Jedi Archive
Thread: Official list of common Jedi Board Misconceptions
Lowca,
Please read the first post of the following thread. It is a very simplized general overview of what my results were:
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=jedi&message.id=159274&highlight=statistics+holocron+profession#M159274
Xader_Vartec wrote:
Ok, I'll concede. It is only proven within a reasonable confidence level. That was good enough for me.
What the hell do you think I have been trying to do?? Have you read anything?
I BELIEVE this is all random, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove. You can be assured to a certain degree, but statistics don't prove anything. You can say that a certain % of the time something may happen, but you can't PROVE it.
That is the nature of statistics.
Proof for a reasonable confidence level may be good enough for you. But it may not be enough for others who believe the dev's aren't shallow enough to chicken out with a rand() function.
4+1 theory is a subset of 4+X
If you believe in 4+1, you believe in 4+X, just a more specific variant.
I have disproven 4+1. You don't have to change your beliefs much to believe in 4+X
Borion_Sunrunner wrote:
Personally, i think you're just trolling the forums. Either that, or you are horribly misinformed and/or mistaken. But I find the former easier to believe than the latter.
Pretty brave to say I'm misinformed when I'm proving your theory wrong.
Sounds like you are attatched to someone else's theory, and too childish and closed minded to ever come up with anything else.
Lowca_Fatal wrote:
4+1 theory is a subset of 4+X
If you believe in 4+1, you believe in 4+X, just a more specific variant.
I have disproven 4+1. You don't have to change your beliefs much to believe in 4+X
Your still an idiot Lowca.
Please, also see this post:
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=jedi&message.id=181341&highlight=statistics+holocron+profession#M181341
No. You haven't.
Lowca_Fatal wrote:
I have disproven 4+1. You don't have to change your beliefs much to believe in 4+X
Xader_Vartec wrote:
Lowca_Fatal wrote:
4+1 theory is a subset of 4+X
If you believe in 4+1, you believe in 4+X, just a more specific variant.
I have disproven 4+1. You don't have to change your beliefs much to believe in 4+X
Your still an idiot Lowca.
Please, also see this post:
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=jedi&message.id=181341&highlight=statistics+holocron+profession#M181341
Dude, do you even know what you did?
You are trying to prove that it is random that you can get any profession after using a holo.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PATTERNS BETWEEN HOLO PROFESSIONS.
Are you really that retarded? **edit** christmas break let kids out of jr high I guess
I think the point of Lowca's post was not to flame people and call em idiots for wanting people to look at their professions and find a pattern. Which mostly I agree with although I am getting sick of coming here everyday and seeing 100 post saying the same thing "just went silent need help." This Board needs a moderator but thats adifferent subject entirely.
Where I disagree with him is in whether or not the 4+1 theory has been disproved by the claims of 2 individuals. As stated before even if they're telling the truth it could be a bug in the system. Following the assumption that it is 4+1 would still at some point lead to the slot if it is profession based. Which to this point we have to assume since all data points to that except the first few Jedi. If someone masters every profession and can prove it then I may believe its not entirely profession based. If someone unlocks it after getting a badge or doing something other than mastering I will believe it may not be just profession based. Although in both of those cases you would still need more than 1 incident to disprove "buggy broken game theory." Thats the only theory that holds true 6 months after release.
Heorot wrote:
No. You haven't.
Lowca_Fatal wrote:
I have disproven 4+1. You don't have to change your beliefs much to believe in 4+X
Read
Comprehend
Post
You skipped 1 and 2. Read the **edit** thread kid
I have disproven 4+1, twice
Exterminans77 wrote:
I think the point of Lowca's post was not to flame people and call em idiots for wanting people to look at their professions and find a pattern. Which mostly I agree with although I am getting sick of coming here everyday and seeing 100 post saying the same thing "just went silent need help." This Board needs a moderator but thats adifferent subject entirely.
Where I disagree with him is in whether or not the 4+1 theory has been disproved by the claims of 2 individuals. As stated before even if they're telling the truth it could be a bug in the system. Following the assumption that it is 4+1 would still at some point lead to the slot if it is profession based. Which to this point we have to assume since all data points to that except the first few Jedi. If someone masters every profession and can prove it then I may believe its not entirely profession based. If someone unlocks it after getting a badge or doing something other than mastering I will believe it may not be just profession based. Although in both of those cases you would still need more than 1 incident to disprove "buggy broken game theory." Thats the only theory that holds true 6 months after release.
It cannot be a bug in the system if the system is as elementary as some people are trying to make others believe.
Albion_DeCrappa wrote:
The Intel 810 and later chipsets (starting with Celeron, IIRC) provide access to a thermal noise random number generator.
This is only trueif you believe white noise generated from that resistor is random. Give me all the variables involved that create the noise and I will show you your seed. Again, just because we don't know the variables involved does not mean they do not exist.
I use the practical definition of "true random"... namely, that if agenerator is to be considered to be truly random, then given access to ANY given amount of previous output from the generator, you will be unable to predict the upcoming output of each of the subsequent bits with anyimproved accuracy. (Any greater than starting with no history input at all).
Such a generator meets all practical tests of randomness, because the output is fundamentally unpredicatble BASED ON THE PREVIOUS RESULTS.
For the purposes of computer programs that use "random" numbers, this is the meaningful usage of the term, as opposed to the more philosophical, pedantic definition. If you cannot make predictions based solely on previous RESULTS, then the generator should be treated as random... because your strategy for dealing with it would be identical to some theoretically "true" source.
As to the original assertion, the set of variables involved are the quantum-mechanical states of all particles (and also wavicles, waves, quasi-particles, etc) that make up the computer system in question, as well as those that interact with them. The assertion is semantically null, because it's generally considered not possible to have full quantum information about the state of a system (per Heisenberg).
For further reference, please read up on Johnson Noise.