Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Telepathy

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 Tags telepathy , telepathy test

 4th October 2017, 12:12 PM #361 Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 25,340 Originally Posted by Loss Leader But in this specific instance, what would be the probability of me getting even one card wrong? I would think it very low in a sample of only five. Five hundred cards right, agreed, would be unreasonable, but the probability of one error in five is too small to be worth considering. Try it if you want. Post your hash, PM me the sequence, I'll post it, and see if I get any wrong. If you send me the right sequence, in practice I'll get it right. Dave __________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right
 4th October 2017, 12:28 PM #362 Loss Leader Would Be Ringing (if a bell)Moderator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 24,101 Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Try it if you want. Post your hash, PM me the sequence, I'll post it, and see if I get any wrong. If you send me the right sequence, in practice I'll get it right. What would we be measuring? If it's your ability to psychically know the cards, that's defeated by the fact that I'm telling you the cards. It seems to be a measurement of the ability to transmit data digitally. But it's not a good test of that. It seems like a really poor test. Devise a proper test and there will be measurement error. __________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader
 4th October 2017, 12:40 PM #363 Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 25,340 Originally Posted by Loss Leader What would we be measuring? The effectiveness of a means of communication. Originally Posted by Loss Leader It seems to be a measurement of the ability to transmit data digitally. But it's not a good test of that. It seems like a really poor test. Devise a proper test and there will be measurement error. Yes, it's a really poor test, because it's trivially easy to pass. That's the point; if telepathy can't even pass such a trivially easy test, it's strongly suggestive that it doesn't exist. Dave __________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right
 4th October 2017, 12:40 PM #364 abaddon Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 17,009 Originally Posted by Loss Leader What would we be measuring? If it's your ability to psychically know the cards, that's defeated by the fact that I'm telling you the cards. But that is exactly what telepathy claims to do. I could tell you which five cards there were in person, by phone, SMS, Facebook, viber, Skype and so on and so forth. You would score 100%. Compare telepathy. What would that method score in comparison? Originally Posted by Loss Leader It seems to be a measurement of the ability to transmit data digitally. But it's not a good test of that. It seems like a really poor test. Devise a proper test and there will be measurement error. It is at least good enough to determine if telepathy is worthy of further investigation. We have two true believers in telepathy and when even a prelim test is facilitated right here, both vanish. I wonder why that is? __________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
 4th October 2017, 12:48 PM #365 Loss Leader Would Be Ringing (if a bell)Moderator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 24,101 Originally Posted by Dave Rogers That's the point; if telepathy can't even pass such a trivially easy test, it's strongly suggestive that it doesn't exist. I'm not a scientist. I'm not a mathematician or a statistician. I do believe that measurement error precludes perfect results. Someone with a stronger background in writing scientifically rigorous tests would need to weigh in. None of this seems to matter because KotA hasn't been back to finalize any of this. __________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader
 4th October 2017, 12:53 PM #366 Spektator Dog Who Laughs     Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,571 I would suggest one thing: Don't respond to KotA's ID's of cards one at a time. Wait until the whole group, five, ten, whatever, is in.
 4th October 2017, 01:58 PM #367 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,674 Originally Posted by Loss Leader I had suggested picking all 52 cards from which he would have to get 5 right. As Startz showed, 5 cards is too lenient. There is a 1/270 chance of getting 5 or more right by pure guessing. If we gave the test to 1000 people, we'd expect about 4 of them to get at least 5 cards correct. The purpose of the test is to indicate preliminary evidence of telepathy. I would not believe that 4 people in a random sample of 1000 who guessed at least 5 cards correctly would be showing preliminary evidence of telepathy. I'd believe they got lucky.
 4th October 2017, 03:00 PM #368 Startz Critical Thinker   Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 490 Originally Posted by jt512 As Startz showed, 5 cards is too lenient. There is a 1/270 chance of getting 5 or more right by pure guessing. If we gave the test to 1000 people, we'd expect about 4 of them to get at least 5 cards correct. The purpose of the test is to indicate preliminary evidence of telepathy. I would not believe that 4 people in a random sample of 1000 who guessed at least 5 cards correctly would be showing preliminary evidence of telepathy. I'd believe they got lucky. I think Loss Leaders current proposal, which I thought KotA was mostly okay with, is to get 5 cards out of 5 dealt from 52 right. That's very different statistically from dealing 52 and getting 5 right. Can't happen by chance. Anyhow, I do hope King comes back and engages in a friendly trial. If the evidence looked good, then lots of the suggestions folks have made here could be taken into account in designing something more rigorous.
 4th October 2017, 05:16 PM #369 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,674 Originally Posted by Startz I think Loss Leaders current proposal, which I thought KotA was mostly okay with, is to get 5 cards out of 5 dealt from 52 right. That's very different statistically from dealing 52 and getting 5 right. Can't happen by chance. My understanding is that the experiment that KofA said he liked was to get at least 10 cards correct out of a sequence of 52. That would be extremely improbable to achieve by chance. Loss then proposed doing the same test but only requiring 5 correct, but he grossly understated the probability that would happen by chance. I should mention that these closed-deck experiments, which are what statistically untrained people think of first, are not well suited for the intended purpose, because it is difficult to impossible to calculate the false negative probability of the test, and hence it's hard to know whether the test is fair to the testee. Much better are experiments that use independent trials, where the false negative rate is easy to calculate and the number of trials comprising the test can be chosen according to the desired false negative and false positive rate. If you insist on using a deck of cards, I would recommend replacing the drawn card after each trial and reshuffling the deck between trails. A simpler procedure, which is what most most "serious" parapsychologists have settled on is to use a much smaller deck comprising, say, just 5 cards, with the number of trials and number of required correct guesses chosen to give the desired error rates. If you do insist on using a closed-deck design, I would ask the testee what false negative rate he thinks is acceptable. Say he says 5%. Then ask him how many cards k out of 52 he has a 95% chance of getting correct, and assuming that k is at least 6 or 7, call the test a success if he gets at least k correct. If he states that k < 6 (or 7 maybe), then he would have to pass more than one iteration of the test for the test to be considered a success. Last edited by jt512; 4th October 2017 at 05:45 PM.
 4th October 2017, 05:43 PM #370 Startz Critical Thinker   Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 490 Originally Posted by jt512 I should mention that these closed-deck experiments, which are what statistically untrained people think of first, are not well suited for the intended purpose, because it is difficult to impossible to calculate the false negative probability of the test, and hence it's hard to know whether the test is fair to the testee. Could you explain that a little more? (I believe you, I just don't understand why it's so.)
 4th October 2017, 06:14 PM #371 Loss Leader Would Be Ringing (if a bell)Moderator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 24,101 Originally Posted by jt512 If you do insist on using a closed-deck design, I would ask the testee what false negative rate he thinks is acceptable. Say he says 5%. Then ask him how many cards k out of 52 he has a 95% chance of getting correct, and assuming that k is at least 6 or 7, call the test a success if he gets at least k correct. If he states that k < 6 (or 7 maybe), then he would have to pass more than one iteration of the test for the test to be considered a success. Fine by me. 7 cards is great. I chose 5 because it was well within what KotA said he was capable of. But I didn't realize the odds were so good. __________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader
 5th October 2017, 02:44 AM #372 Oystein Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 15,429 Originally Posted by Loss Leader I'm not a scientist. I'm not a mathematician or a statistician. I do believe that measurement error precludes perfect results. Someone with a stronger background in writing scientifically rigorous tests would need to weigh in. None of this seems to matter because KotA hasn't been back to finalize any of this. Measurement error in telephoning playing card? You think Dave Rogers might report a Nine Point One of Spades? Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk __________________ Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
 5th October 2017, 02:57 AM #373 Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 25,340 Originally Posted by Oystein Measurement error in telephoning playing card? You think Dave Rogers might report a Nine Point One of Spades? It's not impossible. I used to have the Usenet signature "Pentium designers support the 48.999973524'ers." Dave __________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right
 5th October 2017, 03:03 AM #374 Pixel42 Schrödinger's cat     Join Date: May 2004 Location: Malmesbury, UK Posts: 9,923 Originally Posted by Loss Leader None of this seems to matter because KotA hasn't been back to finalize any of this. If only he were telepathic, then he'd know he needed to revisit the thread. __________________ "If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
 5th October 2017, 04:47 AM #375 jrhowell Critical Thinker   Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 272 Originally Posted by Oystein Measurement error in telephoning playing card? You think Dave Rogers might report a Nine Point One of Spades? It seems to me that it would be easy to confuse "ace" with "eight" over the phone, depending on the call quality, speaker's accent, etc.
 5th October 2017, 05:03 AM #376 Loss Leader Would Be Ringing (if a bell)Moderator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 24,101 Originally Posted by Oystein Measurement error in telephoning playing card? You think Dave Rogers might report a Nine Point One of Spades? What if he misdials the telephone? Then none of the cards come through. Misdialing is an error that can't be eliminated. Over enough iterations, the test will not return results of 100%. Let's not get too far off track. All we're doing now is asking KotA what he thinks he can do at what level of confidence. Then we can design a test around that. After all, only hearing a tenth of people's thoughts would still be a staggering breakthrough for science. __________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader Last edited by Loss Leader; 5th October 2017 at 05:05 AM.
 5th October 2017, 06:52 AM #377 abaddon Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 17,009 Originally Posted by jrhowell It seems to me that it would be easy to confuse "ace" with "eight" over the phone, depending on the call quality, speaker's accent, etc. Use the Nato alphabet, problem disappears. __________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
 5th October 2017, 07:01 AM #378 Oystein Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 15,429 Originally Posted by Pixel42 If only he were telepathic, then he'd know he needed to revisit the thread. Since he is telepathic, he knows better than to revisit the thread even without revisiting the thread! Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk __________________ Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
 5th October 2017, 07:16 AM #379 Oystein Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 15,429 Originally Posted by abaddon Use the Nato alphabet, problem disappears. Oh how catastrophically wrong you are!! True story: I am German, but my last name is unusual, it appears French, is actually derived from some Walloon dialect, and even my direct relatives pronounce it differently depending on whether they live where it originated, or 20 miles east, or 20 miles west. There is no American-English pronunciation that would do it justice. In the mid-90s, I had to book a hotel room in the USA, calling from Germany. It was clear that I needed to spell my name: M ... A ... R ... A ... "Was that an A or an R?" The receptionist would interrupt me. Uhm well, both... The phone line was of bad quality, half a second delay and a bit of echo. Several attempts at spelling got wasted. So I turned to NATO alphabet: Mike ... Alpha ... Romeo ... Alpha... Two months later, I check into the hotel. To avoid confusion, I give them my credit card immediately and point out the name. No reservation to that name. Hotel fully booked. Narf. It turned out they had a reservation for a certain Mr. Alfaromeo, Mike. :ld: Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk __________________ Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
 5th October 2017, 08:56 AM #380 Pope130 Master Poster     Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,577 Originally Posted by Oystein Oh how catastrophically wrong you are!! True story: I am German, but my last name is unusual, it appears French, is actually derived from some Walloon dialect, and even my direct relatives pronounce it differently depending on whether they live where it originated, or 20 miles east, or 20 miles west. There is no American-English pronunciation that would do it justice. In the mid-90s, I had to book a hotel room in the USA, calling from Germany. It was clear that I needed to spell my name: M ... A ... R ... A ... "Was that an A or an R?" The receptionist would interrupt me. Uhm well, both... The phone line was of bad quality, half a second delay and a bit of echo. Several attempts at spelling got wasted. So I turned to NATO alphabet: Mike ... Alpha ... Romeo ... Alpha... Two months later, I check into the hotel. To avoid confusion, I give them my credit card immediately and point out the name. No reservation to that name. Hotel fully booked. Narf. It turned out they had a reservation for a certain Mr. Alfaromeo, Mike. :ld: Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk This points out one of the big unanswered problems with claims of telepathy: Not only must you have some channel of communication, but also, both parties must be using the same symbol set.
 5th October 2017, 09:34 AM #381 Loss Leader Would Be Ringing (if a bell)Moderator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 24,101 Originally Posted by Oystein It turned out they had a reservation for a certain Mr. Alfaromeo, Mike. My mother, being a lawyer, writes her name, "Mary Rogers, Esq." Some years ago, she reserved a table at a fancy restaurant (if memory serves). When she arrived, she was greeted with, "Hello, Mrs. Esq." __________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader
 5th October 2017, 12:29 PM #382 Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 25,340 (No relation AFAIK.) Dave __________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right
 5th October 2017, 03:07 PM #383 Loss Leader Would Be Ringing (if a bell)Moderator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 24,101 Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (No relation AFAIK.) It's a pseudonym. Her real name is Roger Davids. __________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader
 5th October 2017, 07:05 PM #384 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,674 Originally Posted by jt512 I should mention that these closed-deck experiments, which are what statistically untrained people think of first, are not well suited for the intended purpose, because it is difficult to impossible to calculate the false negative probability of the test, and hence it's hard to know whether the test is fair to the testee. Much better are experiments that use independent trials, where the false negative rate is easy to calculate and the number of trials comprising the test can be chosen according to the desired false negative and false positive rate. Originally Posted by Startz Could you explain that a little more? (I believe you, I just don't understand why it's so.) To understand the problem with the closed-deck approach, it helps to first understand the advantage of the alternative: independent trials. Say an individual claims that if you draw a random card from a freshly shuffled 52-card deck, he can guess the card (number and suit) 10% of the time. This, if true, would be quite a feat, since the probability of guessing the card by chance is just 1/52. We can test this person's claim by giving him n independent trials where for each trial one card is drawn from the deck, he makes his guess, the card is replaced, and the deck reshuffled for the next trial. Let's say for now we decide to give him n=100 trials. It might seem natural to decide that if he can get at least k=10 of the trials correct, then we will declare that he has demonstrated his claim, and if he fails to get 10 correct then he has failed to demonstrate his claim. Is this a fair test? The answer is no. The reason is that if he truly has a 10% chance of guessing each card correctly then the probability that he will get 10 or more correct guesses out of 100 trials is only a little over 0.5 (it's actually .55 to two decimal places). Thus even if he has the ability he claims, there is almost a 50% chance we will wrongly conclude that his claim is false. It follows that for the test to be fair to the claimant we must make it more lenient and declare the test successful if he gets some fraction k/n < 0.1 of the trials correct. In designing our test we need to be fair to the claimant, but also fair to ourselves. That is, if the claim is true, we want our test to have a high probability of declaring that it is true; this probability is called the power of the test. However, if the claim is false we want to have a low probability of erroneously declaring it be true; that is, we want the test to have a low false positive rate (FPR). Notice that for a fixed n, the smaller we set k, the greater the power of the test, but also the greater the test's FPR. So, for a given n there is a trade-off between power and FPR. The question is, is there a way we can design a test that has both high power and low FPR? The answer is yes, we can increase the number of trials n. In fact for a given target power and FPR, there is a unique k and n if the trials are independent. For example, say we want the test to have power of 0.9 and a FPR of 1/10,000. It turns out that the test should comprise n=187 trials and require at least k=14 correct guesses. The results above follow from the assumptions that (1) each trial is independent with (2) constant probability of success from trial to trial. These assumptions imply that the number of success in the sequence of trials follows a binomial distribution. Knowing that the sequence has a binomial distribution allows us to identify the unique values k and n that give us our desired power and FPR. In the closed-deck design, however, neither of the above assumptions hold. If an individual claims he can correctly identify, say, 5 cards out a sequence of 52 with probability 0.5, we know that if we require him to identify at least 5 cards, then our test will have only 50% power and will be unfair to him. We know we have to set k to some value less than 5 to give the test sufficient power to be fair to him. But we have no idea how to determine k. The probability of correctly identifying k cards, given that he can identify 5 cards with 50% probability, does not follow any known distribution. If we set k to some value, we have no idea what the power of the test will be, and if we decide we want power of, say, 0.9, we have no idea what value to choose for k. We can try asking claimant how many cards he can identify with 90% probability, but it is unlikely he would really have a concrete idea, and regardless, it is nice to be able to take the claim we are given and design the test around it, rather than requiring the claimant to amend his claim to accommodate the limitations of a statistically awkward test design. Last edited by jt512; 5th October 2017 at 07:18 PM.
 5th October 2017, 08:34 PM #385 Loss Leader Would Be Ringing (if a bell)Moderator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 24,101 Originally Posted by jt512 To understand the problem with the closed-deck approach, it helps to first understand the advantage of the alternative: independent trials. That was fascinating. Thank you for taking the time to explain it. If KotA every resurfaces, this will be very helpful in designing a test. And I would appreciate your input into any such negotiations. __________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader
 5th October 2017, 09:11 PM #386 Startz Critical Thinker   Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 490 Originally Posted by jt512 To understand the problem with the closed-deck approach, it helps to first understand the advantage of the alternative: independent trials. Very helpful indeed. Thanks for taking the time and making it so clear.
 6th October 2017, 01:27 AM #387 Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 25,340 Originally Posted by Loss Leader It's a pseudonym. Her real name is Roger Davids. One of my teachers used to call me that. He never seemed to see the incongruity in the fact that I had a brother he called Roger Stephens. Dave __________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right
 6th October 2017, 11:19 AM #388 steenkh Philosopher     Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 5,129 Originally Posted by jt512 I suspect that any supposedly credible demonstration of telepathy would just make most physicists laugh. Perhaps one or two might wonder what went wrong in the telepathy experiment. Then the experiment would not be credible. If an experiment was designed like the tests for the MIllion Dollar Challenge, I believe scientists would be interested in reproducing it. __________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!
 6th October 2017, 01:45 PM #389 MinnesotaBrant Illuminator     Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 4,441 The answer is 4. The Amazing Randy, I will take my million dollars now. PM me for my address __________________ Formerly known as MNBrant.
 6th October 2017, 01:46 PM #390 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,674 Originally Posted by steenkh Then the experiment would not be credible. If an experiment was designed like the tests for the MIllion Dollar Challenge, I believe scientists would be interested in reproducing it. Yeah, some experimental psychologist somewhere would probably try a replication. But physicists will simply think the experiment was flawed, even if it replicated, I suspect.
 6th October 2017, 05:33 PM #391 MinnesotaBrant Illuminator     Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 4,441 Does remedy even work? Also does Randy even have a million dollars? __________________ Formerly known as MNBrant.
 6th October 2017, 05:54 PM #392 Nay_Sayer I say nay!     Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Long Island Posts: 3,365 Originally Posted by MinnesotaBrant Does remedy even work? Also does Randy even have a million dollars? The challenge was closed and the money put towards various charities. Many other paranormal prizes are out there including the grand prize of being the first human to do such a thing, TV appearances, etc. I would net anyone who cared about such things a sum much greater than 1 million. __________________ I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds. ---------------------------------------------- Proud woo denier ---------------------------------------------- “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-
 6th October 2017, 09:56 PM #393 MinnesotaBrant Illuminator     Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 4,441 Seems like it might involve math. Most of my things involve hearing things that become relevant in time, usually only important to me. I guess the discussion I had today involved talking about my voices. The person asked me if I could predict the future, I said the voices know the future and make comments that make sense only later at which point I use the comment. Also my memory works in a funny way. For instance my boss called me at the bottom of the stairs to remind me to pick up some meds for a client. I didn't recall that I was supposed to do that at the bottom of the stairs , but probably it would have come to me by the time I got to the office. Also, I profile people really well really quickly. I think one of my voices is a Norn. __________________ Formerly known as MNBrant. Last edited by MinnesotaBrant; 6th October 2017 at 09:59 PM.
 7th October 2017, 04:44 AM #394 King of the Americas Philosopher   Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 6,513 Originally Posted by John Jones OMFG! LOOK WHAT YOU WROTE! A grad student in what discipline? A grad student at what institute of higher learning? I am working on a "M.A. in Government, everywhere else they call it Political Science." I am attending Texas Woman's University.
 7th October 2017, 04:45 AM #395 King of the Americas Philosopher   Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 6,513 Originally Posted by Crossbow Well then if that is the case, then I hope that none of your professors are reading your brilliant postings about the space ships you have seen, the people from Atlantis that you say are real, and how there are a number of people with telepathic powers. No worse than bible literalists, I suppose.
 7th October 2017, 04:47 AM #396 King of the Americas Philosopher   Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 6,513 Originally Posted by Loss Leader It would be easier to create a test if KotA checked in. Sorry, I'm really busy. I have over 400 pages to read by tuesday night, and I have to re-write a prospectus.
 7th October 2017, 04:48 AM #397 King of the Americas Philosopher   Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 6,513 Originally Posted by Jocko Why not? I haven't been blamed for someone else's catastrophic failure since the election. Is this 'the Jocko"...???!!!???
 7th October 2017, 04:50 AM #398 King of the Americas Philosopher   Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 6,513 Originally Posted by Dave Rogers That's covered in the "I then post the sequence here as a hash" bit, isn't it? LL posts an encrypted version of the sequence, you post your sequence in clear, then LL posts the decryption key so anyone can compare the two. Sounds good enough to me, as it eliminates cheating while not requiring a third party. Dave I don't exactly understand your encryption method, but as long as there is one, I'm good.
 7th October 2017, 04:53 AM #399 King of the Americas Philosopher   Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 6,513 Originally Posted by Loss Leader I type the string of cards into this MD5 hash generator along with a nonsense word thrown in to keep it from being forcibly broken. I'll post it before you even make your guesses. It's easy to see if my sequence generates the same hash. For example, the sequence of cards 3H 9H KS 9C and 10H might get a hash that looks like this: a75009ee07ce72cd28e01dabdebe1047 You then make your guesses and, after you're done, I inform people that I encoded "Butterfly3H9HKS9C10H". Anyone can go to the MD5 generator, paste that in and get: a75009ee07ce72cd28e01dabdebe1047. The hashes are the same. If I try to change even one letter, like telling people that I pulled the queen and not the king of spades, the whole hash changes. "Butterfly3H9HQS9C10H" creates the hash: 4751a47d3e977156c1c85974989a6124. That's not just a little bit different, it's completely and obviously different. It's a very efficient way to prevent cheating. Alright, that's freaking awesome... So, what date should we start, and what time? I work on campus wednesdays and thursdays 12-5. Night classes tuesdays and thursdays 6-9. How does mondays and fridays 7-9'ish work for you?
 7th October 2017, 04:54 AM #400 King of the Americas Philosopher   Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 6,513 Originally Posted by Startz Okay King, are you good with the proposal? LL will pick five cards from a deck of 52 and post a hash. Then LL looks at a card for 5 minutes at a time you suggest. One card each of five consecutive days. Shortly after each time, you post publicly the card. After the fifth time, LL posts the answers. To score, you have to match all five exactly in order. Will that work? We shall see I guess!?

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit