PDA

View Full Version : perverse sanity poll



chesslover
16-04-2004, 07:25 PM
This is a poll to see how sane teh people who vote in the BB polls are

The question is so silly, that the current answer is No. ANyone who votes yes, proves my point that they are perverse psychos who get a kick out of voting the wrong way

The question is - are tasmanians inbred freaks who eat their children?- answer is of course no

This is the post that started this thread
it is 14-4 now, but so what?

the people in this BB may have chosen, but to what extent are they representive of australian chess opinion?????

Also some people are just idiots, who vote without knowing the facts. Others for sadistic pleasure tend to vote against the most stupidest and wrong option for a perverse kick. These are the loonies who in an election vote for the Free Marijuna Party or the Monster Raving Party

If I asked a poll (which I will in non chess) asking people here do they think Tasmanians are inbred genetic freaks, a fair propertion will vote for it to get some psychotic perverse thrill. That is how stupid and silly some people who vote here are

Garvinator
16-04-2004, 07:27 PM
This is a poll to see how sane teh people who vote in the BB polls are

The question is so silly, that the current answer is No. ANyone who votes yes, proves my point that they are perverse psychos who get a kick out of voting the wrong way

The question is - are tasmanians inbred freaks who eat their children?- answer is of course no

This is the post that started this thread
it is 14-4 now, but so what?

the people in this BB may have chosen, but to what extent are they representive of australian chess opinion?????

Also some people are just idiots, who vote without knowing the facts. Others for sadistic pleasure tend to vote against the most stupidest and wrong option for a perverse kick. These are the loonies who in an election vote for the Free Marijuna Party or the Monster Raving Party

If I asked a poll (which I will in non chess) asking people here do they think Tasmanians are inbred genetic freaks, a fair propertion will vote for it to get some psychotic perverse thrill. That is how stupid and silly some people who vote here are


where's the poll so i can vote? :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2004, 07:33 PM
If I asked a poll (which I will in non chess) asking people here do they think Tasmanians are inbred genetic freaks, a fair propertion will vote for it to get some psychotic perverse thrill. That is how stupid and silly some people who vote here are

Walked into that one, didn't you? When you were having all those polls with Bill you were only too happy to gloat if you were a meaningless one vote ahead. Now that you're being whipped 14-4 on the poll you started you have deserted the people, their opinions are no longer authentic if they don't agree with yours. Isn't it clear enough from the thread that the vote is genuine?

Reminder, for the zillionth time, I am not genetically Tasmanian. I was born ... somewhere else ...

Alan Shore
16-04-2004, 07:35 PM
wtf?

Still, curious that Kevin takes the opportunity to vehmently deny any ancestral links to being a genetic Taswegian ;)

chesslover
16-04-2004, 10:22 PM
priceless.....Grand Poobah who lives among the taswegiens gets offended that he is called a tassie :eek:

and the poll is not over yet. 6-0 (including my vote) suggests that so far the BB voters have been rational but we have yet to see the pervese psychos vote. We shall see how many vote Yes, and that willl prove my point

Rincewind
16-04-2004, 10:35 PM
priceless.....Grand Poobah who lives among the taswegiens gets offended that he is called a tassie :eek:

and the poll is not over yet. 6-0 (including my vote) suggests that so far the BB voters have been rational but we have yet to see the pervese psychos vote. We shall see how many vote Yes, and that willl prove my point

CL, I suppose you think a double blind is a window dressing.

Lucena
16-04-2004, 11:01 PM
this thread is a joke obviously chesslover gets a kick out of being a dunderhead :rolleyes:

chesslover
16-04-2004, 11:05 PM
this thread is a joke obviously chesslover gets a kick out of being a dunderhead :rolleyes:

of course it is a joke :wall:

the point is to see how many people in this BB will vote yes, therby questioning their fitness to vote, and the validnees of the poll results in the BB

it really eats me up inside that i have just one vote when I think about an issue, consider and mull and vote in an election. Yet that jackass next to me can go in and vote for anyone using the eeny meeny system, and his vote is the same value as mine

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2004, 04:50 AM
it really eats me up inside that i have just one vote when I think about an issue, consider and mull and vote in an election. Yet that jackass next to me can go in and vote for anyone using the eeny meeny system, and his vote is the same value as mine

But the jackass can't rort the voting system like I can. I'm an expert in preferential voting systems due to my experience in scrutineering. In a lot of elections I've voted in I find ways to make my vote worth five times as much as most other people's. Since demockery is only a procedural default for keeping the peace anyway, why not?

As for the Tassie thing, it just amuses me to pull the rug out from under your silly jokes, precisely because those jokes are so stupid that I pity you for finding them amusing. :whistle:

This thread is obviously a deliberate attempt at a third goosemaster norm. The attempts at logic on display here make your defences of George Bush read like the Principia Mathematica by comparison. :rolleyes:

chesslover
17-04-2004, 09:30 AM
The attempts at logic on display here make your defences of George Bush read like the Principia Mathematica by comparison. :rolleyes:

thank you but I am not a mathematician by training

Rincewind
17-04-2004, 10:11 AM
This thread is obviously a deliberate attempt at a third goosemaster norm. The attempts at logic on display here make your defences of George Bush read like the Principia Mathematica by comparison. :rolleyes:

I might be wrong, but didn't Russell find a flaw at the heart of Principia Mathematica? The well-known Russell's Paradox of Gottlieb Frege's theory of sets. My understanding was Russell and Whitehead were attempting to ground mathematics in logic and relied on defining nearly everything as sets.

Russell then said, "what about the set of all sets which doesn't include itself as a member, is it a member of itself?" This leads to a logical contadiction and petty much their whole construct collapses.

Trent Parker
17-04-2004, 01:01 PM
hmmmm :hmm: which one to pick... which one to pick..... hmmmm :lol: :owned: :rolleyes: :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2004, 06:04 PM
Russell then said, "what about the set of all sets which doesn't include itself as a member, is it a member of itself?" This leads to a logical contadiction and petty much their whole construct collapses.

I do remember something of the sort. I was just attempting to suggest that CL's arguments on this thread display far less attempt at thought (successful or otherwise) than even his woeful defences of Dubya. In fact, just when I think CL could not present more obviously flawed arguments if he tried, along he comes and does exactly that.

Naturally he took my insult as a compliment. Such is the genius of chesslover.

chesslover
17-04-2004, 11:08 PM
I do remember something of the sort. I was just attempting to suggest that CL's arguments on this thread display far less attempt at thought (successful or otherwise) than even his woeful defences of Dubya. In fact, just when I think CL could not present more obviously flawed arguments if he tried, along he comes and does exactly that.

Naturally he took my insult as a compliment. Such is the genius of chesslover.

you are smarter than me Grand Poobah. Happy and ego sated now????

Since you are so smart I think you will have no probs solving this little mystey that almost 1 million + people of the general public know


13-3-2-21-1-1-8-5
O, Draconian devil!
Oh, lame saint

1.618

PS - I am smarter than you think, I assure you

Bill Gletsos
17-04-2004, 11:47 PM
you are smarter than me Grand Poobah. Happy and ego sated now????

Since you are so smart I think you will have no probs solving this little mystey that almost 1 million + people of the general public know


13-3-2-21-1-1-8-5
O, Draconian devil!
Oh, lame saint

1.618

PS - I am smarter than you think, I assure you
Your 1.618 gave it away CL.

The number sequence is a fibonacci series out of order.
Ordered it is 1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21.

1.618 is whats know as the golden ratio or Phi.
If you generate a sequence of at least the first 13 fibonacci numbers (1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34-55-89-144-233) the ratio of the last to second last appoaches 1.618 to 3 decimal places.
Its been calculated to over a billion places and has no repeating sequence.

This 1.618 ratio supposedly was used by Leonardo Da Vinci in the painting of the Mona Lisa.
It took me a lttle longer to realise that the two sentences were anagrams of Leonardo Da Vinci and the mona lisa.

Also the golden ratio is very significant in relation to attributes of the Giant Pyramid of Cheops. I remember reading about this aspect of it years ago I think in the book "Chariots of the Gods" by Erich von Daniken.

chesslover
18-04-2004, 12:07 AM
Your 1.618 gave it away CL.

The number sequence is a fibonacci series out of order.
Ordered it is 1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21.

1.618 is whats know as the golden ratio or Phi.
If you generate a sequence of at least the first 13 fibonacci numbers (1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34-55-89-144-233) the ratio of the last to second last appoaches 1.618 to 3 decimal places.
Its been calculated to over a billion places and has no repeating sequence.

This 1.618 ratio supposedly was used by Leonardo Da Vinci in the painting of the Mona Lisa.
It took me a lttle longer to realise that the two sentences were anagrams of Leonardo Da Vinci and the mona lisa.

Also the golden ratio is very significant in relation to attributes of the Giant Pyramid of Cheops. I remember reading about this aspect of it years ago I think in the book "Chariots of the Gods" by Erich von Daniken.


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

you are truely the smartest one in this BB. My hats off to you

I actually am reading the world wide bestseller, "daVinci code", and that was the riddle that the hero had to solve

I would never ever been able to guess that, and since you have solved it, we never will now if the Taswegian Grand Poobah had the intellect to resolve it as well

Bill Gletsos
18-04-2004, 12:16 AM
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

you are truely the smartest one in this BB. My hats off to you
Actually my head is just full of sometimes useful and other times useless information. ;)


I actually am reading the world wide bestseller, "daVinci code", and that was the riddle that the hero had to solve
Shows what I know. Never heard of it.


I would never ever been able to guess that, and since you have solved it, we never will now if the Taswegian Grand Poobah had the intellect to resolve it as well
The Grand Poohbah is on the ball. I reckon he would have solved it.
So to probably our resident maths quizmaster, Barry.

Lucena
18-04-2004, 12:18 AM
of course it is a joke :wall:

the point is to see how many people in this BB will vote yes, therby questioning their fitness to vote, and the validnees of the poll results in the BB

it really eats me up inside that i have just one vote when I think about an issue, consider and mull and vote in an election. Yet that jackass next to me can go in and vote for anyone using the eeny meeny system, and his vote is the same value as mineobviously as emperor this idea of democracy doesn't sit well with you :) -I'm all for it-I get work during elections :owned:

chesslover
18-04-2004, 12:22 AM
obviously as emperor this idea of democracy doesn't sit well with you :) -I'm all for it-I get work during elections :owned:

ask Kevin gareth

Grand Poobah reckons his vote is worth 5 of ours :confused:

not sure if he is being delusional or if he is rorting our voting system. I always thought a vote is a vote, and that each person was entitled to one vote

like pauline H said, we should say to kevin, "please explain?"

Lucena
18-04-2004, 12:28 AM
ask Kevin gareth

Grand Poobah reckons his vote is worth 5 of ours :confused:

not sure if he is being delusional or if he is rorting our voting system. I always thought a vote is a vote, and that each person was entitled to one vote

like pauline H said, we should say to kevin, "please explain?"he was only kidding duh

Lucena
18-04-2004, 12:31 AM
I'm an expert in preferential voting systems due to my experience in scrutineering.
you really worked as a scrutineer? As a polling official, that makes you my bitter lifelong enemy... :D

chesslover
18-04-2004, 12:31 AM
Shows what I know. Never heard of it.



These arethe details of this book. It is best seller everywhere in the world and sold millions of copies. I still think it is in the best seller list in Aust

http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/summer03/review09.shtml.htm

the review states - The Da Vinci Code achieved record summer sales and sparked debate across the board, from Time magazine to the New York Times. Although it is a work of fiction, it questions touchy issues with roots in the history of art and religion

another review says - Dan Brown's THE DA VINCI CODE was one of the most talked about --- and controversial --- books of 2003. Some people believe it was one of the best books (if not the best book) they have ever read, and at one point this summer it was atop every bestseller list in the country. In fact, USA Today recently reported that an astounding 90 books have seen sales increases thanks to the popularity of Brown's latest thriller

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/nov7.html

chesslover
18-04-2004, 12:33 AM
he was only kidding duh

duh yourself

he was not kidding, when he said he makes his vote count 5 times as much.

rather than fighting let us wait for the Grand Poobah to explain why he said what he said, what he meant by what he said

PHAT
18-04-2004, 10:50 AM
Reminder, for the zillionth time, I am not genetically Tasmanian. I was born ... somewhere else ...


"Only the truely devine, denies their devinity."

[For 10 points, from what movie is this quote?]

PHAT
18-04-2004, 10:51 AM
thank you but I am not a mathematician by training

I didn't know that it took training to become anumerate.

Rincewind
18-04-2004, 10:54 AM
"Only the truely devine, denies their devinity."

[For 10 points, from what movie is this quote?]

Life of Brian.

Too easy.

PHAT
18-04-2004, 10:58 AM
BTW. As soon as I saw this poll, I voted "yes". Hope this helps.

Rincewind
18-04-2004, 11:04 AM
The number sequence is a fibonacci series out of order.
Ordered it is 1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21.

1.618 is whats know as the golden ratio or Phi.
If you generate a sequence of at least the first 13 fibonacci numbers (1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34-55-89-144-233) the ratio of the last to second last appoaches 1.618 to 3 decimal places.
Its been calculated to over a billion places and has no repeating sequence.

This 1.618 ratio supposedly was used by Leonardo Da Vinci in the painting of the Mona Lisa.
It took me a lttle longer to realise that the two sentences were anagrams of Leonardo Da Vinci and the mona lisa.

Also the golden ratio is very significant in relation to attributes of the Giant Pyramid of Cheops. I remember reading about this aspect of it years ago I think in the book "Chariots of the Gods" by Erich von Daniken.

The golden mean was well known to the ancients and displays the well known property

1/phi = phi - 1

A bit of basic algebra can turn that into a quadratic where one of the root (the positive one) is (1 + sqrt(5))/2. We know enough to know that sqrt(5) is not rational and therefore phi will never be represented exactly as decimal with finite nor repeating digits.

If you look on my website you will find a proof that not only does the ratio of successive terms approach one of the roots of phi^2 - phi -1 = 0, but there is a general quadratic when other than successive terms are used.

For those interested, the direct link is here http://bjcox.com/maths/fibprf1.pdf

chesslover
18-04-2004, 10:38 PM
see. see

11% of the people have voted out of perversity. Shows that in any poll from now on there should be a 11% margin of error in this BB

Kevin Bonham
18-04-2004, 11:41 PM
11% of the people have voted out of perversity. Shows that in any poll from now on there should be a 11% margin of error in this BB

I thought you said that you were smarter than I thought.

Either you are not smarter than I thought or else you are trolling. Which is it?
:hmm:

Nine votes is not enough sample to establish the margin of error. Your margin of error sample itself has a margin of error.

There is also the possibility that the person voting may genuinely believe what they voted for. On the internet, you never know. :rolleyes:

And in any case even with your 11% margin of error you still got flogged on that poll about zonals. Like my view is getting flogged on "dissing the ref" at the moment - but I don't go around claiming that majority support actually means anything, except to rub your nose in it when you start a poll and get a big no vote. :owned:

PS I've seen plenty of Fibonacci sequences in my time - you can take my word for it that I recognised the Fibonacci numbers and fraction before reading Bill's post.

Garvinator
18-04-2004, 11:54 PM
also with this silly poll, the fact that the results are being reported here introduces a bias. We have been reporting the cl was getting flogged from the start and no one had voted for yes. so i bet someone just voted yes so it had one vote :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
19-04-2004, 12:14 AM
also with this silly poll, the fact that the results are being reported here introduces a bias. We have been reporting the cl was getting flogged from the start and no one had voted for yes. so i bet someone just voted yes so it had one vote :whistle:
Matt did. :whistle:
He said so. :hand:

Kevin Bonham
19-04-2004, 12:26 AM
duh yourself

he was not kidding, when he said he makes his vote count 5 times as much.

rather than fighting let us wait for the Grand Poobah to explain why he said what he said, what he meant by what he said

I really do make my vote count for some number of times as much as other votes. It's a trick you can do in electoral systems that have the following features:

* More than one member elected per district.
* Below the line voting.
It works especially well when there are no party tickets.

In Tassie in Lower House elections we have the Hare-Clark system. There are five districts each with five seats, and each candidate needs a sixth of the total valid primary votes plus one vote to be elected. Each party will therefore field, say, five candidates in each district, and one, two or three of these will be elected from (usually) each of the ALP, Liberals and Greens. The laws ban how to vote cards to force the candidates from within each party to compete with each other. (This is an excellent system, I wish something like it existed in the Senate so we could clean out some of the useless factional turkeys.)

Last election, former Premier Bacon got a whopping vote, something like double the quota of votes required on first preferences. Now, when this happens, all his votes are redistributed to the other candidates, but their value is reduced. Suppose I am a Bacon supporter and compare what happens in the following cases.

(i) I vote 1 for whoever else I want to get in and 2 for Bacon.
(ii) I vote 1 for Bacon and 2 for whoever else I want to get in.

Now, in case (i) Bacon is elected without ever receiving my vote. Since he is (or was) Premier and extremly popular I know he doesn't need my vote anyway. My vote goes at full value to the next person.

In case (ii) I have increased Bacon's total by 1 vote compared to case (i). My vote will now get passed on to the candidate I voted 2 for but at a reduced value. Meanwhile adding my vote to Bacon's pile has very slightly increased the value of all his other votes compared with case (i). This means that instead of my vote going at full value to my other preferred candidate, now only a fraction of it (in this case about half) goes to that candidate, and I've fractionally increased the power of the preferences of everyone else who voted for the same candidate. (The total increase will add up to that missing fraction of a vote). If relatively few of the other Bacon voters agreed with my second choice, then it could be that instead of giving my second choice a full vote, I've effectively given, say, 0.6 of a vote to my second choice and 0.2 of a vote to that second choice's main rival. So my vote is 2.5 times as effective in helping the other candidate who needs it by voting 2 Bacon as by voting 1 Bacon.

However, that's only a mild version of what can happen. In some Council elections that use this system, one candidate may get elected, then their surplus puts another one in, and so on, and you see votes sitting on the table worth 0.02 of a vote. In one Hobart City Council election the margin for the final place was 3.2 votes out of 16000-odd. As a scrutineer I actually saw my vote sitting there on the table, at full value, active in deciding between the two remaining candidates, at a time when most of the remaining ballot papers had been needlessly reduced in value to fractions by being part of someone's surplus.

It's even possible, in very extreme circumstances, that by voting 1 for someone who's going to bolt in anyway, you can do your #2 candidate more damage than if you had not voted at all. Strange but true.

Planning your vote under these systems to make the most of it is quite tricky, but one thing that always helps is don't vote 1 for someone who is going to bolt in. Vote 1 for a no-hoper, or vote 1 for someone you like who is really going to need your vote. Amusingly enough I had a discussion with a former high ranking electoral official here some time ago. I mentioned this system and was absolutely astonished when he confessed matter-of-factly "Yes I do that too."

Just remember, it's all completely pointless at the end of the day, no matter how craftily you beef up your vote a politician still gets elected.

Gareth - I've been scrutineering since 1987. Mainly do it for information gathering and early prediction of result purposes. The people here are very good and don't make many mistakes at all. As a scrutineer, I don't think I've ever caused someone to be elected who wouldn't have been, but I think I once saved my candidate from waiting an extra day for a recount.

chesslover
20-04-2004, 10:46 PM
what do you think of the first past the post system?

It seems Aus, NZ and a lot of European countries use the preferential system

I personally prefer the preferential system as it ensures that mostly the gap between parties are not tha big, yet gives a government enough numbers to govern - unlike a proportional voting system in some european countries

have you noticed that 9% of the sample by the way have voted for the silly option - showing that in any BB poll there is atleast a margin of error of 9%

Rincewind
02-05-2004, 10:12 PM
Your 1.618 gave it away CL.

The number sequence is a fibonacci series out of order.
Ordered it is 1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21.

1.618 is whats know as the golden ratio or Phi.
If you generate a sequence of at least the first 13 fibonacci numbers (1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34-55-89-144-233) the ratio of the last to second last appoaches 1.618 to 3 decimal places.
Its been calculated to over a billion places and has no repeating sequence.

This 1.618 ratio supposedly was used by Leonardo Da Vinci in the painting of the Mona Lisa.
It took me a lttle longer to realise that the two sentences were anagrams of Leonardo Da Vinci and the mona lisa.

Also the golden ratio is very significant in relation to attributes of the Giant Pyramid of Cheops. I remember reading about this aspect of it years ago I think in the book "Chariots of the Gods" by Erich von Daniken.

When I go away on holidays for a few days I usually bring a book to read. Last year it was a re-read of a Brief History of Time. This year I picked up The Golden Ratio by Mario Livio a few days before my break.

It is a very interesting read and draws many threads together from various scientific fields as well as debunking a few popular myths regarding 1.618...

The author is the head of Science Division of the Hubble Space Telescope Science Institute and certainly presents a well researched and written book. I can recommend it.

He thoroughly debunks phi having anything to do with the planning of the pyramids or the Parthenon. He also flags as highly dubious Leonardo Da Vinci making much, if any, use of it. However, he stops short of talking about the Mona Lisa as it is a topic about which a large amount of scholarly writing has already been published. Suffice to say that the jury is still out on that one too.

For the mathematically inclined, the author suggests that the biggest question in Fibonacci Series today is, "is there a largest Fibonacci prime?" Interesting question, although hard to get any traction on.

Apparantly the 81,839th number has been shown to be a prime with 17,103 digits. I suspect the set of Fibonacci Primes is unbounded above but it would be nice to be able to prove it.

Kevin Bonham
03-05-2004, 09:02 PM
what do you think of the first past the post system?

It is an abomination.


I personally prefer the preferential system as it ensures that mostly the gap between parties are not tha big, yet gives a government enough numbers to govern - unlike a proportional voting system in some european countries

Actually any single-member system (first-past-the-post or preferential) can deliver very large majorities with fairly small differences in the two-party preferred vote.

It is true that PR increases the risk of hung parliaments, but not by as much as people think.


have you noticed that 9% of the sample by the way have voted for the silly option - showing that in any BB poll there is atleast a margin of error of 9%

No it doesn't, because your margin of error also has a margin of error. You would need more tests to confirm that 9% was not an extreme outlier beyond the normal "margin of error". :p

JGB
03-05-2004, 09:16 PM
Posting such stupid questions almost forces voters to extremes that are absured.