JAMES RANDI 5 QUESTION TEST
in [Math]
|
From: Sylvia Else on 4 May 2010 22:03 On 5/05/2010 2:09 AM, Ronald Bruck wrote: > 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. That may have been deliberate, given that Herc presumably went to some trouble to obtain the second one. Sylvia.
From: Herc7 on 5 May 2010 02:28 On May 5, 12:00 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > On 4/05/2010 11:04 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > > > > > > > "Sylvia Else" <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... > >> On 4/05/2010 10:32 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > >>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote > >>>> On 4/05/2010 9:32 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > >>>>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...(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.comis 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. I answer them all in one take, c o n s e c u t I v e l y like my 10 questions demo vid. No way that could be attributed to chance if YOU contacted some media people then it's a lot less crazy sounding. Ask them to view some vids. Say you are skeptical but the skeptics won't do a test without media presence you do like whinging to t. Stations so consider this a promotion! Just a joke dear! If I'm right. You just earned eternal life and beauty and the riches to go with it Herc
From: Sylvia Else on 5 May 2010 05:05 On 5/05/2010 4:28 PM, Herc7 wrote: > On May 5, 12:00 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: >> On 4/05/2010 11:04 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> "Sylvia Else"<syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote ... >>>> On 4/05/2010 10:32 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>>> "Sylvia Else"<syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote >>>>>> On 4/05/2010 9:32 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>>>>> "Sylvia Else"<syl...(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.comis 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. > > > I answer them all in one take, c o n s e c u t I v e l y > > like my 10 questions demo vid. No way that could be attributed to > chance Well, if the 10 questions demo video is the best you can do, then it's a complete waste of time, because that video only illustrates how far you will stretch phrases to attribute to them a relevant meaning. Sylvia
From: Terrys on 6 May 2010 05:59 On May 6, 4:09 pm, "|-|ercules" <milliondollarfr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > SO YOU DELIBERATELY LED ME ON, AS SEEN ABOVE AND YOU JUST ADMITTED > A `defence' often attempted by rapists and bashers - usually middle- aged sad fat slobs with an inflated sense of their importance who get their kicks from any illusion of power or control. I've got this stereotyped image of a drunk with a bloody hand, having just missed his partner and hit a wall, yelling `Now see what you made me do'. If I hadn't had the benefit of ABC reports, newspapers and your own kook-meister web sites to assess you, that last post alone is enough to convince me that you need treatment, badly and quickly. Tell me Herc - did you use to pick up hitch-hickers in the early seventies? My sympathies to the other residents of Rockhampton.
From: Terrys on 6 May 2010 07:29
> 4,000 words, don't publically accuse me of anything ever until you've digested Still making demands Cooper? You demand that you will set the rules regarding other peoples money, you demand that some poor girl whose either never heard of you, or wishes she hadn't, acceed to your pathetic masturbation fantasies, and you demand that people who refuse to accept your bizzare and deranged view of reality waste bandwidth watching some pathetic portly red-neck wank on about his `mysterious powers'. Normally I'd have sympathy, but I interact daily with people who face real challenges and problems with stoicicsm, humour and a detestation of `pity', `sympathy' or patronising platitudes. The joke is I get paid for it, whereas they have to put up with me for free. You, OTOH, are a whining Legend in his own lunchbox who cannot seem to accept the fact that he _doesn't_ make rules for anyone else, and the rules he makes for himself invariably cause decent reasonable people concern. I don't accuse you, I report who you are. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200203/s499777.htm Reflect on the fact that your entire defence seems to be `It was pathetic'. Says it all, really. |