hilary said:

Bamboo said she particularly likes the consultation here 'as is', too. I'll leave it in place just for you .

Click to expand...

How kind of you Hilary Thank you!

hilary said:

And maybe 6 coins, too, where you have 5 coins the same and one different, so you always have one and only one changing line. Or maybe not.

Click to expand...

I'd prefer not, anything that limits the I Ching to less than its natural 'vocabulary' seems bound to reduce its power to communicate.
But maybe someone else might appreciate this feature. Besides, there are also some online readings which apply those rules that reduce multiple changing lines to one after the cast. Another idea that I don't like very much, of course, but in this case I know for sure that some people like it.

You can get a choice of yarrow or 3 coins chez LiSe... but then, come to think of it, you'd already know that, wouldn't you?

Click to expand...

Indeed, that's why LiSe's site has become my favorite online reading!

cris said:

My favourite online reading site is Clarity. I would in fact go so far as to say it is my favourite casting method AT ALL. I like it exactly as is - one button pressed, and the reading is done. It's proved to be so accurate in so many cases for me. I wouldn't change it. Is there any chance the current features could be kept, with the addition of alternative options?

Oh, and Ewald - love your site! I like the fact that readings can be cast but also entered in coins, lines and hex numbers. I consult it for every casting I toss, and often find the commentary enlightening.

Click to expand...

I forgot to mention another reason why I do like Clarity's free reading facility so much. After pressing the button, it only shows the two hexes - no name, no text, just the two images. Which can be quite suggestive. One can then look at one hex at a time, letting the info settle before moving to the rest of the casting, and also go through the whole commentary to put the specific changing lines into perspective.

And yes I do like a bit of suspense

Interesting! I'd never thought of anyone using it that way... I suppose because I recognise hexagrams as I go along these days. Maybe that's why I like casting one line at a time, for a bit of suspense. (Though it's weird how often you can see the first two or three lines and know what you're getting, isn't it?)

We're almost there, I think - at least, that's how it looks to me, though Ewald is a perfectionist and probably sees things differently.

hilary said:

Interesting! I'd never thought of anyone using it that way... I suppose because I recognise hexagrams as I go along these days. Maybe that's why I like casting one line at a time, for a bit of suspense. (Though it's weird how often you can see the first two or three lines and know what you're getting, isn't it?)

Click to expand...

The first time it happened to me it was more of a shock than just weird...
I wasn't prepared to witness that, contrary to what I was inclined to believe (along with Balkin, among others), hexagrams are not the result of a purely random process... so I spent the whole night awake, and from then on I try as hard as I can not to guess the hexagram until it's complete...

We're almost there, I think - at least, that's how it looks to me, though Ewald is a perfectionist and probably sees things differently.

Click to expand...

Well, so I guess you've already decided what the 'cast' button will look like. Otherwise I was thinking of another possible suggestion, but I'm confident I'll be pleasantly surprised by your choice, and can't wait to see it and give it a try!
:bows:

buzzurro said:

Well, so I guess you've already decided what the 'cast' button will look like. Otherwise I was thinking of another possible suggestion, but I'm confident I'll be pleasantly surprised by your choice, and can't wait to see it and give it a try!
:bows:

Click to expand...

No, no, we haven't decided that at all! When I say 'almost there' I mean the functions, not the appearance. Currently the 'cast' button is a little rectangular button with 'Cast' on it. Believe me, suggestions would be most welcome!

Sorry for the delay, I'm going through one of those terribly hasty phases at work...
Well, I think it could be a rather original idea to let users click on the image of a diviner, someone depicted in the act of sorting yarrow, tossing coins, or something... this could be one of those drawings in ancient Chinese style, possibly performing some preparatory ritual, or sacrifice, instead of casting the hexagram... or it could be some non-human character, like the rat proposed by Trojan, or a dragon, a mare... I've also imagined it could be a photograph, although I don't believe it would be the best choice... the basic idea is just to show some person, or other sentient being, that casts the hexagram on behalf of the users...

I like that idea.

I have a ready image in my mind but need to find a way to solve a specific problem. it is a kind of sumi-e painting ( just black ink) but not sure if I use colors too.

The painting is not ready yet but the theme is the title of Hilary's book. ( under the threshold advertising)

Maybe we could have a choice of whether we have to look at the whole imagery thing or whether we want to do our cast in a quiet empty room

the thing is going to use the online tool is, in a way, a private space. On other sites I always felt intruded upon with other peoples loud 'wallpaper' and unecessary animations and ideas about the right atmosphere.

so there could be 2 consulting rooms...one for people who want to have other peoples imagery splashed on them and an empty one for people who don't ?



too much work I imagine since i spose it doesn't matter much

I'm in favour of quietness, in general. There's a fine line between 'quiet' and 'has about as much character as an income tax return', however. I'll aim for 'quiet'.

technical question

I notice that yarrow odds are used to cast the lines. So how are they generated ? Is it by yarrow simulation or by 16 token ? At the extreme end of the yarrow splits, 2 or 3 of the splits dont compute. No big deal with manual casting but it might be with computer generated casts.

yarrow loose end and the butterfly effect.

The yarrow odds we are familiar with , 1357 / 16 , are good enough for practical everyday purposes , since we rarely choose splits at the extreme end of the scale. But they are not real life.They are an approximation.

They would not be good enough for statistical analysis of long cast runs , esp. computer runs. For that , some fine tuning of the odds would be needed. Its a case of the butterfly effect. A small change at the beginning producing a big change further down the line.

If you include the splits 49 + 0 , and 0 + 49 , there are 50 splits. But they allow you to rig the result to some extent , so we can exclude them.
That leaves 48 splits.To get the familiar odds they would need to produce 36 x 5 , and 12 x 9.In actual fact they produce 37 x 5 and 11 x 9.Thats odds of 37 / 48 for a 5 , and 11 / 48 for a 9.

Similar for the second and third operations.
For eg if the first operation was a 5 , that leaves 44 sticks.The assumed odds are 1 / 2 ( equal amounts of 4 and 8 ).
The actual odds of producing a 4 are 22 / 43. And 21 / 43 for an 8.
If the first operation was a 9 , leaving 40 sticks , the actual odds are 20 / 39 for 4 , and 19 / 39 for 8.
Something similar for the third operation.
By multiplying the fractions we can get the actual odds for each line.

The familiar 1357 / 16 yields 6.25 % , 18.75 % , 31.25 % , 43.75 % for the four kinds of lines.
Andrew Kennedy in Briefing Leaders did a study of this problem using long computer generated cast runs.
Using revised odds qiuite similar to those above produced figures of 5.17 % , 21.11 % , 28.87 % , and 44.83 % for the four kinds of lines.
I use a different method than him to calculate the fractions above and get slightly different fractions , but he claims accuracy to within 0.1 % is possible.

Its a statistical analysis problem. Nothing to worry about in regard to everday casting.
But it is a loose end in yarrow casting.
Thats why I am interested in how the lines are generated.

This is a good question I'm not qualified to answer - I will tell Ewald there's a post here that's for him!

But I agree that it's not something to worry about in everyday casting - or any casting, as I see it. The oracle has a way of working anyway.

peterg said:

I notice that yarrow odds are used to cast the lines. So how are they generated ? Is it by yarrow simulation or by 16 token ? At the extreme end of the yarrow splits, 2 or 3 of the splits dont compute. No big deal with manual casting but it might be with computer generated casts.

Click to expand...

I'm making this with the 16 token method, as that's what Hilary requested.

It's ready!

Here you go:
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/free_I_Ching_reading/#cast

Those who wanted to stick with the old version will find it's still where it was, unchanged.

Trojan, if you try the new reading and have a look at what it says at the foot of the page, you'll see that linking to the pdf-generating script and posting a poll are both Lilith's idea and nothing to do with the reading script. The footer actually suggests starting a thread with your question and reading (both of which it cites there for handy copying and pasting). It's also possible to link to a reading directly by copying its url from the address bar, but Ewald, probably wisely, didn't try to offer instructions for that.

I also need to go and lie down. My world is shaken to its foundations.

Line casting

I'm new here, but I can tell you that I like hitting the button once for each line. For me, it seems to take me deeper into the question. Hitting just once and getting the reading would not give that extra time to feel the deepening concentration.