MK schrieb am Freitag, 25. August 2023 um 10:26:36 UTC+2:

> In fact, Snowie's
> was signed 32-bit, so you really had 16-bits,
I think it's 31-Bit if one can't enter a sign

On August 25, 2023 at 3:43:02 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:

> MK schrieb am 25. August 2023 um 10:26:36 UTC+2:

>> In fact, Snowie's
>> was signed 32-bit, so you really had 16-bits,

> I think it's 31-Bit if one can't enter a sign

Oh, dang, how could I not figure that out... :(

So, then, how do you cast a 31-bit variable in
any computer language? Except your Java, of
course... :)

And this moron is a AI bot developer with fancy
names like TachiAI or whatever the shit... :((

MK

On 8/25/2023 3:56 AM, MK wrote:
> 2- Do you accept that you were underestimating the
> dice rolls needed to deduce a 32 bit seed? (If not, I'd
> like you to demonstrate that your math is correct for
> me to learn the math correctly).

I gave all the math already.

Just code up what I told you. Try all 2^32 seeds.

---
Tim Chow

On 8/25/2023 4:08 AM, MK wrote:
> On August 24, 2023 at 6:24:04 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>
>> Obtain 8 rolls. Then try all 2^32 possible
>> 32-bit seeds to see if you can match the
>> given rolls. Unless you're very unlucky,
>> only one of the 32-bit seeds will give you
>> a match.
>
> And how many 32-bit seeds will give me
> a match, if I'm indeed very unlucky..." :)

I'd say at most two, and I doubt that even this would ever happen.
But without analyzing the specific details of how the program converts
RNG output into dice rolls, I can't be sure that it would be impossible
to get more than one match after 8 rolls. In any case, if you run into
such a rare situation, a 9th roll will disambiguate between them.

---
Tim Chow

On Monday, 21 August 2023 at 12:51:25 UTC+1, Timothy Chow wrote:
> On 8/20/2023 10:14 PM, MK wrote:
> > On August 20, 2023 at 6:58:30 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
> >> If this is a concern, then many of the commonly
> >> used RNGs (e.g., Mersenne Twister) would no
> >> longer be suitable, because the seed could be
> >> deduced after some number of rolls,
> >
> > Has this been ever tried to find out approximately
> > in how few rolls could it be done? If not, do you or
> > anyone here has an educated guess?
> This is easy to estimate.
>
> Let's say the seed is 32 bits. That means that there are 2^32
> possible seeds.
>
> There are 21 possible rolls. They're not all equally likely, but
> we're just trying to estimate, so let's ignore that nuance. Now
>
> 21^7 < 2^32 < 21^8
>
> So you should be able to infer a 32-bit seed after 8 rolls.
>
> Now, if you were able to use the full 19937 bits available for the
> Mersenne Twister, then this same calculation would say that you
> would need over 4500 rolls to determine the seed. That sounds good,
> until you realize that it also means that you could retrofit over
> 4500 rolls with such a large seed.
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

So the app I have a beef with uses something called a standard Linear Congruential Generator (LCG) RNG algorithm to generate dice rolls.

I have a video of me rolling 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls in the endgame to lose spectacularly from a very winning position.

Could I search (somehow) that LCG to see if any of the seeds used ever rolled that sequence of dice?

MK schrieb am Freitag, 25. August 2023 um 12:08:34 UTC+2:

I could argue that in all programming languages I know (other than Cobol) for integer numbers, the two's complement is used (and that uses 1 bit for the sign. To calculate 32 - 1 is left to the reader) or that for the evaluation of a cast, source and target types are important or to show how trivial it would be to cast in C for example. But I don't do that, because it's a waste of time to argue with someone who doesn't care about the matter at hand, but only about somehow being right in the end in his twisted logic.

Me as a poor moron would love to see full of admiration what a true stable genius is capable of, but unfortunately that won't happen. To bad that bragging is no programming language

Tony The Welsh Twat schrieb am Freitag, 25. August 2023 um 17:19:40 UTC+2:
> So the app I have a beef with uses something called a standard Linear Congruential Generator (LCG) RNG algorithm to generate dice rolls.
>
> I have a video of me rolling 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls in the endgame to lose spectacularly from a very winning position.
>
> Could I search (somehow) that LCG to see if any of the seeds used ever rolled that sequence of dice?

LCG is a whole family of generators so you need not only the seed but some more stuff. Although BG needs not much from an RNG I would probably choose something better e.g. Mersenne Twister (fast and good enough) . And the programmer could have made an error.

Two things come to my mind:
- record a longer sequence of dice rolls and make some tests
- ask the author for the code og the RNG.

Frank Berger <bgblitz59@googlemail.com> writes:

> bragging is no programming language

But Brainfuck is.

Best regards

Axel

On August 25, 2023 at 9:32:48 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:

> MK schrieb am 25. August 2023 um 12:08:34 UTC+2:
> it's a waste of time to argue with someone
> who doesn't care about the matter at hand,
> but only about somehow being right in the
> end in his twisted logic.

It's ironic for you to say this. I'm not going to
try being right but I'm not going to apologize
either.

It's more than clear who cares more about the
matter at hand. Here I am, thinking I hooked a
big fish and trying to reel him in, there you are,
instead of fetching a net to help me scoop him
up, nitpicking on my misspeaking 16 bits and
thus distracting from the main issue at hand,
when my miswording didn't negate nor even
changed the meaning of the ntirety of what I
had said... :(

Many of you guys do this often enough that I
wonder if you are doing it on purpose, even if
subconsciously. It makes me so resentful and
angry that I react by lashing back, sometimes
without much thinking.

Since you're suggesting that you cae about the
matter at hand, let's hear what you have to say
about Tim's math/s on predicting RNG's...?

MK

On August 25, 2023 at 3:49:26 PM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

> Frank Berger <bgbl...@googlemail.com> writes:

>> bragging is no programming language

> But Brainfuck is.

Hey! Another mathematician enter the stage
with a line very relevant to the matter at hand.

He looks familiar. Hmm? Ah, yes, he was one
of the extras in "Silence of the dogs"... ;)

MK

On August 25, 2023 at 6:11:44 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:

> On 8/25/2023 3:56 AM, MK wrote:

Since you skipped my first question, I assume
the answer was "yes", (i.e. you overestimated
dice rolls needed to deduce a 19937 bit seed).

>> 2- Do you accept that you were underestimating
>> the dice rolls needed to deduce a 32 bit seed? (If
>> not, I'd like you to demonstrate that your math is
>> correct for me to learn the math correctly).

> I gave all the math already.

And I made you accept that your math was wrong.

> Just code up what I told you. Try all 2^32 seeds.

So, you can't produce the code for your own use
either. I wouldn't have underlined this nor hold it
against you that you aren't a programmer except
that you said: "I'm not going to produce working
code", as if you could.

No big deal. I don't know how to code either. ;) All
I can do is give you 8 rolls from a 32-bit Mersenne
Twister, along with the specific code and ask you
to deduce the seed. Maybe your colleague who is
good at programming can produce the code for
you so that you can come up with the answer...? :)

MK

On August 25, 2023 at 6:28:54 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:

> On 8/25/2023 4:08 AM, MK wrote:

>> On August 24, 2023 at 6:24:04 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:

>>> Obtain 8 rolls. Then try all 2^32 possible
>>> 32-bit seeds to see if you can match the
>>> given rolls. Unless you're very unlucky,
>>> only one of the 32-bit seeds will give you
>>> a match.

>> And how many 32-bit seeds will give me
>> a match, if I'm indeed very unlucky..." :)

> I'd say at most two, and I doubt that even
> this would ever happen.

Wait a minute, now. Are we doing math here
or playing guessing games..?

> But without analyzing the specific details of
> how the program converts RNG output into
> dice rolls,

I had already told you that they generate dice
rolls by taking modulo 6 of the RNG numbers.

Dice code of Noo-BG is open source. Although
we can use Ex-Gee for this purpose, its external
Mersenne Twister DLL's code is public also. You
don't need to take my word for it since you can
look yourself at how they do it.

> I can't be sure that it would be impossible
> to get more than one match after 8 rolls.

Okay, now that you know the "specific details",
can you be sure of it now..?

> In any case, if you run into such a rare situation,
> a 9th roll will disambiguate between them.

Are you sure of it...? Is "9" your final answer..??

But you know what, you shouldn't feel bad. All the
other mathematicians of RGB are scared shitless
to even open their mouths on the subject... ;)

MK

On 8/25/2023 11:19 AM, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
> So the app I have a beef with uses something called a standard Linear Congruential Generator (LCG) RNG algorithm to generate dice rolls.
>
> I have a video of me rolling 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls in the endgame to lose spectacularly from a very winning position.
>
> Could I search (somehow) that LCG to see if any of the seeds used ever rolled that sequence of dice?

As Frank says, there are many different LCG random number
generators. And even if you knew the specific one used by
the app, you'd also need to know how the app turns the output
of the random number generator into a dice roll---there are
several different ways to do this.

But more to the point, 7 consecutive rolls is probably not
going to be enough to prove anything, as far as an LCG seed
is concerned. The probability of 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls is
about 1 in 600 million, and while 600 million might sound like
a lot, a 32-bit seed (which is actually on the small side as
seeds go) gives you over 4 billion possibilities. So we'd
expect about 7 different seeds to give you 7 consecutive 2-1
rolls right off the bat. And if there's some flexibility
about when exactly the sequence starts (one or two rolls
earlier or later, perhaps), then more seeds will fit the bill.

This is not to say that what you observed isn't suspicious,
just that you probably can't prove anything just by considering
the random number generator seeds.

---
Tim Chow

On 8/25/2023 8:05 PM, MK wrote:
> On August 25, 2023 at 6:28:54 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>> I'd say at most two, and I doubt that even
>> this would ever happen.
>
> Wait a minute, now. Are we doing math here
> or playing guessing games..?

I'm playing a guessing game, because like you, I'm too lazy to
actually analyze the code. If you really want to know the answer,
you can figure it out yourself by running the code.

---
Tim Chow

On 8/25/2023 7:50 PM, MK wrote:
> No big deal. I don't know how to code either.

Glad to see that you're finally admitting that all your past
bragging about your computer skills were blatant lies!

I had suspected as much, but since you can't even code up a
simple exhaust, that pretty much proves that you're incompetent.

---
Tim Chow

On August 26, 2023 at 7:13:08 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:

> On 8/25/2023 11:19 AM, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:

>> I have a video of me rolling 7 consecutive 2-1
>> rolls in the endgame to lose spectacularly
>> from a very winning position.

> As Frank says, there are many different LCG
> random number generators. And even if you
> knew the specific one used by the app,

Assume you know this.

> you'd also need to know how the app turns
> the output of the random number generator
> into a dice roll---there are several different
> ways to do this.

Which of those "several different ways" do you
assume is used in your argument below?
> The probability of 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls is
> about 1 in 600 million,

This is not applicable in this case.

> So we'd expect about 7 different seeds to give
> you 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls right off the bat.

By this you must mean starting at counter "1"(?)

> And if there's some flexibility about when exactly
> the sequence starts (one or two rolls earlier or
> later, perhaps), then more seeds will fit the bill.

Earlier!? Earlier than what?

Later, yes, "in the endgame" he said.

If we take 54 as the average number of rolls in a
game and take that the last of his 21's was also
one of the last rolls, his sequence would have to
start at around the 40th roll, i.e. counter "40". So,
now how many seeds you'd expect, being helped
with this additional info..?

But what is more important that this is the fact
that he is not the only player rolling the dice; his
opponent is also rolling. His seven 21's occur on
every other roll, i.e during 14 consecutive rolls.
(This is why I said around the 54-14=40th, not
54-7=47th roll of the game above). To make it
worse, we don't know his opponent's seven rolls
which could be anything since he didn't specify.
But let's give you a break and say that we know
what those seven rolls were also. So, how many
seeds you'd expect now, after I clarified things
for you..?

Obviously, you can't even "think" right before you
rush to calculate things with your faulty math. :(

I'll expose you so badly that you will be ashamed
to call yourself a mathematician around here...

MK

On August 26, 2023 at 7:14:54 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:

> On 8/25/2023 8:05 PM, MK wrote:

>> On August 25, 2023 at 6:28:54 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:

>>> I'd say at most two, and I doubt that even
>>> this would ever happen.

>> Wait a minute, now. Are we doing math here
>> or playing guessing games..?

> I'm playing a guessing game, because like you,

Even that won't help you free yourseld from my
hook, as your guessing is off by a few miles also.

> I'm too lazy to actually analyze the code.

I said they do modulo 6. If you can take my word
for it, you don't need to take even a simple "look"
at the code, let alone "analyse" it (which is clearly
a gross exaggeration of a minor effort).

> If you really want to know the answer, you can
> figure it out yourself by running the code.

Maybe I can, maybe I can't. But the spotlight is on
you here. As I said, I won't hold it against you that
you can't produce a code that you pretended you
could and will let go of it as an unimportant detail.

But what will you do about your math being wrong?

I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
slap you silly with it...

MK

On August 26, 2023 at 7:16:56 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:

> On 8/25/2023 7:50 PM, MK wrote:

>> No big deal. I don't know how to code either.

> Glad to see that you're finally admitting that
> all your past bragging about your computer
> skills were blatant lies!

I'll even change my name in order to shove
your bad math up your dumb ass... ;)

> I had suspected as much, but since you can't
> even code up a simple exhaust, that pretty
> much proves that you're incompetent.

Okay, so, suppose you were asked the same
questions by someone else who is honestly
unable to "code up a simple exhaust". Could
you give them the correct(ed) answers...?

How about your mathematician ilk among the
silent pack of dogs"..? I'm anxiously waiting to
see if anyone of them will be capable of and/or
dare to bite, err, correct your wrong math/s...?

I'll give them the same few days as you, to step
up to the plate...

PS: I omitted on purpose some details from my
reply to your post about LCG, in order to not tip
you off too much. ;) I'll disclose them later.

MK

On 8/26/2023 4:04 PM, MK wrote:
> On August 26, 2023 at 7:13:08 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>> you'd also need to know how the app turns
>> the output of the random number generator
>> into a dice roll---there are several different
>> ways to do this.
>
> Which of those "several different ways" do you
> assume is used in your argument below?

For the argument I gave, it doesn't matter. It's only if you
wanted to prove definitively that the particular app couldn't
have generated the rolls that you would need to pin down which
of these ways is used.

>> The probability of 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls is
>> about 1 in 600 million,
>
> This is not applicable in this case.

It is, as I explain below.

>> So we'd expect about 7 different seeds to give
>> you 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls right off the bat.
>
> By this you must mean starting at counter "1"(?)

I mean starting at a specified moment.

>> And if there's some flexibility about when exactly
>> the sequence starts (one or two rolls earlier or
>> later, perhaps), then more seeds will fit the bill.
>
> Earlier!? Earlier than what?

Earlier than the roll that the first 21 actually occurred
during the game. That is, suppose that his 21 sequence
happened from rolls 41 through 47. "Earlier" would mean,
for example, that the 21 sequence occurred from rolls 40
through 46.

> If we take 54 as the average number of rolls in a
> game and take that the last of his 21's was also
> one of the last rolls, his sequence would have to
> start at around the 40th roll, i.e. counter "40". So,
> now how many seeds you'd expect, being helped
> with this additional info..?

If you insist that the sequence starts with the 40th roll,
then again we expect 7 out of 2^32 seeds. If the sequence
could start with the 40th roll or the 41st roll, then there
would be more seeds. Another way to put is that "losing the
game with a sequence of seven consecutive rolls of 21" might
have happened in two different ways, either starting with such
a sequence at roll 40 or at roll 41. We can't say for sure
without knowing what the position was, but I was just pointing
out that the number of seeds could be larger than 7 out of 2^32
if this were the case.

> But what is more important that this is the fact
> that he is not the only player rolling the dice; his
> opponent is also rolling. His seven 21's occur on
> every other roll, i.e during 14 consecutive rolls.

Here we reach the main point of your complaint. This is
completely irrelevant. Since we don't care what the opponent's
rolls are, the calculation is exactly the same. It's still an
event with probability approximately 1 in 600 million, so the
number of seeds is going to be the same.

---
Tim Chow

On 8/26/2023 4:24 PM, MK wrote:
> But what will you do about your math being wrong?
>
> I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
> slap you silly with it...

There's no need to wait a few days. State your objections now.

---
Tim Chow

Timothy Chow <tchow12000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 8/26/2023 4:24 PM, MK wrote:
>> But what will you do about your math being wrong?
>>
>> I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
>> slap you silly with it...
>
>There's no need to wait a few days. State your objections now.

If you attempt to slap a mosquito on your cheek there are two
possible results, but both end up with you slapping yourself.

--bks

On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 14:14:59 UTC+1, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> Timothy Chow <tchow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 8/26/2023 4:24 PM, MK wrote:
> >> But what will you do about your math being wrong?
> >>
> >> I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
> >> slap you silly with it...
> >
> >There's no need to wait a few days. State your objections now.
> If you attempt to slap a mosquito on your cheek there are two
> possible results, but both end up with you slapping yourself.
>
> --bks

I can dig out the relevant video and provide you with the rolls interspersed with my 7 x 2-1.

In the meantime, I have another video of me throwing 5 x 2-1 in the endgame (I told you this app has a nasty habit of rolling the user crap rolls during the endgame which probably explains why the developer refuses to publish the seed in use).

Me 2-2 Bot 6-4
Me 3-1 Bot 6-1
Me 3-2 Bot 4-1
Me 2-1 Bot 6-5
Me 2-1 Bot 4-4
Me 2-1 Bot 3-2
Me 2-1 Bot 3-2
Me 6-3 Bot 4-4 and wins from 43 pips behind at the start of the sequence

On 8/27/2023 9:14 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> Timothy Chow <tchow12000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 8/26/2023 4:24 PM, MK wrote:
>>> But what will you do about your math being wrong?
>>>
>>> I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
>>> slap you silly with it...
>>
>> There's no need to wait a few days. State your objections now.
>
> If you attempt to slap a mosquito on your cheek there are two
> possible results, but both end up with you slapping yourself.

Don't worry, Bradley...I enjoy slapping myself on the cheek!

I engage with Murat only when I find his rantings to be entertaining,
and/or if I think that my explanations might be instructive to other
r.g.b. readers. When I get bored with him, I stop.

---
Tim Chow

On August 27, 2023 at 7:01:50 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:

> On 8/26/2023 4:04 PM, MK wrote:

>> On August 26, 2023 at 7:13:08 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:

>>> you'd also need to know how the app turns
>>> the output of the random number generator
>>> into a dice roll---there are several different
>>> ways to do this.
>> Which of those "several different ways" do you
>> assume is used in your argument below?

> For the argument I gave, it doesn't matter.

Of course, it does matter! That's why immediately
before my above quote from you, you had said:

"even if you knew the specific one used by the app"

Clearly indicating that knowing more was needed,
i.e. it mattered:

"to know how the app turns the output of the
random number generator into a dice roll".

In fact, you knew it at least since 2009, as you had
said in the RGB post that I had previously linked to:

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/-Y9AWXOFwrc/m/3OUC6_UoWyUJ

"Wikipedia says that 624 observations of MY19937
"is enough to recover the seed, but I think this
"assumes that you see the full 32-bit word each
"time, so it probably translates into more than 624

> It's only if you wanted to prove definitively that
> the particular app couldn't have generated the
> rolls that you would need to pin down which
> of these ways is used.

Ha ha! :) You're such a slimy debater. :( But better
be careful with what you fabricate now to weasel
yourself out because I record everything you say
and I may slap you with this one later also... ;)

>>> The probability of 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls is
>>> about 1 in 600 million,

>> This is not applicable in this case.

> It is, as I explain below.

And I will explain to you why its isn't in a few days.

>>> So we'd expect about 7 different seeds to give
>>> you 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls right off the bat.
>> By this you must mean starting at counter "1"(?)

> I mean starting at a specified moment.

Okay, just remember that you are on my hook and
I'm trying to reel you in... ;)

>> Earlier!? Earlier than what?

> Earlier than the roll that the first 21 actually
> occurred during the game. That is, suppose
> that his 21 sequence happened from rolls 41
> through 47. "Earlier" would mean, for example,
> that the 21 sequence occurred from rolls 40
> through 46.

A 14 roll sequence couldn't happen after 41st
roll because we are basing our arguments on
an average game lasting 54 rolls, math prof...

> If you insist that the sequence starts with the 40th
> roll, then again we expect 7 out of 2^32 seeds.

And again, your math is wrong.

> ..... "losing the game with a sequence of seven
> consecutive rolls of 21" might have happened
> in two different ways, either starting with such
> a sequence at roll 40 or at roll 41. We can't say
> for sure without knowing what the position was,
> but I was just pointing out that the number of
> seeds could be larger than 7 out of 2^32 if this
> were the case.

I introduced the idea of 40th roll trying to clarify.

Before that, you initially said someting difficult to
make a sense out of:

"And if there's some flexibility about when exactly
"the sequence starts (one or two rolls earlier or
"later, perhaps), then more seeds will fit the bill.

How could there be no flexibility about when the
sequence starts unless it starts on the first roll,
i.e. "right of the bat" as you pharased it. But even
giving in to your slippering, how could more seeds
"fit the bill" both if the sequence starts *earlier* or
*later*? How can it be true both ways...?

>> But what is more important that this is the fact
>> that he is not the only player rolling the dice; his
>> opponent is also rolling. His seven 21's occur on
>> every other roll, i.e during 14 consecutive rolls.

> Here we reach the main point of your complaint.

I had more than one main point but *not yet* even
on this is one alone. You all will have to wait a few
more days...

> completely irrelevant. Since we don't care what
> the opponent's rolls are, the calculation is exactly
> the same. It's still an event with probability
> approximately 1 in 600 million, so the number of
> seeds is going to be the same.

The opponents rolls aren't irrelevant but even putting
that aside for now, the remaining of your argument is
still wrong. I will explain and teach you soon... :)

MK

On August 27, 2023 at 7:04:20 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:

> On 8/26/2023 4:24 PM, MK wrote:

>> But what will you do about your math being wrong?
>> I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
>> slap you silly with it...

> There's no need to wait a few days. State your
> objections now.

I'm being nice and proper to give not just you but
also your silent dogs, mathematician ilk of yours,
a fair chance to redeem yourselves by correcting
(assuming that you all could) yourselves and thus
show some virtue in you publicly...

No need to run, turtle. ;) Slow down and be patient...

MK