But the EXPECTATION HERE is what is at stake related to randomness. We assume that the coin is unbiased ... that is ... in the long haul ... we will get about 50 50. So, I think the "intention" of the first post on this was not so much about the process of flipping but rather what is the long run expectation. In one scenario presented, standing up coins and then seeing how they fall does not yield about 50 50 ... and especially if we have a good sense of why that is the case ... the process still might be a random one BUT it's random around a NON 50 50 long range outcome. For example, what if we have a 6 sided die ... where TWO of the sides are 2s ... and the other 4 are 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 ... there are 6 faces ... we can institute a random rolling process BUT the outcome won't be 1/6 in the long run for each face.

So, I think your point is well taken ... that is that the process might be a random (that is the roller has NO control over the rolling process) one BUT the outcomes are not necessarily equally likely.

At 09:56 AM 2/27/2004, Peter Flom wrote:
OK, here's one: Isn't this an incorrect use of the term 'random
process'?  As I understand this thread, what is being doubted is not
whether tossing a coin is random, but whether the probability of heads
is exactly 0.5.  From what I understand of the term (and others here
understand these things much better than I; I am a humble data analyst
with a PhD in psychometrics, and my math stats is not all that
extensive....), saying that it is not a random process would mean that
it was under someone's control.  Even if some coin came up heads only
40% of the time, it still might be random.

Dennis Roberts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/m/dmr/droberts.htm



. . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================

Reply via email to