(sigh)

it's not bullshit, it's math

ALL MATH, NO BULLSHIT!

heh.

I'll be honest with you. I couldn't figure this shit out. I even paid attention, too, at least until about halfway through.

The only angle I can guess would give you any leverage here is that by applying a human concept of 'large' and 'small' to the problem of guessing, you may have some overlap with the ideas of the guy making up the numbers. That is, you may both generally agree on what large and small are, and thus you may be able to sort of be playing in the right space.

I don't think that's what the professed hook is, though.

Someone has been playing with the calculator for too long again.

Sorry, but this is bullshit.

^well, I certainly can't argue with that logic. You should probably e-mail him to point out his error.

shit

I fell asleep reading it.

It makes sense - you just define 'big' and 'small' by chosing a random number to compare it to. It's counter intuitive in the same way as the monty hall problem.

That, or I'm too poor a mathmo to work out his mistake (equally likely...)

OR you could just play tic-tac-toe...

i have better things to do with my time than play said 'envelope game'. really.

Like... make Internet posts about not wanting to play it?

It's math bullshit.

I think that once the first number is revealed, then the probabitlity of the unknown number is then - either whatever is less than that number, which is defined (provided that you can't use negatives), or, whatever is greater than that number, which extends to infinity. I don't really know how to use that information in a practical sense, but it feels like the essence of it.

here's a second internet post about not wanting to play it.

Rebel.

RPT

I have better things to do than making internet posts about people making internet posts about not wanting to play it. Therefore I didn't read the article.

I didn't read your post.

hallucinogenic enemas |ha|