't help you. >>> >>> Dozens of people have posted the channels are perfect, read the >>> bottom of >>> genesisproof and 2nd site review in hercshome. >>> >>> You just continually ignore my points and fail to provide any stats or >>> reasoning >>> on probability of phrase matching. Yours is a foregone conclusion and a >>> sad one at that. >>> >>> Herc >> >> Before I could even start to provide stats that would mean anything to >> you on the probability of phrases matching, we'd have to have some >> agreement on an objective way of judging whether a phrase matches. >> Clearly such an agreement is likely to be a long time coming. >> >> Rather than railing at me, you should be thinking about methods of >> proof that are not vulnerable to the cricitism that they're >> subjective, or, as Randi put it, examples of ex post-facto >> rationalisation. >> >> You once posted a link to a decription of a protocol that made some >> sense. You should use that rather than persisting in attempting to >> persuade people that there are matches when those people cant't see >> them, since the latter is going to be a futile exercise, particularly >> when it comes to convincing the likes of Randi. >> >> Sylvia. > > You're putting the cart before the horse. I have to convince Randi to > do the objective test. First you need to convince your local media that that you have a psychic ability. > > You ... said nobody can see the matches No, I didn't. , a lot > of people can. www.James-Randi.com is getting 30 hits an hour > as we speak on day 2. > > How about this protocol. > > You ask me 20 questions, fundamental questions preferred. > > I answer them consecutively on video, take the phrase from the tip of my > finger > to the end of sentence so there's no selection going on. How do I know that you haven't taken multiple videos for the question until you find one that seems to work? Sylvia.
From: Sylvia Else on 4 May 2010 22:01
On 5/05/2010 6:45 AM, george wrote: > On May 5, 12:14 am, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > >> Let's stick to the question and answer in your video. I'm giving you the >> benefit of the doubt in assuming that you post all the videos you make, >> not just those that seem to you to be evidence to support your position, >> but I don't see why I should let you get away with abandoning a question >> and answer that you're having difficulty supporting. >> > You -do- realise that this is time that you will never get back. > You're trying to make sense where there is none > Well, not exactly. Look back up the thread, to find my real purpose. Sylvia. |