You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Just Curious

1235»

Comments

  • POKERTREVPOKERTREV Member Posts: 9,607
    edited February 2010
    Glad you all tried a little experiment on my theory, Do I get a prize now my theory has been proved correct? or do I get nothing as I was the first one to react to the original post lol.
  • MereNoviceMereNovice Member Posts: 4,364
    edited February 2010
    In Response to Re: Just Curious:
    Glad you all tried a little experiment on my theory, Do I get a prize now my theory has been proved correct? or do I get nothing as I was the first one to react to the original post lol.
    Posted by POKERTREV
    Scientifically speaking we haven't proved your theory.
    The approach that we took was only to find one example that agreed with your theory.
    This method can generally only be used to disprove a theory, i.e. by finding an instance where the results don't match those predicted by the theory.
    We would need to see the alogorithm that SkyPoker uses in order to prove your theory. :-)
  • MereNoviceMereNovice Member Posts: 4,364
    edited February 2010
    In Response to Re: Just Curious:
    Glad you all tried a little experiment on my theory, Do I get a prize now my theory has been proved correct? or do I get nothing as I was the first one to react to the original post lol.
    Posted by POKERTREV
    Scientifically speaking we haven't proved your theory.
    The approach that we took was only to find one example that agreed with your theory.
    This method can generally only be used to disprove a theory, i.e. by finding an instance where the results don't match those predicted by the theory.
    We would need to see the alogorithm that SkyPoker uses in order to prove your theory. :-)
  • POKERTREVPOKERTREV Member Posts: 9,607
    edited February 2010
    In Response to Re: Just Curious:
    In Response to Re: Just Curious : Scientifically speaking we haven't proved your theory. The approach that we took was only to find one example that agreed with your theory. This method can generally only be used to disprove a theory, i.e. by finding an instance where the results don't match those predicted by the theory. We would need to see the alogorithm that SkyPoker uses in order to prove your theory. :-)
    Posted by MereNovice
    Ahhh - So it didn't disprove the theory, but also didn't prove it.

    Technically, what science deals with are hypotheses. A theory is a hypothesis which has been well supported by experiments. However, hypotheses, and even theories, are most always considered to be tentative. That is, it is always allowed that some valid experiment could show that the hypotheses is incorrect, either wholly or in part (referred to as falsifiability), so that it must be rejected or modified. So in science, absolute proof is usually impossible. Essentially it would require proving a universal negative: this hypothesis does not fail under any circumstance. And as they say, to prove a universal negative requires universal knowledge. A hypothesis which is not "falsifiable" is not generally considered to be scientific. That's not the same as being untrue; there might be any number of truths which are all the same beyond the reach of science.

    Hope That Helps ....Lol
  • MereNoviceMereNovice Member Posts: 4,364
    edited February 2010
    In Response to Re: Just Curious:
    In Response to Re: Just Curious : Ahhh - So it didn't disprove the theory, but also didn't prove it. Technically, what science deals with are hypotheses. A theory is a hypothesis which has been well supported by experiments. However, hypotheses, and even theories, are most always considered to be tentative. That is, it is always allowed that some valid experiment could show that the hypotheses is incorrect, either wholly or in part (referred to as falsifiability), so that it must be rejected or modified. So in science, absolute proof is usually impossible. Essentially it would require proving a universal negative: this hypothesis does not fail under any circumstance. And as they say, to prove a universal negative requires universal knowledge. A hypothesis which is not "falsifiable" is not generally considered to be scientific. That's not the same as being untrue; there might be any number of truths which are all the same beyond the reach of science. Hope That Helps ....Lol
    Posted by POKERTREV
    That's "all good".

    However, in my branch of science (i.e. mathematics) there are many theories that are proved and there are many different methods of proving those theories.

    I hope that this helps. :-)))
  • POKERTREVPOKERTREV Member Posts: 9,607
    edited February 2010
    In Response to Re: Just Curious:
    In Response to Re: Just Curious : That's "all good". However, in my branch of science (i.e. mathematics) there are many theories that are proved and there are many different methods of proving those theories. I hope that this helps. :-)))
    Posted by MereNovice
    So mathematically speaking, if we were to try the experiment 10 times using the same players and the same cards and the results were conclusively the same, would this theory then be mathematically correct?
  • MereNoviceMereNovice Member Posts: 4,364
    edited February 2010
    In Response to Re: Just Curious:
    In Response to Re: Just Curious : So mathematically speaking, if we were to try the experiment 10 times using the same players and the same cards and the results were conclusively the same, would this theory then be mathematically correct?
    Posted by POKERTREV
    Definitely not.
    However, we could give you books full of explanation of how likely it was that the theory was correct.
  • pod1pod1 Member Posts: 4,377
    edited February 2010
    well i think this is cheating based on collusion and if bland 88 put a complaint in about fixing a result, you should all be banned!!!! p.s if you need another play for this experiment let me know coz intrested in outcome lol
  • MereNoviceMereNovice Member Posts: 4,364
    edited February 2010
    In Response to Re: Just Curious:
    well i think this is cheating based on collusion and if bland 88 put a complaint in about fixing a result, you should all be banned!!!! p.s if you need another play for this experiment let me know coz intrested in outcome lol
    Posted by pod1
    bland88 was guaranteed to make 25p from this "experiment" so I doubt that he'll be complaining!
    Mind you, I know of at least one regular poster on here who would still complain. ;-)

    You're welcome to join in further experiments but I must warn you that the pay is poor; on the other hand, obviously, you do get a warm glow of satisfaction from being a part of the movement to expand mankind's knowledge.
    If we manage to get government funding then life will be perfect.
  • POKERTREVPOKERTREV Member Posts: 9,607
    edited February 2010
    In Response to Re: Just Curious:
    In Response to Re: Just Curious : Definitely not. However, we could give you books full of explanation of how likely it was that the theory was correct.
    Posted by MereNovice
    Lol Mere Just Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!

    A very scientific Errrrr Mathmatic answer (Keep doing the numbers)
  • JockBMWJockBMW Member Posts: 2,653
    edited February 2010
    In Response to Re: Just Curious:
    Glad you all tried a little experiment on my theory, Do I get a prize now my theory has been proved correct? or do I get nothing as I was the first one to react to the original post lol.
    Posted by POKERTREV

    I think the person who first postulated the query should get the prize 
  • MachkaMachka Member Posts: 4,627
    edited February 2010
    In Response to Re: Just Curious:
    The result
    igimc 12000 1 £0.50 + 4 League Points
    Bland88 0 2 £0.50 + 3 League Points
    MereNovice 0 3 £0.50
    rossjb14 0 4  
    ckd 0 5  
    LML 0 6
    Posted by rossjb14
    LML?  lol more like... 6th!
  • MachkaMachka Member Posts: 4,627
    edited February 2010
  • topchipy1topchipy1 Member Posts: 18
    edited February 2010
    lol,  i dont supose we will ever find out as i cant see you ever finding 5 mates.  sigh.
Sign In or Register to comment.