My [playing card] Challenge

[MrGoodBytes]

Yes It does --- study what this passage means:

[bible]Genesis 2:2[/bible]

It means that God has finished creating this planet. Nothing else.

God at this point institutes the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy. Prior to it, and as I have said before, one of the biggest differences between Big Bang and ex nihilo, is that in Big Bang, all the mass/energy is present at once; whereas in ex nihilo, the quantity of mass/energy starts out at zero, then builds to its current level over a period of six days.

Some may argue that God feeding the animals on the Ark and the widow of Zarephath and her son were acts of ex nihilo creation, but I disagree.

God ceased creating ex nihilo after the 6th day.

Sure. And you are again making things up and adding them to the Bible. Nothing in there says that God cannot or will not start creating things again.

 

[Skaloop]

I would get another deck of cards, deal five cards face down, then look at the other forty-seven cards. The first time a 10, J, Q, K,or A of Spades appeared, your book has been pwned.

Not really. The deck may have been defective and included two of the cards in question. You would still have to examine the five dealt cards to rule out the possibility of a royal flush of spades, which violates the rule that "everytime 5 cards aren't looked at or otherwise determined, they are a royal flush of spades."

 

[AV1611VET]

It means that God has finished creating this planet. Nothing else.

Not hardly ---

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

"All His work" included the sun, moon, and stars - (Second Heaven).

Sure. And you are again making things up and adding them to the Bible. Nothing in there says that God cannot or will not start creating things again.

Au contraire --- God's rest is an eternal rest.

[bible]Hebrews 4:9-10[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really. The deck may have been defective and included two of the cards in question.

You could determine that before you deal the five cards.

 

[Skaloop]

You could determine that before you deal the five cards.

You could make a mistake. The cards could have a time-release ink that changes their value and suit. Cards could be switched out for others through sleight of hand. There are myriad ways in which the deck could be tampered with.

No, the only way to know for certain that a royal flush of spades was not dealt would be to look at at least one of the dealt cards, which violates the rule as laid out in the book.

 

[AV1611VET]

You could make a mistake.

With a brand-new deck?

The cards could have a time-release ink that changes their value and suit. Cards could be switched out for others through sleight of hand. There are myriad ways in which the deck could be tampered with.

Now you're talking sabotage.

 

[Skaloop]

With a brand-new deck?

Sure. People are fallible. They miss a couple cards, or they miscount, or they mistake one card for another. It's possible. Besides, the challenge doesn't say anything about using s a brand new deck. Why add to the analogy?

Now you're talking sabotage.

The challenge doesn't say there wasn't any sabotage or other trickery. But that's not the point; the point is that sabotage is possible, and therefore you must examine the dealt cards to make sure you have not been deceived in how the remaining cards have been presented to you, and as we've already established, that is a violation of the rules. You can study the remaining cards, and having found a jack of spades, be more confidant that a royal flush of spades was not dealt, but you cannot be certain, therefore cannot rule out the possibility that a royal flush of spades was in fact dealt, and therefore cannot show with certainty that the book is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

The challenge doesn't say there wasn't any sabotage or other trickery. But that's not the point; the point is that sabotage is possible, and therefore you must examine the dealt cards to make sure you have not been deceived in how the remaining cards have been presented to you, and as we've already established, that is a violation of the rules. You can study the remaining cards, and having found a jack of spades, be more confidant that a royal flush of spades was not dealt, but you cannot be certain, therefore cannot rule out the possibility that a royal flush of spades was in fact dealt, and therefore cannot show with certainty that the book is wrong.

Yes --- this is all true, but for the sake of Occam's Razor, I'm assuming all these side issues are taken care of ahead of time, else the challenge isn't really a challenge. It makes for poor debating. I prefer to answer the challenge with respect to just the information presented; adding nothing, and taking nothing away.

 

[pgp_protector]

Yes --- this is all true, but for the sake of Occam's Razor, I'm assuming all these side issues are taken care of ahead of time, else the challenge isn't really a challenge. It makes for poor debating. I prefer to answer the challenge with respect to just the information presented; adding nothing, and taking nothing away.

Adding Nothing ??
Like adding a new deck ?

 

[AV1611VET]

Adding Nothing ??
Like adding a new deck ?

Here we go 'round the Mulberry bush...

 

[Skaloop]

Yes --- this is all true, but for the sake of Occam's Razor, I'm assuming all these side issues are taken care of ahead of time, else the challenge isn't really a challenge. It makes for poor debating. I prefer to answer the challenge with respect to just the information presented; adding nothing, and taking nothing away.

Well, I was just being silly, really. But it is a nice analogy. Especially if instead of burning the whole deck, he just burns the five dealt cards. Then imagine the conversation that might follow:

Dealer: Those five cards I dealt were a Royal Flush of Spades (RFS).
Observer: How do you know? We didn't get to see the cards.
Dealer: This book tells me so.
Observer: It wasn't rigged?
Dealer: No, the book says it was not rigged.
Observer: Well, here, let's look at the left over cards. If you had dealt an RFS, I wouldn't expect to find a jack or queen of spades, but look, here they are. I also wouldn't expect to find that the 2 of hearts and 10 of clubs were missing, but they aren't in the deck.
Dealer: The deck was made that way.
Observer: Then it was a trick deck, but you said it wasn't.
Dealer: No, it looks like a trick deck, but it's not.
Observer: Who made the trick deck that isn't a trick deck?
Dealer: The guy who wrote the book.
Observer: Then why did he say it wasn't a trick deck?
Dealer: Because it wasn't when he made it. But this guy he knew wanted to steal his glory about the RFS trick, so he sabotaged the deck, and now we're stuck with it.

I trust you can see the parallels to too many conversations around here.

 

[pgp_protector]

Here we go 'round the Mulberry bush...

Let's see.

The Original OP

My [playing card] Challenge

A guy deals out 5 cards face down. He tells you that he knows it's a royal flush of spades. He then places the cards back in the deck and throws them into an incinerator. When asked how he knows, he says he read in a book that everytime 5 cards aren't looked at or otherwise determined, they are a royal flush of spades.

You realize there is no way to prove they are not.

Do you believe him?

Contents
1) 5 Cards face down
2) Rest of the deck
3) Fire (That the full Deck is put into)
4) Ashes (After the ONLY SINGLE deck in the OP is burnt)

Nope no other Physical decks mentioned in the OP

You're response.

That you would get ANOTHER Deck of cards.

NOTE:
There are no other Physical Decks of cards mentioned in the op.

Also you State in Post 28 that you prefer to answer the challenge adding nothing. (That would include adding another deck)

 

[[serious]]

av, if you look at the remaining cards you are otherwise determining the 5 cards dealt. As such it wouldn't work.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's see.

The Original OP

Contents
1) 5 Cards face down
2) Rest of the deck
3) Fire (That the full Deck is put into)
4) Ashes (After the ONLY SINGLE deck in the OP is burnt)

Nope no other Physical decks mentioned in the OP

You're response.

That you would get ANOTHER Deck of cards.

NOTE:
There are no other Physical Decks of cards mentioned in the op.

Also you State in Post 28 that you prefer to answer the challenge adding nothing. (That would include adding another deck)

5) A book that exists inviting repetition, which gives the book its strength.

 

[pgp_protector]

5) A book that exists inviting repetition, which gives the book its strength.

There is no physical book, only the memory of READING a book "he says he read in a book"

 

[Athrond]

A guy deals out 5 cards face down. He tells you that he knows it's a royal flush of spades. He then places the cards back in the deck and throws them into an incinerator. When asked how he knows, he says he read in a book that everytime 5 cards aren't looked at or otherwise determined, they are a royal flush of spades.

You realize there is no way to prove they are not.

Do you believe him?

I don't believe him because his statement is redicilous. The 5 cards could be any combination of the 52, all are equaly probable, "never looking" is irrelevant. And "reading it in a book" doesn't change it. i t

Sidenote: apparently a Royal Flush is the least probable hand in a poker game at 0.00000153908 probability, according to this site :http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/Probability/PokerHands.html

 

[AV1611VET]

av, if you look at the remaining cards you are otherwise determining the 5 cards dealt. As such it wouldn't work.

Why throw them into the incinerator then?

 

[pgp_protector]

I don't believe him because his statement is redicilous. The 5 cards could be any combination of the 52, all are equaly probable, "never looking" is irrelevant. And "reading it in a book" doesn't change it. i t

Sidenote: apparently a Royal Flush is the least probable hand in a poker game at 0.00000153908 probability, according to this site :http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/Probability/PokerHands.html

I've "dealt" them before multiple times

Also the odds of dealing a Royal Flush of Spades Ace High are the Same as Dealing a 2H,3C,4S,5D,5H

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no physical book, only the memory of READING a book "he says he read in a book"

That's cool --- no problem there. At one time the book existed, and without repetition, it's just a one-time unprovable stunt - (and a waste of cards).

 

[pgp_protector]

That's cool --- no problem there. At one time the book existed, and without repetition, it's just a one-time unprovable stunt - (and a waste of cards).

So back to the OP then.
Do you believe them ?