Pinch Paxton

Here are 3 * 1Million runs of my program.... Change = 333532 = 334360 = 333511 ......3 runs Stick = 333404 = 333496 = 332950.......3 runs. So That's a total of 6 million competitions, and swapping was slightly better overall, but not significantly better. Pincho.

I think that the maths error is actually at the very beginning. Your first choice is not 1/3 of picking any object. It's a certainty! It doesn't matter what you pick on your first choice, because you get the option to swap choices. So I think I have found the error. No I've changed my mind again. I can't decide. Pincho.

Psygnosis games started the Amiga on its reign of power. I don't know if there is any hidden stuff in Shadow of The Beast. It sure had nice graphics, and that's what sold Psygnosis games. Haven't heard of a PC version yet. Pincho.

Why do you keep making all of these random posts everywhere? You are always quoting a similar subject, so put them all in the same topic. OK so we need a new theory. There are lots of Pseudo science theories, I have posted mine, and it allows for tides on all sides of the Earth. It doesn't help you much though does it? You have to wait for the concentual agreement from the big guns, otherwise no one agrees with you. Science is about maths, even if the maths hides a lot of errors.

Yeah, I agree, and my computer program agrees, it's 50/50 on the second choice, and you can't change that no matter how you get there. The confusing part to me is that this probabilty idea has sold many books, and is often quoted as a certain fact that your chances improve by swapping choices.

It's not an argument though. You are asking me to prove something that has more artistic credibility, than asthetic. Like you want me to prove that it is possible to paint a picture of a blackhole if I could find one. You already know that you could paint one, but you want me to find one and paint it anyway.

Hmmm, well, it is a bit pointless for light to be used for dreaming. You see a tree because the light is shaped like a tree. Your theoretical light would have to be shaped like a tree as well, but if the brain could shape light like a tree, an emit it onto the cornea, then it could also generate the image directly inside the brain, so it wouldn't need to put it on the cornea. You can see that only the final product is required. Worth testing though I suppose. Someone should try it out.

Predator is another great movie, with Arnold Schwartzenegger. You should watch it. The Avp idea started as a comic, then was made into a computer game.. (First by my old company members.) Now it's gonna be a film. I think it's going to be a great film. Pincho.

I think it is equal, but it apparently isn't. Read this link... http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MontyHallProblem.html

It's because if you picked one of the wrong ones, they eliminate the other wrong one, meaning if you change your answer, it will be the right one. And since there's twice the chance of picking the wrong (2 doors are bad, 1 is good), that means there's twice the chance of it being right if you switch. Hence the 2/3 probability or 66% of getting the car. Look at it like this, consider door 3 is the winning door. You pick 1. They eliminate 2. You switch to 3. You win. You pick 2. They eliminate 1. You switch to 3. You win. You pick 3. They eliminate 1 or 2. You switch to 2 or 1. You lose. If you stayed: You pick 1. They eliminate 2. You stay on 1. You lose You pick 2. They eliminate 1. You stay on 2. You lose You pick 3. They eliminate 1 or 2. You stay on 3. You win. But even though the maths says that you have an advantage, my computer program below shows no increase of wins Rem Change Choice Randomize Timer() For n = 1 to 100000 Car = rnd(2)+1 choice = rnd(2)+1 Goat = car+1 if Goat = 4 then Goat = 1 change = goat + 1 if change = 4 then change = 1 if change = choice then change = change +1 if change = 4 then change = 1 if change = Car then inc Changewin next n Rem Stick to Choice For n = 1 to 100000 Car = rnd(2)+1 choice = rnd(2)+1 if choice = Car then inc Choicewin next n Print "Change and win = "; Changewin Print "Stick to First choice = "; Choicewin Suspend for key

Yes that sounds perfectly correct, but mathematically your odds are supposed to improve if you change your mind. I shall post the maths later, but first I want to see if anyone can work it out. Supposedly, if you make a computer program that keeps changing its mind, you do actaully win more often. This completely confuses me.

Its the last round of a game show. You have to choose between three doors labeled One, Two, and Three. Behind each door is a prize. Now two of the doors contain goats while one of the doors contains a brand new car. Your asked to choose a door number. Lets say you choose 1. The Host then reveals a door other than the one that you choose, lets say that it is door number 3, and it has a goat behind it. You are then asked if you would like to change your choice to number 2 or stick with number 1. Now the riddle is, does this make a difference? Should you change your answer or stick with it? Have you all heard of this wierd puzzle? I have a book about it, but the answer is surely misleading.

I don't need to provide a model surely most people know that those things are easy to do. Wrinkles in a leaf? Each part can be made as a seperate program today. That's today! But only 1 small part can run on a single computer, so you simply need more speed. Maybe I could simulate 1000 blades of grass, that's all I need to do to show that a billion blades of grass can be simulated. maybe I can wrinkle 50 leaves, that proves that a billion leaves can be wrinkled. It is about speed, and I already told you how the speed can be achieved. So really it is not my requirement to prove this to individuals like yourself, it is your requirement to learn these things, by learning to program, or just search the net for grass simulations, cloth simulations (Which are the same as leaves), the flight of birds, wind emulation, etc. You have actually chose a lot of simple things there which surprises me. What do you mean we don't all sleep at the same time? I think you have the Matrix in your mind. I don't think the topic is about the matrix. You are thinking that we are all 1 simulation, but I am suggesting that we are all have an individual time clock. I would also suggest that most of the emotional stuff is real, and not simulated. We have a real body somewhere, so why simulate everything? Really though, I am very surprised by your belief that the universe is hard to emulate. I think that 30% programmers know that it is a matter of speed, but on a science forum I expect 90% to know such things. Pincho.

If I see any I'll let you know. Rare are supposed to be remaking Sabre Wolf at the moment. Rare were called Ultimate during the Spectrum 48 days.

This is a misunderstanding of what I said. If you were in a simulator for 74 years of your life, if the simulator was running at half speed, you would spend 148 years in there. But if you went to sleep for half of the time they could leap it forward to the next day whilst you were simulating sleep. As for the computational power, I know it can be done because I make programs similar to that. Not to the same scale, but scale has no meaning in computer power terms. Scale just means that you need more speed really. Speed is not theoretical in processing terms, it is factual. These spooky atoms could be used as instant computer gates. No slowdown at all, so speed is not a problem. Pincho.

Yeah Amigas were great. Nowadays I like to make games myself using Dark Basic. There are a lot of Amiga games being ported over to PC using Dark Basic. I might make something similar to R-Type soon.

I worked for a company called Arc Developments. We made games for Activision, Ocean, Thalamus, and US Gold. I was the graphic artist. I worked on R-Type 2, Dragon Breed, Predator 2, Amalyte, The Simpsons, Robozone, and I can't remember all of them. There is even a web site about me..lol! That was funny to find. Pincho.

They are not giving much away on there. I actually saw Predator 2 before it was released in the cinemas. My company was given Predator 2 by 20th Century fox to watch because we made the computer game of it for the Amiga. We were also given the script. The end was missing though. Pincho.

Yeah it is. It's quite clearly possible. It's not the maths thats a problem , it's mainly just the speed, but spooky science shows that the speed is also possible. Besides, you probably wouldn't know that you were inside a slowed down universe anyway, because if everything is slowed down then your reactions are slowed down, so everything looks perfect to you. Maybe that's why we sleep, because the simulator is slow, so they only show half of your day. Pincho.

This topic isn't original, but I never stopped to think of the likeliness of us being in a simulator. The article makes sense that it is very likely for us to be in a simulator. The technology is obviously possible. Forget about the Matrix when you read these things, I had similar ideas long before the Matrix film. If there was a sci-fi film about the big bang before anyone thought of it, then you might avoid the big bang as an explenation. What about sleep then? What about night, and day? What about God? Why Dinosaurs? Why phobias? Why are most people afraid of Spiders?.......... Any answers to these questions are pure speculation, but the point is that there are answers to these questions so they do not dissaprove the theory. Time travel? If the theory is correct then we are already in the past. Do you see any brain simulators around? We are at the dawn of the computer age. This is the time that I would choose to be here as a matter of interest to me. I would like to see the first computer games, and the first home computers, and I have. My age was 18 when the Speccy was first on the market, and that is about perfect for me. If you think of the likeliness of this, it is in the millions that we would be here now, maybe the billions. If you think how long mankind can survive for, and then calculate that there are 20 years of your life that are compatible with the computer age, say from 9 to 29 are best suited. Now divide mans possible existence (Say back 4 million years and forward to the demise of the sun) by 20, and you have the chances of us being here now. Then you have to imagine this chance combined with the beginning of life on earth, the odds of the DNA strand etc. It's quite possible that we are in a simulation. Pincho.

The new Doctor has been decided. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3552087.stm

I like solving things that are phenomenally difficult to solve. This is my Everest. I like puzzles, but obscure puzzles, not word puzzles. Programming games is one of my hobbies. Solving the Lottery is another, as you can see, I set high goals. Solving everything to myself, meaning that I am happy if I know how the universe works, even if it is not scientifically proven. I know the meaning of life... now to solve the Lotto.... Pincho.

Thing clock sounds a bit weak.

This is being posted a lot, and he hasn't once used a proper link. Plus they could all be posted in the same thread. In fact I might be able to follow it better if they were in the same thread. Also, I don't understand it... need funny drawings! LOL!

I think I have seen this a long time ago. Isn't that how they tested their communication process? They attatched some sort of speaker to the electrical charge, and it made whistling sounds. It was believed that the plants could communicate? I think that's how they did it, but I'm not sure. Pincho.