Re: Random numbers

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:17:54 -0800 (PST), Marshall
<marshall.spight@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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 posts a deliberately flawed solution _after_ I had already posted a
correct one (about 20 minutes after), and then baits me when I
challenge his claimed solution.

What a sneak!

quasi
.

Quantcast