mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Fun Stuff > Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-04-09, 08:31   #56
lukerichards
 
lukerichards's Avatar
 
"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK

28810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
Wow, that's a bit like a court requiring the accused to prove his innocence.
In a past life, I was a lawyer so I can see the comparison for sure. Except that rule applies in courts because of the gravity of the stakes involved. The concept to which you refer is the 'burden of proof' which rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of a defendant. The consequence of a defendant being found guilty is loss of liberty, reputation and potentially life. The 'standard of proof' is the extent to which a court or jury has to be convinced.

Where the stakes are lower - for example a civil case like a law suit - the standard of proof is lower but understandably the burden is the same. That is, it still rests on the accuser to show that the defendant committed the acts but the extent to which they need to convince a court changes from 99% to 51%. Understandably, as the stakes lower the proof requirements lower. All of this refers to legal proceedings where there is a lot at stake.

This is a game. Being a bit of fun, it's arguably quite alright to change the burden of proof to the other side. I don't see any reason to take it quite so seriously.

However, in this particular we are not talking about unwilly as the accuser who holds the burden of proof. Kriesel is the one who is asking for something, they are claiming to be entitled to another guess, which makes them akin to the claimant in the legal analogy. A claimant in a court of law is the civil equivalent to the prosecutor in a criminal court. That is, even in court the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that they are entitled to one thing. I don't necessarily feel that legal comparisons are appropriate given this is supposed to be fun, but if one wishes to draw one, uncwilly's request was entirely consistent with legal practice.
lukerichards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-09, 08:35   #57
lukerichards
 
lukerichards's Avatar
 
"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK

25×32 Posts
Default

I would also add that this post:

https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.p...3&postcount=39

Shows that ruling out an individual candidate does not make a guess pointless. The next candidate above or below the one which has been factored could still render the guesser as the victor in the game, rendering the need for an alternative guess redundant.
lukerichards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-09, 10:34   #58
lukerichards
 
lukerichards's Avatar
 
"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK

25·32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukerichards View Post
113847439 1st September 2020
202303547 - No date supplied
These guesses have actually been factored, which I believe leaves me subject to a 60 day wait. If not, I have alternatives to provide.
lukerichards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-09, 14:00   #59
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

203418 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukerichards View Post
These guesses have actually been factored, which I believe leaves me subject to a 60 day wait. If not, I have alternatives to provide.
Correct, you have to wait 60 days to add the allowable additional guesses of exponents. You may add a single date guess though.
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-09, 14:35   #60
lukerichards
 
lukerichards's Avatar
 
"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK

25·32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
Correct, you have to wait 60 days to add the allowable additional guesses of exponents. You may add a single date guess though.
I'll wait to add the date with my exponent guesses.
lukerichards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-09, 14:43   #61
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

23×232 Posts
Default

Note that neither uncwilly nor lukerichards have addressed the other two instances I described in the "Other Matters" section, where it seems clear uncwilly deviated from the posted rules to invalidate and penalize other participants' guesses.
kriesel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-09, 14:56   #62
lukerichards
 
lukerichards's Avatar
 
"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK

25×32 Posts
Default

If I'm completely honest, I have no interest in doing so. I'm not bothered either way on this debate, I just thought I'd share my insight about the legal parallels.

Although my advice would be to take the 60 day wait on the chin. Let's be honest, we are not going to find M52 in the next 60 days anyway.
lukerichards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-09, 15:23   #63
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

23·232 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukerichards View Post
a civil case like a law suit - the standard of proof is lower but understandably the burden is the same. That is, it still rests on the accuser to show that the defendant committed the acts but the extent to which they need to convince a court changes from 99% to 51%. Understandably, as the stakes lower the proof requirements lower. All of this refers to legal proceedings where there is a lot at stake.
Not an attorney myself, although have had reason to make use of them at times.
In the US, in civil matters, on occasion, the presumption is on the side of the claimant, and defendants' hands may be somewhat tied in regard to proof, such as in an estate claim, where "upon information and belief" may be the only basis for a charge of wrongdoing (a very weak basis for a claim that might consist of little more than a foundation of suspicion and greed), and conversations the defendants had with the deceased parent are inadmissible, while there's no such constraint on the plaintiff. It's pretty screwy.
Quote:
This is a game. Being a bit of fun, it's arguably quite alright to change the burden of proof to the other side. I don't see any reason to take it quite so seriously.
Yeah, trivial. But speculating about the guesses, and considering what the best rules could be, are possible parts of the game.
Quote:
However, in this particular we are not talking about unwilly as the accuser who holds the burden of proof. Kriesel is the one who is asking for something, they are claiming to be entitled to another guess, which makes them akin to the claimant in the legal analogy. A claimant in a court of law is the civil equivalent to the prosecutor in a criminal court. That is, even in court the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that they are entitled to one thing. I don't necessarily feel that legal comparisons are appropriate given this is supposed to be fun, but if one wishes to draw one, uncwilly's request was entirely consistent with legal practice.
Uncwilly clearly asked for something, in https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...0&postcount=43. Sort of like a regulatory agency initiating an action. Is not the burden on the regulator to show a violation has occurred? My post in 41 wasn't starting a claim, it was playing the game, and I never imagined it would create all this, and my lengthy response was a response to what uncwilly initiated. I found it disturbing that there were two cases easily found where the posted rules were apparently violated by the person who wrote the rules. Does not seem very legit. Detracts from the fun.
Anyway, thanks for weighing in, lukeR. With a law background, you might make a good choice for interpreter of the rule set in a future game.
I think the volume and content of uncwilly's responses confirms my view that the rules could stand improving for future games. Diving into it, reluctantly, in response to post 43, revealed a lot about the rules and where they could be clarified or where gaps exist.
I get that uncwilly has reason to want to avoid lots of guess churn; keeping up a spreadsheet of guesses could become a nuisance.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2019-04-09 at 15:31
kriesel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-09, 15:34   #64
lukerichards
 
lukerichards's Avatar
 
"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK

1001000002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
Diving into it, reluctantly, in response to post 43, revealed a lot about the rules and where they could be clarified or where gaps exist.
I get that uncwilly has reason to want to avoid lots of guess churn; keeping up a spreadsheet of guesses could become a nuisance.
People often comment things to the tune of "Lawyers just make the laws dense and complicated to keep them in business."

I think what this has shown is that if a law does not go through a repeated process of scrutiny and tightening up of language, there are all kinds of ambiguities and loopholes. The reason why law is such a complicated area of expertise is because it is constructed in such a way to give no ambiguity.

And this is why I would have no interest in officiating over the next incarnation of the game! At least not at present. I reckon it'll be well over a year (if not 5) until we play "Predict M53" so maybe I'll be more open to it then!
lukerichards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-04-09, 15:49   #65
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

23×232 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukerichards View Post
People often comment things to the tune of "Lawyers just make the laws dense and complicated to keep them in business."

I think what this has shown is that if a law does not go through a repeated process of scrutiny and tightening up of language, there are all kinds of ambiguities and loopholes. The reason why law is such a complicated area of expertise is because it is constructed in such a way to give no ambiguity.
Yep. Case law exists because even a house (or senate) full of legislators (mostly lawyers by training) have limits to their imaginations of what combination of facts may come up and what interpretations others may imagine.
Now couple that with fun environments like Wisconsin, where "line item veto" means not that the governor can strike individual main header sections as a whole, or subordinate sections as a whole, but individual sentences, words, and characters, and then sign into law what is left. There was a news report some years ago about the legislature puzzling over the language they had passed, to see how by deleting some of it, governor Doyle had created new language authorizing expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars for a purpose the legislature had never intended, benefiting the members of a union that had provided substantial financial support for his election campaign. Turns legislating into a defensive game of Scrabble. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_veto
kriesel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-27, 20:02   #66
joblack
 
joblack's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
n00bville

10110101012 Posts
Default

Took me over 4 years of background calculation. Unfortunately no prime but I am still a little bit proud for my patience. :)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	noooo.png
Views:	54
Size:	9.5 KB
ID:	20475  

Last fiddled with by axn on 2019-05-28 at 02:36 Reason: masking
joblack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Predict M50 Uncwilly Lounge 65 2018-01-06 17:11
Predict M#50... Raman Lounge 3 2016-10-03 19:23
Predict M44... Xyzzy Lounge 66 2014-02-01 14:45
Predict M45... ewmayer Lounge 215 2008-09-17 21:14
Predict M42 Uncwilly Lounge 22 2005-02-27 02:11

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:51.

Tue Aug 11 16:51:40 UTC 2020 up 25 days, 12:38, 1 user, load averages: 1.59, 1.58, 1.56

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.