Mr. Pegleg's incredulity is no argument against the relevancy of why the doctor considered pi as not complex. Red herring -- again, no one on this thread disputes that pi is not complex, nor does anyone dispute the relevancy of that to the discussion.
Yet with a telescope in his eye he fails to see that central point.
And that central point would be... Oh, Mr. Confused "forgot" to say what that might be, he just pretended he had one that actually rescues his errors. Red herring.
Another failing of the pegleg is his knowledge of how probabilities are determined.
Why would my knowledge of probability and statistics be a failing? Bizarre. If Mr. Confused actually could identify a gap in my knowledge of these things, or a flaw in my analysis of his errors, one presume he would have actually pointed them out instead of mumbled incoherently about my knowledge. The red herrings are getting too deep to wade through.
They are not determined by trial and error.
I didn't say that they were, nor does this rescue Mr. Confused's errors. The red herrings are FLYING today!
They are calculated.
Gosh, what a shocker. Red herring #832,485 (give or take).
That is why Buffon's question has a solution. It is not a guess.
I never said that it was, nor does this rescue Mr. Confused's errors. Increment the red herring count.
Mr. Confused also seems blissfully unaware that the "solution" to the Buffon process is only an EXPECTED VALUE, it is not a fixed outcome. If you throw a thousand coins, the expected value is that 0.5 of them will be heads (i.e. exactly 500 heads, 500 tails). HOWEVER, I will cheerfully bet you 20-to-1 odds that your actual 1000 coin flips resulted in something *other* than exactly 500 heads, and I will get *rich* doing it (the actual odds of getting exactly 500 heads in 1000 coin flips is 1000!/(500! * 500!) / (2^1000) = 0.025225 = 2.5% = 40-to-1 odds *against*).
I'll offer Mr. Confused even better odds -- he can pick any number of Buffon needle-drops he wants, then perform that number of needle drops, and I'll bet him a BILLION-to-1 odds that at the end of his drop-and-tally trial his results won't actually equal pi, the way he seems to fantasize it will. He is free to wager however large a sum he wishes to lose -- er, I mean, "bet".
Let's see, nope, no guesses in there.
That's nice. Here's a cookie.
No stumping the pegleg on incompressible and "random", he's sharp as a tack, but he's kinda dense on irony.
Yawn. This reply by Mr. Confused has a 100% red herring content. That's a record even for him.
The astute reader will note that while Mr. Confused attempted to imply that my identification of the errors in his argument were flawed, he still hasn't managed to refute any of my points. Keep watching to see how many more red herrings will be flung in order to try to distract from that fact.
Your points don't need refutation. They need pity. For instance it is quite clear that a probability is calculated, the linked pages show that.
Again, your shock is no argument for anything but your shock.
Plus your gambling problem does not help your argument either. Notice that the summation for the calculation of pi has a symbol on top. That means something.
And the set of rationals is closed when using all of the operations in the equation.
Finally, your not understanding irony is no virtue. A recent study pinpointed a cause for that. It was brain damage to the frontal lobe.
'Sarcasm' brain areas discovered
Damage to any of three different areas could render individuals unable to understand sarcastic comments.
As you so kindly treated Alamo-girl, I will return the favor. Don't post to me.