Most of what I need to reply here has already been said by diane and Slip.
No, they completely missed it too. They assumed you said something you didn't.
I actually don't think for one moment that pck thinks there is any bias, or that anything untoward going on with regard to dice at fibs.
Pck is not suggesting Marvin intentionally programmed the dice in a manner that could introduce bias.
That is precisely what pck suggested.
In response to my post on Turner's analysis of 10,593,121 rolls of FIBS dice, pck states
Pointing to serverwide statistics isn't as strong an argument against allegations of manipulation as it may seem.
The definition of "manipulate" (New Oxford English Dictionary)
control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously: the masses were deceived and manipulated by a tiny group.
• alter (data) or present (statistics) so as to mislead.
There is no other manner in which the word "manipulation" can be construed in this sentence to mean anything other than the creator of FIBS code, which in this case is Marvin, intentionally programmed the dice in a manner that would introduce bias.
pck then immediately gives his counter example where the astute reader will note he ambiguously states "FIBS is programmed," which in the context of the above "allegations of manipulation" sentence can only mean that it was Marvin who unscrupulously and knowingly programmed FIBS in such a manner that the dice rolls appear to be non-random sequences, but in fact are not:
Imagine the following scenario: Unbiased dice generator (DG), exactly two players are logged into fibs. Fibs is programmed to behave in the following way: If on player 1's turn the DG rolls a 66, the roll is put on hold and instead the player is given the next roll produced by the DG (if that happens to be a 66 as well, the process is iterated until one of the other 35 rolls comes up). The 66(s) is(are) given to player 2 on her next turn(s). Result: Non-random dice sequences for both players, while any serverwide stats like dicetest will detect no bias, no matter how large the the number of rolls.
Though pck later in the thread more or less rules out he does not think Marvin intentionally programmed bias into the software, that is not
what he initially said. I merely replied to what was said and ran with it, albeit in colorful fashion, or as pck later aptly put it, a "burn in hell heretic" approach. (Pck is fortunate I did not try the "moon you" approach as thats been known to cause post traumatic stress syndrome.)
Initially, I had thought the Turner Analysis of FIBS dice rolls to be significant if for no other reason than it was a large sample of 10,593,121, that it had been done by a professional statistician, that it did show that for 10,593,121 rolls of Fibs dice the rolls fell within the expected percentages of distribution, and that professional statistician Turner, despite lots of technical babble and waffling around about terminology in the analysis, concluded in language I can understand that the "dice appear to be fair."
And though I must disagree with pck on my bp exceeding that of vic's in my followup post, I must confess that my Turner Analysis is very much like Vic's magnificent Christmas Goose of 2010 and when I saw Turner's Analysis , which I had painstakingly dug out of the archives and lovingly presented to the masses being desecrated, maligned and ignored by pck, my ego suffered irreparable damage and I had to express my pain.
The discussion in the thread has certainly livened up and if nothing else pck has expanded on and developed some of his thoughts on "randomess" which I've found interesting--and for someone who doesn't like nor understand math as much as I do, that's a compliment. And I understand that pcks motivation, as he puts it is "to show that both sides of the dice manipulation debate have there weaknesses." (And here again is an unintended use of the word "manipulation" to mean something else.)
In reading through the thread I see references to "dice manipulation," "dice manipulation debate" and that the word "manipulation" is often carelessly being used (see definition earlier in post) and should be avoided unless one thinks that "someone" is intentionally trying to deceive by writing "rigged dice" code.
I suggest the word "skew" or "skewed" is an accurate word as to what is being discussed, as in "skewed dice debate" or "skewed dice". The NOED defines skew as:
• [ with object ] make biased or distorted in a way that is regarded as inaccurate, unfair, or misleading: the curriculum is skewed toward the practical subjects.
Skew is neutral in that there is no implied evil or nefarious intent. "Skewed dice" therefore would include dice that for one reason or another are biased.
Entertaining and informative thread.