The same opponent wins 4 times in a row (1 game between the first game and the final 3 games) with me favored lol
a 30-70
a 25-75
a 50-50
a 5-95
i mean,why even play these matches. Just force disconect me and make him win right away if thats the plan.
The odds of this happening (me loosing this battle in the end) are 0,001875.
THAT IS FAR OUTSIDE TWICE THE STANDARD DEVIATION so this is statistical proof ty.
kek
Itâs an example, we agree.
Do we?
Because universal negatives still cannot be proven. They can be disproven, but thatâs different.
A better example would have been âno element has an atomic weight of 200.â
Yes itâs unprovable in my mind. Maybe a higher order intelligence has tricks.
For a provable (and well documented) negative - root 2 cannot be expressed as the division of any two integers.
You do know that BG calculators arenât 100% accurate right?
And also that not every event over the standard deviation isnât proof said standard is wrong? See how this sound to you:
âSomething rare happened to me, so there must be some great conspiracy going onâ
Itâs one of the worst games out there but sadly no other competition
They only keep players around because there largely competing with no one. You see them try to compete with any of the trendy games like LoL or battle royales?
I think I said this already, but to be fair I keep slipping into imprecise diction, so:
A universal negative cannot be empirically proven â that is, via the scientific method, with physical evidence.
Mathematical proofs are an entirely different ballgame. Essentially, they define certain situations out of possibility. Itâs not unlike a âproofâ that all men are human.
I donât subscribe to the maths is not real philosophy.
Um, what? I donât understand.
Mathematics can be used to describe, measure, and understand the world around us. Hence mathematical proofs can be used to prove tangibles. I assumed you were speaking from the perspective of someone who sees mathematics as a construct of the mind.
Yes I do, but I feel like youâre settling up a false dichotomy here. Our entire understanding of physical reality is a construct of the mind; without those constructs, we have no way to deliberately interact with physical reality. Things like mathematics and logic are not tangible, but theyâre a critical component in the operating system of our brains that enables us to process reality.
Itâs a critical error to assume that, just because a process is mental, that it is something meaningless that can be casually discarded. It reminds me a bit of using the phrase âsocial constructâ as a pejorative. Technically, all laws are social constructs, but that doesnât mean a law against murder isnât valuable. Society is, on some issues, fundamentally right, and some social constructs save lives. The same can be said of certain mental constructs. So when I say that math is in the head and not in physical reality, I donât mean to cheapen it by saying so.
So my response is that we have to have to accept some standards when weâre talking about proofs, otherwise you can argue that nothing is provable, because any measurement we apply is limited.
For example example I might say I can prove someone is in the room with me, by pointing right at them. And for all practical purposes this will be an accepted standard of proof. But someone can argue thatâs not âproofâ, they may have teleported away and Iâm still viewing the old light.
Itâs easy to get into ridiculous and pointless discussions by asserting that someone has to prove every foundation upon which a point rests. And thatâs basically where youâre headed with âyou canât prove a negativeâ. Itâs not that you canât prove a negative, itâs that you canât prove anything. And for all practical purposes itâs an absurd discussion. Just this discussion has expended so much more effort than this issue would ever justify in a universe of lifetimes.
To close this out, the heart of what Iâm trying to get across is - when some loser comes and says âprove1 that matches arenât riggedâ, itâs not that you canât prove1 the negative, itâs that itâs extraordinarily more work to prove1 the negative than it is to prove1 their loony tunes positive. And asking someone to do many multiple orders of magnitude more work, because youâre a lazy sod, is absurd.
1 To an acceptable standard.
Same here. When I play minion based aggro decks, I get matched with control warriors and curselocks.
But as soon as I switch to Shellfish priest, I constantly get matched up with high pressure aggro decks
I wish I could be another lap dog who enjoys licking the multi million corporation in defense of fairness. I donât say they can not be because there is always the same stupid wall âprove itâ. People asking you to prove something that behind the doors.
What if I record a video about the RNG is rigged and show you? I bet you will find another excuse to say, âno, it is not because in this video it is not proven.â And you know what? Youâll be right about it because RNG is designed after a piece of code, a logic even it is supposed to be ârandomâ. This is the beauty of it, ainât it? âRandomâ is defined by the humanly hands. You get it until this point, right? It makes it manipulatable. You donât need a high digit IQ to understand this. So, what I say is âYOU CAN NOT PROVE IT BECAUSE YOU DONâT HAVE ACCESS TO PROOFâ Capeesh?
I did not say it and will never say that proof is not required. You need to prove it for sure but in this case it is impossible because it is protected by the corporate law. This is where the corruption starts. You can not freely investigate the code, it is not auditable. So, if you claim that something suspicious is going on with the game, all you can get is the corporate lap dogs -you can check above for one with saliva-. They can jump into the conversations to say âbut you can not prove it. this is not burden of proof works out.â
Funny piece of cheats. You little pets are the ones corrupting the gaming world. You are the cancer. Because of you, gaming companies are focused on making cash out of the games, more than making a playable and fair platforms and making cash at the same time.
Sent from my iPhone using Google Chrome through Cisco network
Those are certainly words. Yes, those are words that have been said.
They have no connection to reality though, as the owner of said words seemingly does not know about statistics.
But like, nice words.
Well, it is nice to pretend that such things âcould never happen hereâ, but the truth will be there when youâre ready to accept thereâs a veil over your eyes. That reality is far more bitter and harder to accept.
Unless your video shows the Hearthstoneâs code where the rigging is with the proof that itâs the hearthstoneâs code. Or I donât know, a dev certifying that the code is rigged, then you would have those answers. Because showing a video of a bad RNG roll proves nothing except that itâs possible to lowroll an RNG event âŚ
I mean, did you even go to school ? Itâs like a pretty basic stuff to understand that to make a point, you have to prove it âŚ