Re: Random numbers

On Dec 21, 6:52 am, quasi <qu...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 21 Dec 2007 16:41:26 +0200, Phil Carmody

Forget gaps -- your method is biased!

Already responded to that irrelevancy elsewhere in the thread.

Already responded to your weak coverup ploy.

So I saw. And laughed.

I think you're in the wrong field.

quasi,

Phil is doing the whole thing deliberately. The guy asked
the question badly, so Phil intentionally responded badly;
i.e., with a biased solution. On purpose. He meant to do
that. Note the uncharacteristically enthusiastic "HTH!" at
the end of his first post, ha ha, along with a further broad
swath of hints along the way, along with overt and
explicit documentation of his intent in RFC-822 compliant
form. (See sec. 4.1)

So when you start telling him that his solution is biased,
he's over there saying whatever the British equivalent
of "duh" is. Some kind of metric "duh" I imagine. Or
maybe they're standardizing on a Euroduh. Although I
suppose if they did that the U.K. wouldn't adopt it, at
least not right away.


Marshall
.