User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Archive 08

Maths: Runs of heads
Did you find a formula for the probability of a run ? Because it seems to me that for a large number of throws, to compute a close approximation seems not very hard when the approach is right.

For a large number of throws, the expected length of a run is 2.
 * To come up with the expected (average) length of a run E, given an infinite number of throws, consider this: A run is either of length 1 (50%), or it is longer than 1 (50%). If it is longer, then after the first throw, we're again in the initial situation, so its expected length after the first throw will be the expected length E, totalling E+1. Thus, E = 1/2 * 1 + 1/2 * (E+1). Solve for E to get E=2.
 * If we had only 6 throws, the expected length would be a lot less, because a run starting on the first throw would be limited to length 6, and a run starting on the 5th throw (which probably happens 1/4 of the time) could only have a maximum of 2, and so would have an average length of only 1.5. So in theory I'd need to come up with a formula to compute the expected length of a run as a sum of the probability that a run will start on a certain position times the expected length for that position, but for a large number of throws most of these addends would be very close to 1/n * 2, making the result so close to 2 that I won't bother.

If we have n runs of heads or tails, the probability of seeing a run of heads of length k or over is R(k) = 1 / 2^k.
 * Check this for k=1 : there's a 50% chance that the run will be of heads, and any such run will certainly be length 1 or over, or it wouldn't be a run, so 1/2^1 = 1/2 is correct. Having a run that is lonnger by one is half as likely, etc.

To find how many runs (n) we have to observe to see at least one run of length k with probability p, we simply solve (1 - R(k))^n = (1-p) for n, which gives n = log(1-p) / log(1 - R(k)).

Multiply by the expected length of a run, and you have the average number of throws required: N = 2 * log(1-p) / log(1 - 1/2^k)

For a run of k=10 heads and p=50%, this comes out to 1419 throws; and 14189 throws for p=1023/1024. For validation, this is fairly close to what the excel computation arrived at, that method is prone to suffer from propagating numeric rounding errors. --◄mendel► 08:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are asking me. This came up when I was testing DDG vs Google by asking something like, how likely is it to get 50 heads in a row. This was only one of many results. The only reason I linked is that it includes examples of people writing clearly, people who obscure their ideas through unfortunate rhetorical choices, and that neither type of writing implied whether their analysis was accurate. Whether anyone addressed the question 100% correctly is to me, moot.


 * I wasn't particularly interested in the answer per se, I was interested in whether Google or DDG gave me a good shot at anything valuable. And, to a lesser extent, whether someone who was bad at math could get an accurate and useful answer.


 * As you can see, the (ahem) odds of getting a valuable answer by randomly selecting a result were poor even if one understands math; the chances (ahem) of being misled by a clear (but incorrect) answer were high.


 * And, for what it's worth, I couldn't find anything (without digging deeper) that was both as clear and as accurate as your analysis above. The excel version might have been accurate (within rounding areas, as you note), but was hard to parse unless you are good at Excel and math. The easier-to-read examples tended to miss something critical.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, to me, it seemed like normal mathematical discussion on the 'net, with people responding to different aspects of the problem and at different levels of mathematical understanding - and some levels were probably not well suited to the person who originally asked the question. However, whether an answer sounds good and is adapted to the person who asked for it is indeed no guarantee that it is accurate - to judge that, you need to know more about the subject matter. I guess that's the difference between getting an answer and getting an education. ;-P And there are still too few people around who are educated in privacy. --◄mendel► 04:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was a completely typical discussion (mathematical or otherwise). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 06:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * a typical discussion? (youtube link)
 * via Robot Beach, --◄mendel► 15:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ernie
/wave =) A F K When Needed 19:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey! wb. (or are you just lurking intermittently?) What's new in the world of AFKness? — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 20:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, he's a free kill, as always. --[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 21:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Get outta here you strange, floating individual.
 * I tend to be lurking even when not editing; though I'm certainly not on here every day. Not much is new (yet - hopefully will have a lot to tell at the end of the summer) with me, anything exciting happening in your life?
 * (Is this the first time ever you accepted Ernie as being directed at you? That one's going on the calendar.) A_F_K_sig_2.jpg A F K When Needed 22:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I accepted your wave; I didn't actually notice the header until just now.


 * Anyhow, there's never been anything wrong with Ernie, it's just that until I had been at this wiki for over a year, I never had anyone refer to me by that term...and I've been using this userID to post about RPGs for a very, very long time. In some ways, it's the more obvious choice. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You still have yet to object to the header.
 * Which, co-incidentally, proves you owe me €50. A_F_K_sig_2.jpg A F K When Needed 00:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Takes the 50 and runs* weee, more alcohol!!!! (just kidding) Ariyen 04:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Woman, you might want to get out of that sunny patch. I think it's going to your head... Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 07:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hai Arnout, how's u? A_F_K_sig_2.jpg A F K When Needed 10:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, thank you. Aryen stole my sunny patch and my cold beverage, thats all. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 14:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "beverage" ;) ∵Scythe∵ 19:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd posted sooner, but here *hands Arnout back his empty cup*. Oh and here *hands him an alcoholic beverage*. Have fun. :-) Oh, before I forget... *gives Arnout the sun* now don't get burned . ;-) Ariyen 01:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of move.
I've always used the in between reply because it adds a layer of indentation that separates replies. I use one more to indicate that it came after the following post, and insert it in the middle to make it clear that it's in reply to the original post and not the following post. I also don't like having multiple replies on the same indentation vertically adjacent because they get muddled together when quickly reading.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 07:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My concern is that Ariyen and Scythe both responded to the same post...and Scythe's came first.


 * But wiki talk pages always have trouble if sub-threads start popping up like weeds. So, when I post, I always indent and always post at the bottom and always add context...unless there's a really strong reason not to; otherwise, I find that someone always has trouble following each subthread. Sometimes adding helps when more than one post comes in response to the same prompt.


 * And speaking of edit conflict, I was about to revert it back (to avoid this digression)...but you beat me to the punch. I am sorry that I made a big deal of this in what is mostly just a thread of silliness, where wiki-etiquette should take a backseat to having fun.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 08:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree to the way Gigathrash posted, because that's how I felt and why I did it the way I did in the first place. I was trying to follow what I learned in my talk, but in the bouts of having fun. See, mine was "direct" towards his comment, while scythe's was practically indirect and I tried using the best of judgement as to where I felt it should be. it is your talk and you can remove that entirely, but the majority are just out to have some cool fun. ;-) *hands you a cold drink*. I could enjoy that(fun) with the way real life has been. Ariyen 08:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, as I say, I'm sorry I moved anything around because everyone was just trying to have fun. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 08:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's alright. No harm done. :-) Ariyen 08:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I just wonder why people can't grasp the underlying logic of comment threading. All replies to the same post have the same indentation, ordered by posting time.  Which means Giga's method is completely insane. @_@
 * "they get muddled together when quickly reading" That's why I've started leaving a blank line between posts, it leaves a slightly larger vertical space between the paragraphs.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 13:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

We're not educational? Since when?
I didn't clarify at the time, because I felt doing so would be unnecessary due to the context; I think the decision to "not clarify" is a mistaken made all too often. I do wonder why I never have such an enlightened thought before hitting 'Save page'...

My point was that we're a wiki documenting a game. Sure, I've learned loads from just watching others go about their daily routine. Being in a Computer Science course, my time at Wikia - and now at GuildWiki.org - has given me a not inconsiderable head-start in CSS, JS, less so in HTML, and tidbits of other stuff. Something I enjoy the benefits of immensely, as I can learn about what I find interesting while happily ignoring what's going on around me (to some extent) when in college. With some people here - primarily but not only Ishy - it would be a crime to ignore the wonders that are submitted regularly. I don't claim to understand half of what he does; merely try to educate myself on what others have done before me. I would like it to be noted as, being someone who hopes to make such things their area of expertise, I fully recognise the learning potential this wiki can be.

However, while it's all well and dandy that I get free how2wiki lessons - it should not come at the expense of the Wiki. People are free to learn here. To be inspired by the edits of others. To blatantly copy and paste such edits (within the terms of licensing, which means pointing at the real author). But they are not free to break articles in the process. My perspective, I think, is very similar to that of your own. Just perhaps a bit sterner. So regarding the cause of the confusion, I would point to how strongly I worded my thoughts originally - in conjunction with my "there's context, so I won't bother explaining" mishap.

I'll happily help anyone, my limited knowledge permitting. I will, however, take an unfavorable stance on those who leave articles in tatters and make no effort to contact others for help. Or revert themselves. Or find an Admin and tell them about it. Or join our IRC channel and inform someone. Or e-mail a user that looks vaguely helpful with the name of the article which was tarnished. Or make any noticable attempt to fix the damage that they themselves caused. We do not get paid for teaching others. I don't mind doing so (I enjoy it). But I do expect them to meet us halfway.

They broke the article and made no effort to repair it, neither did they attempt to aid others in doing so (nevermind telling us there was a problem). I can see how Ishy didn't assume good faith. I consider three days to perhaps be unnecessary. But I consider it in no way to be unwarranted. I would consider a week or anything less to be fair, if excessive. Anything more does really beg for evidence of it being a repeat performance and prior warnings being handed down.

tl;dr: Read it as "GuildWiki is not (primarily / intended to be) an educational resource". Our primary purpose must take priority.

(If you were being given free painting lessons, would you practise on the walls belonging to your instructor - or would you limit yourself to appropriate areas?) A F K When Needed 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Our primary purpose must take priority." -- If we were true to that call, you'd already be perma'd here and elsewhere; why is it that you get miffed over on UA for me not willing to educate you on wiki etiquette over and over? You've been the recipient of hours of "education".
 * If he didn't contact anyone, how is that his fault? Apparently half the other editors didn't know to contact him! Why do you ask the newbie who's panicking to meet you halfway when you have done exactly nothing to meet him?
 * "no effort to repair it" -- He did try to fix the problem (no map) by research and editing, though he did get stuck because this wiki is a tad more complicated than others he may have experience with. --◄mendel► 23:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You ask me to AGF with you, yet you jump on any opportunity to bring such things up. See the problem?
 * If it makes a difference: No I don't want to suggest such things with you publically, whenever you feel like doing so on a whim. I'd revert you if I thought I could get away with it. Your message reads as nothing but trolling. Keep the business of one wiki, to that wiki. As said in relation to an RfA (was it Gigathrash who penned the words?) GuildWiki is, supposedly, a 'safe haven'. A_F_K_sig_2.jpg A F K When Needed 23:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

Obviously, our main concern is GW and documentation thereof. But I (and you and even Mendel and Ish) have made mistakes; we're not banned for that. We're expected to learn and move on...which makes this wiki, like any other community-driven tool, partially an educational resource.

Collectively, we spent less than five minutes evaluating whether their posts were vandalistic or failed attempts to make the page better; we spent even less time trying to help them to understand what they were doing wrong. Instead we just assumed bad faith.

I don't really care what you call it, that's not the philosophy of the Guild Wiki that, two years ago, attracted me to contribute here instead of at the official wiki. Surely, the wiki that has room for those banned from GWW can have more patience than that.

(As a side note for @Mendel, @AFK: please cease arguing or baiting each other on my talk page. I will move any future posts that, in my opinion, go off-topic and/or get personal. Thanks.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't intend for my post to be bait. --◄mendel► 10:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies: I didn't mean to suggest it was intended as such. The side-note was meant preemptively: I could smell the storm winds a'comin'. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

YAV
The role parameter in your joke (?) block support template would break GW:YAV. Just sayin'. --◄mendel► 07:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose it would, but I was thinking (as a joke) that anything can be used (much as allows you to throw in any title). e.g. My name is Frodo and I'm the Ring Bearer here. I support this template.


 * Worse, though: the entire idea behind the template is a little too close to endorsing backhanded personal attacks. (Not even remotely suggesting anyone committed PA in the recent edits that suggested the template, but I think it's easy to see how a little (mostly innocent) joshing around could lead to ugliness.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 15:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good thing it's only a joke. ;-P --◄mendel► 15:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)