Non platonic solid dice?

What does Veeky Forums think of non platonic solid dice?

What is the fairest way to get a random number?

Do you guys fav dice shape?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=G7zT9MljJ3Y
youtube.com/watch?v=8UUPlImm0dM
youtube.com/watch?v=uAnCL3vhVIs
youtube.com/watch?v=mmbapsJudG4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_random_number_generators#Hardware_.28True.29_Random_Number_Generators_.28TRNGs.29
youtube.com/watch?v=9rIy0xY99a0
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

True randomness doesn't exist.
Write code for a truly random dice roll right now, and I'll sign all my possessions over to you.

I think the best and fairest way to get a random number is to use gamescience dice. I personally handcraft every once of my dice by hand and then stack them up. And what do you know, when I stack my dice up they're in a stack.

if you stack up some of my competitor's dice you're gonna find that they're uneven and wrong and horrible.

Its just science. Game science.

Made on based on radioactive decay gib moni.

Just kidding, but that's about closest to true random.

>non-platonic solid dice

Hey, the dictionary called and asked if I could get a picture from you to put next to the entry for "autism".

Seriously, people. The tetrahedral d4 is the worst die by far. d10s roll so much better than they do. Who gives a shit which dice are platonic solids? What fucking difference does that make?

Isn't just just pegging a dice at the wall random enough, there is pretty much no way you could influence a dice by throwing it at full force except for its weight when rolling to its final position..

Maybe throwing it into a jar of honey so it's weight doesn't affect it's face because it will get stuck.

What about choosing a random place for pi?

>a dice

What about a sphere with slightly viscous oil inside and we place said dice inside with a small flat window on the top for viewing.
Shake the ball, hold upwards, let die float to top, whatever number is lying flat against viewing window is roll.
you could even roll it and wait for it to stop if you like rolling your dice instead of vigorously shaking them.

D100

Notorious for being unfair as the heaviest side goes to the bottom a whole lot more than usual

Could be fixed by putting the viewing window on the side.

youtube.com/watch?v=G7zT9MljJ3Y
youtube.com/watch?v=8UUPlImm0dM

I was thinking normal dice but a d100 could also work. Also the dice compared to the ball would be much smaller so it has room to jiggle and bounce. At most a 1/3rd the size of the ball die and a FLAT window for it to rest on properly.

Why would this be better than a pair of d10s, besides using half as many die?

>true randomness doesn't exist, as shown by scientific evidence
>but the universe totally formed sapience out of the nothingness that preceded itself by chance
Fedora tippers are a real riot.

Since there is no randomness in dice we must determine outcomes by.. LARPING

wouldn't arm wrestling be easier to do at the table. Or even better, throw a dart while blind folded at a Dart Board.

Hell, it's already numbered 1-20. Bulls Eye is double Crits.

Life is a natural state of carbon you fuckin goober.

Sapience is an illusion.

>tfw when a cube is only a hyper-truncated octahedron
>tfw when a octahedron is only a hyper-truncated cube.
>tfw when a critically truncated cube is a critically truncated octahedron.

>True randomness doesn't exist.
Lel.

>Write code for a truly random dice roll right now, and I'll sign all my possessions over to you.

It is a solved problem since basically the 80's.

You are showing your ignorance, and that's absolutely disgusting.

No.

What the fuck are you gibbering about? It's literally not possible to write a program that spits out an actual random number, that user is right. The best they can do is pull seeds from arbitrary sources and use that to generate "random" numbers.

Random.org uses background noise from microwaves created by the big bang for seeds, that's pretty random.

Yes, user, like I said, uses arbitrary sources for its seeds, it's still not random. Functionally random for most purposes, sure, but not random, which is what that guy was getting at.

youtube.com/watch?v=G7zT9MljJ3Y
youtube.com/watch?v=8UUPlImm0dM
youtube.com/watch?v=uAnCL3vhVIs
I thought Matt Parker (standupmaths) had a dice video too, but I can't find it. It might have been on another channel.

Its all turtles.

If you want "True randomness" measure it off particle spin but really...

>True randomness doesn't exist.

PURPLE MONKEY DISHWASHER!

What the fuck are you talking about, moron? There is a lot of quantum effects that are truly random: i.e, radioactive decay. We can create chips that can create true random number from radioactive decay since the 80's.

You seem to be a moron. Please don't talk about what you simply don't know, please.

Catalan solids best solids.

Platonic solids are perfectly symmetrical, and thus have the most even chance of any given side coming up.

Non-platonic solids are, strictly speaking, less perfectly "fair". Though the extent to which they are is not necessarily enough to really be of issue in gaming; for instance, d10s work just fine despite not being platonic solids.

See

*holds up spork*

"Random" is just a fancy word for "we lack the necessary information and/or processing power to meaningfully predict this".

Quantum physicists just cop out on their ignorance by saying certain quantum phenomena are "truly random".

Purple monkey? Again? That's like the 50th time I've seen it. It's not even remotely random at this point.

Chaos theory, bitch. The only way to accurately model a complex system is to have perfect information on its state.

Exactly. "Random" is just a fancy word for our own ignorance.

> PURPLE MONKEY DISHWASHER!
But user, that's what you ALWAYS say when someone thinks there's no true randomness.

Next time at least flip open a dictionary and pick your words the way the Commodores chose their band name.

Go learn about QM or don't talk about QM.

The prevailing model of quantum mechanics is demonstrably and admittedly an imperfect, incomplete theory, hence the continued search for a grand unified theory and incompatibility with relativity. I think I'm perfectly justified in holding that notions of "randomness" in that field are simply due to gaps in our knowledge, as has been the case in literally every other time the concept has been employed.

>The prevailing model of quantum mechanics is demonstrably and admittedly an imperfect, incomplete theory, hence the continued search for a grand unified theory and incompatibility with relativity
No shit. Theories will always be improved, it's a given. The main issue with quantum theory is that it doesn't play well with general relativity, there isn't an issue with recovering random variables from the wave equation.

>I think I'm perfectly justified in holding that notions of "randomness" in that field are simply due to gaps in our knowledge, as has been the case in literally every other time the concept has been employed.
I don't think so. The need for determinism is just an appeal to intuition, physics and math aren't necisarily intuitive so I don't think it's a good argument or justification.

You can find a lot of non-platonic dice on Shapeways.

There's also this fucking thing:
youtube.com/watch?v=mmbapsJudG4

It doesn't matter as long as the dice are NOT beveled and their faces are all same area

That's wrong. Our interpretation of QM is correct.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

>use input from traffic noise
>normalize traffic noise
>dump into pseudoRNG
>Use result to select which nuclear reactor will be selected
>Nuclear reactor selected takes most precise digit of temperature measurement possible without succumbing to sensor artifacts
>Dump into pseudorandom generator
>have pseudorandom generator select modulo 26 value, and modulo 100 value
>Selects cell in spreadsheet opened randomly from google sheets
if it is not number converts it into number (a=1, b=2, etc) if number exceeds dice value add modulo dice value
>If cell is blank repeat process until value is retrieved
>accept as dice roll

>Alternately use mass of decaying particles tossed into pseudorandom equation that is just for want of good input

"Generally accepted" =/= "Correct"
The conclusions assumed from the Bell experiments are still debated in the field.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics
>These matters continue to be subject to some dispute. A critical finding was that quantum mechanics can make statistical predictions which would be violated if local hidden variables really existed. There have been a number of experiments to verify such predictions, and so far they do not appear to be violated. This would suggest there are no hidden variables, although many physicists believe better experiments are needed to conclusively settle the issue (see also Bell test experiments). Furthermore, it is possible to augment quantum mechanics with non-local hidden variables to achieve a deterministic theory that is in agreement with experiment.[62] An example is the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Because it's cool.

Every time I whip my dice out, someone's eyes light up and want to play with it.
Little kids like to shake it and hear the beads move about.
Some guys want to test it to see if it's fair.
A few idiots ask if I need them to open it...

Worth the seven dollars easy, and I never actually use it because rolling percentile is so much faster.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_random_number_generators#Hardware_.28True.29_Random_Number_Generators_.28TRNGs.29

>Quantum physicists just cop out on their ignorance by saying certain quantum phenomena are "truly random".
someone doesn't understand quantum physics then.
"uncertainty" isn't because we don't have good enough instruments to get perfect information, it's because that information does not exist.
This isn't a 'cop out', it's the nature of wave-particles.

Moving the goalposts, i see

DOOM!

Not having a slot for the information in our current, known-to-be-flawed, mathematical models does not mean that the information does not, in fact, exist.

"Cop out" is a kind of harsh way to dismiss a century of studies by thousands of scientisits, but i'm sure you know better

Where do you get one?

>known-to-be-flawed
It's not a flaw. You literally can't have exact certainty on momentum and position because of the way their Fourier transforms relate to one another. This is basic math.

List the experiments that demonstrate quantum mechanics doesn't work.

Why should the information exist? Why do you think a wave function isn't good enough? There have not been any experimental results to indicate that quantum behavior isn't probabilistic, all you have said is that "the information should exist somewhere", albeit not verbatim, without a shred of proof.

You are aware that a wave function gives all the properties of a particle, right?

>Correct
There is no 100% correct in science. The job of the scientific method is to make things more accurate, not to embody some ideal philosophical definition of truth.

Don't say it has to reach some impossible standard to be 'right'. Of course it is useful to want to strive for such a thing and keep improving our understanding of the world; it's a good example of what is called a useful fiction.

You could just say "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle".

youtube.com/watch?v=9rIy0xY99a0

>actually caring about randomness
>not enjoying the hedonistic pleasures of throwing funky-looking rocks around

Ya'll googles need to learn to have fun.

Same works for dodecahedron/isocahedron

How would you choose the random digit? The digits of Pi may be randomish, but your method for choosing the digit probably won't be.

That's like saying if I have a bunch of boxes labeled by all the natural numbers, and all the boxes have absolutely random contents, then only picking boxes with a label that is a perfect square affects the contents of the boxes. It doesn't.

>absolutely random contents
Given n, the n-th digit of pi is fixed and not random at all.

Yeah, I realized I was super wrong there.

Someone already build a machine that physically rolls dice nonstop, how much more random do you need?

...

>truly random isnt a thing
Okay you tard.
This is pretty simple to do in java, so you can do this in notepad with some background knowlesge of java.
Step 1: use the random selection function to select a number 0-9
Step 2: write an If-then formula to shut down your computer if the number chosen is between or including 0-9
Step 3: write another in order for your computer to shut down on restart
Step 4: save as a executable script
Step 5: disable your antivirus
Step 6: do illegal things on IE
Step 7: run the .exe file
Congratulations, you just randomly broke your computer.

Randomness does exist due to Human accuracy

The world's smartest super computer can tell you the exact calculation of a dice roll. It can measure how the strength of the roll and the trajectory of the dice will affect what number it ends on. But even then, such a computer exists only in fiction as no computer could possibly manage to calculate the near infinite variables that come from the countless amount of atoms our reality is composed of

So, fuck you, randomness does exist because you're a human being just like the rest of us

Get a smooth flat disk and write several numbers on the edge of the disk. Then cut a whole in the disk so you can attach a tube through the disk. Add a small marker a inch above the tube's bottom. Spin the disk around the tube. Whatever number hits the marker at the end of the tube is the number you rolled