It was two years ago today...

[Alan Mendelson]

jbjb stop embarrassing yourself.

Take a die and show it with a 2 on top. The other five faces on that die are now excluded.

Take the second die and examine it. It has six faces. One of those six faces will match the two.

Now, let's take your stack of suited cards.

Select one of the six spades. By choosing one spade you eliminate the other spades from consideration. In fact, you said that in your own writing.

Now, you have six hearts. One of those hearts will make a pair with the spade you selected.

If you don't understand this, you've inhaled too much smoke in casinos.

[arcimede$]

Absolutely false statements.

Yes, a "peeker" can see either one die or both dice and say truthfully and correctly "at least one die is a 2." Do you know how to speak the English language Arc?

Silly nonsense. If the die he sees when he sees only one die is not a 2 and the die he does not see is a 2, then he is not answering the question "correctly". Face-palm.

Arc, now you're going to start playing word games? Your response was to regnis who was talking about one die being a 2. I was challenging your use of the English language and what "at least one" means. Of course if the peeker sees two 6s he cannot truthfully say at least one die is a 2 which sets up the original question.

Take your face palm and slap yourself.

Regnis: too bad you don't have this gang in court. They would be pleading for a deal. They don't know what hit them.

As usual when Alan is made to look foolish he tries to change the subject. You supported Regnis statement so please explain to everyone how the peeker could know "at least one die is a 2" when he doesn't see both of the die.

[a2a3dseddie]

Using playing cards. I take the ace through 6 of spades and ace through 6 of hearts. In their own piles. Mix them up separately and pull one from each pile and look at both SIMULTANEOUSLY. I say "at least one is an ace, what is the probability the other is an ace?" Any of the 11 cards could be the "other one." Same 1 in 11 as the dice problem and people problem I mentioned earlier

Now, let's take your stack of suited cards.

Select one of the six spades. By choosing one spade you eliminate the other spades from consideration. In fact, you said that in your own writing.

Now, you have six hearts. One of those hearts will make a pair with the spade you selected.

If you don't understand this, you've inhaled too much smoke in casinos.

I don't see where jbjb said this.

Like the dice problem, you don't know which card is the ace. Since you don't know, all of the 11 combinations where one of the cards is an ace are in play.

[Alan Mendelson]

As usual when Alan is made to look foolish he tries to change the subject. You supported Regnis statement so please explain to everyone how the peeker could know "at least one die is a 2" when he doesn't see both of the die.

Are you fucking insane? He only has to see ONE die to make the statement "at least one die is a two." You don't have to see both dice. And in the question it is stated that the "peeker" truthfully says one die is a 2.

So what the fuck is your problem?

[Alan Mendelson]

Using playing cards. I take the ace through 6 of spades and ace through 6 of hearts. In their own piles. Mix them up separately and pull one from each pile and look at both SIMULTANEOUSLY. I say "at least one is an ace, what is the probability the other is an ace?" Any of the 11 cards could be the "other one." Same 1 in 11 as the dice problem and people problem I mentioned earlier

Now, let's take your stack of suited cards.

Select one of the six spades. By choosing one spade you eliminate the other spades from consideration. In fact, you said that in your own writing.

Now, you have six hearts. One of those hearts will make a pair with the spade you selected.

If you don't understand this, you've inhaled too much smoke in casinos.

I don't see where jbjb said this.

Like the dice problem, you don't know which card is the ace. Since you don't know, all of the 11 combinations where one of the cards is an ace are in play.

This is where jbjb said it. Again, we have a reading comprehension problem with the 1/11 gang:

Using playing cards. I take the ace through 6 of spades and ace through 6 of hearts. In their own piles. Mix them up separately and pull one from each pile and look at both SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Does jbjb now want to tell us that he didn't intend to have separate piles, spades and hearts?

It's all about the English language folks.

[mickeycrimm]

Alan, had you been there when Galileo announced that the earth circled the sun instead of the sun circling the earth you would have told him he was full of shit.

[a2a3dseddie]

As usual when Alan is made to look foolish he tries to change the subject. You supported Regnis statement so please explain to everyone how the peeker could know "at least one die is a 2" when he doesn't see both of the die.

Are you fucking insane? He only has to see ONE die to make the statement "at least one die is a two." You don't have to see both dice. And in the question it is stated that the "peeker" truthfully says one die is a 2.

So what the fuck is your problem?

Alan, perhaps this is where our interpretations of the problem differ from yours.

I guess you are looking at this from a 1 roll and 1 roll only point of view.

[a2a3dseddie]

Now, let's take your stack of suited cards.

Select one of the six spades. By choosing one spade you eliminate the other spades from consideration. In fact, you said that in your own writing.

Now, you have six hearts. One of those hearts will make a pair with the spade you selected.

If you don't understand this, you've inhaled too much smoke in casinos.

I don't see where jbjb said this.

Like the dice problem, you don't know which card is the ace. Since you don't know, all of the 11 combinations where one of the cards is an ace are in play.

This is where jbjb said it. Again, we have a reading comprehension problem with the 1/11 gang:

Using playing cards. I take the ace through 6 of spades and ace through 6 of hearts. In their own piles. Mix them up separately and pull one from each pile and look at both SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Does jbjb now want to tell us that he didn't intend to have separate piles, spades and hearts?

It's all about the English language folks.

Alan, when jbjb says:

"at least one is an ace, what is the probability the other is an ace?"

Couldn't he be holding:

As 2h
As 3h
As 4h
As 5h
As 6h

Ah 2s
Ah 3s
Ah 4s
Ah 5s
Ah 6s

Or

Ah As
?

[redietz]

This is where, if I may remind, I pointed out that peeking at the dice as written is a sequential event, not simultaneous.

Further, as written, there is only one roll at a time. Again, sequential.

The writer presented the question as this being one roll. He did that explicitly to create confusion.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm not sure the writer intended to create confusion. I think the math guys got confused because the writer set it up as a very simple question. Our 1/11 gang can't see the simple answer. No... they had to go and take the complicated route.

[arcimede$]

As usual when Alan is made to look foolish he tries to change the subject. You supported Regnis statement so please explain to everyone how the peeker could know "at least one die is a 2" when he doesn't see both of the die.

Are you fucking insane? He only has to see ONE die to make the statement "at least one die is a two." You don't have to see both dice. And in the question it is stated that the "peeker" truthfully says one die is a 2.

So what the fuck is your problem?

Why didn't you answer my question, Alan. Instead you more or less admitted you know you are wrong by swearing. If he sees only one die and it is a 6, he cannot KNOW whether the other die is a 2. Therefore, he can not "truthfully" say whether or not one die is a 2. He HAS to see both die to "truthfully" answer the question.

Face-palm.

[mickeycrimm]

As usual when Alan is made to look foolish he tries to change the subject. You supported Regnis statement so please explain to everyone how the peeker could know "at least one die is a 2" when he doesn't see both of the die.

Are you fucking insane? He only has to see ONE die to make the statement "at least one die is a two." You don't have to see both dice. And in the question it is stated that the "peeker" truthfully says one die is a 2.
So what the fuck is your problem?

Well, the problem is if the peeker looks at the first die and it is a 1,3,4,5, or 6, which most of the time it will be one of those numbers, he has to look at the other die to see if it is a 2. Duh!

[Alan Mendelson]

As usual when Alan is made to look foolish he tries to change the subject. You supported Regnis statement so please explain to everyone how the peeker could know "at least one die is a 2" when he doesn't see both of the die.

Are you fucking insane? He only has to see ONE die to make the statement "at least one die is a two." You don't have to see both dice. And in the question it is stated that the "peeker" truthfully says one die is a 2.
So what the fuck is your problem?

Once again, of course one die has to be a 2 in order to make the statement "at least one die is a 2."

Arc is again trying to twist words. We went through this before.

This is Arc's routine. Ive seen it for years through his battles with Singer.

Well, the problem is if the peeker looks at the first die and it is a 1,3,4,5, or 6, which most of the time it will be one of those numbers, he has to look at the other die to see if it is a 2. Duh!

Once again, of course one die has to be a 2 in order to make the statement "at least one die is a 2."

Arc is again trying to twist words. We went through this before.

This is Arc's routine. Ive seen it for years through his battles with Singer.

[Alan Mendelson]

As usual when Alan is made to look foolish he tries to change the subject. You supported Regnis statement so please explain to everyone how the peeker could know "at least one die is a 2" when he doesn't see both of the die.

Are you fucking insane? He only has to see ONE die to make the statement "at least one die is a two." You don't have to see both dice. And in the question it is stated that the "peeker" truthfully says one die is a 2.

So what the fuck is your problem?

Why didn't you answer my question, Alan. Instead you more or less admitted you know you are wrong by swearing. If he sees only one die and it is a 6, he cannot KNOW whether the other die is a 2. Therefore, he can not "truthfully" say whether or not one die is a 2. He HAS to see both die to "truthfully" answer the question.

Face-palm.

We fucking went through this before. Of course the peeker has to see a 2 in order to make the statement "at least one die is a two."

You made this ridiculous comment the first time responding to regnis who discussed seeing a 2.

Then you tried to twist your words.

Quit it. You pulled this same shit in your battles with Singer over the years and I'm not going to fall for it.

Fuck off.

And you cheated on your taxes.

[RS__]

I asked this before and no one gave a response:

Had neither of the dice been a 2, what would the peeker have done? Would he have said "At least one of the dice is a 1" (or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6)? Or would he have said nothing and rolled again and again, until at least one of the dice is a 2?

This is probably the most integral part to answering the question.

[Alan Mendelson]

Had neither of the dice been a 2, what would the peeker have done? Would he have said "At least one of the dice is a 1" (or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6)? Or would he have said nothing and rolled again and again, until at least one of the dice is a 2?

Don't we have enough problems with the original question? Now you want to ask all of these other questions?

The original question said the "peeker" truthfully said at least one of the two dice is a 2. That has led to two years of debate, side bets, and alternative questions that (in one case) the author didn't even understand what he himself wrote.

And you want to know what would the peeker do if there wasn't a 2?

Better idea: ask Arc why he didn't declare his non-W2G wins on his tax return? Ask jbjb if it is okay to draw more than one spade from his pile of six spades? Ask everyone else what 2-1 equals?

[arcimede$]

Are you fucking insane? He only has to see ONE die to make the statement "at least one die is a two." You don't have to see both dice. And in the question it is stated that the "peeker" truthfully says one die is a 2.

So what the fuck is your problem?

Why didn't you answer my question, Alan. Instead you more or less admitted you know you are wrong by swearing. If he sees only one die and it is a 6, he cannot KNOW whether the other die is a 2. Therefore, he can not "truthfully" say whether or not one die is a 2. He HAS to see both die to "truthfully" answer the question.

Face-palm.

We fucking went through this before. Of course the peeker has to see a 2 in order to make the statement "at least one die is a two."

You made this ridiculous comment the first time responding to regnis who discussed seeing a 2.

Then you tried to twist your words.

Quit it. You pulled this same shit in your battles with Singer over the years and I'm not going to fall for it.

Fuck off.

And you cheated on your taxes.

No one is twisting words. You are simply denying the obvious fact that the peeker has to see both die making Regnis statement nonsense and showing you will say anything to protect your ego.

Now you are bringing up my taxes which you obviously don't understand very well either (is anyone surprised?)? So, I guess we can add a complete lack of integrity to your growing list of faults.

So, once again .... How can the peeker answer the question "truthfully" if he only sees one die? If you contnue to avoid the question that is just as good as admitting he can't answer truthfully and therefore looking at one die is NOT an option.

Now, quit your incessant whining and just go away. Isn't that your usual mode of operation?

[RS__]

Had neither of the dice been a 2, what would the peeker have done? Would he have said "At least one of the dice is a 1" (or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6)? Or would he have said nothing and rolled again and again, until at least one of the dice is a 2?

Don't we have enough problems with the original question? Now you want to ask all of these other questions?

The original question said the "peeker" truthfully said at least one of the two dice is a 2. That has led to two years of debate, side bets, and alternative questions that (in one case) the author didn't even understand what he himself wrote.

And you want to know what would the peeker do if there wasn't a 2?

Better idea: ask Arc why he didn't declare his non-W2G wins on his tax return? Ask jbjb if it is okay to draw more than one spade from his pile of six spades? Ask everyone else what 2-1 equals?

Because if you interpreted it the "he re-rolls until he gets at least one die as 2" then you'd have one answer. And if you interpreted it as "he would just say 'at least one die is a ____' [some other value]", then you'd have a different answer.

So I'd like to know what your interpretation is. If you've interpreted it differently, then under that interpretation you'd be correct.

[Alan Mendelson]

No one is twisting words. You are simply denying the obvious fact that the peeker has to see both die making Regnis statement nonsense and showing you will say anything to protect your ego.

I see we have a real problem here with the English language. So I will answer this... slowly.

The peeker only needs to see one die with a 2 to say, truthfully, "at least one die is a two." It is not necessary to see both dice. The peeker only needs to see one die.

If the peeker sees a 2 and a 6, he can truthfully say "at least one die is a two."
If the peeker sees a 2 and never stops to look at the second die, he can truthfully say "at least one die is a two."

The term "at least" means, according to Dictionary.com: "at the lowest estimate or figure" and they give this example: "The repairs will cost at least $100."

All the peeker has to do is see one die.

Now, why are you even raising this? We know from the original question that truthfully one of the dice is showing a 2. Challenging the presence of a 2 serves what purpose?

There are two dice. There is a two on one of those two dice. That die with a two cannot change. Deal with that reality.

I can't wait to see what regnis says.

[Alan Mendelson]

Had neither of the dice been a 2, what would the peeker have done? Would he have said "At least one of the dice is a 1" (or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6)? Or would he have said nothing and rolled again and again, until at least one of the dice is a 2?

Don't we have enough problems with the original question? Now you want to ask all of these other questions?

The original question said the "peeker" truthfully said at least one of the two dice is a 2. That has led to two years of debate, side bets, and alternative questions that (in one case) the author didn't even understand what he himself wrote.

And you want to know what would the peeker do if there wasn't a 2?

Better idea: ask Arc why he didn't declare his non-W2G wins on his tax return? Ask jbjb if it is okay to draw more than one spade from his pile of six spades? Ask everyone else what 2-1 equals?

Because if you interpreted it the "he re-rolls until he gets at least one die as 2" then you'd have one answer. And if you interpreted it as "he would just say 'at least one die is a ____' [some other value]", then you'd have a different answer.

So I'd like to know what your interpretation is. If you've interpreted it differently, then under that interpretation you'd be correct.

My interpretation is simply this:

A peeker looks and sees at least one die is a 2. That die will not change. It will always be a 2.

Now you tell me: if one die is always a two, and there are two dice, what are the odds that the other die is also showing a 2? Is it still 1/11 for a six-sided die?

LOL