Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
I'm not clear what you mean. The probability of not getting any 1 in six throws is 33.49% (which is a little bit higher than 1/3).
For an event to have probability 1/6 doesn't mean that if you repeat the experiment 6 times you will get that even at least once.
Probably I missed your point.
Fully agree. So are sticks, dice, marbles, cards, ...Finally: 3 coins are real.
I understand your point, HilaryI can't see or touch the computer casting process, so it seems very different - but in fact, whatever it is that gives rise to a hexagram that answers my question is exactly as invisible and intangible either way. So maybe these different ways of casting are not as different as they seem.
Hello, Trojina, I have to look up where I read about it. Been really sick for a while here, just starting to get back to normal.Never heard of a 2 coin method.
Just to snip the end of this thread, here it is. Wikipedia has an entry on "I Ching divination" that includes the 2-coin method, but here it is as well:Hello, Trojina, I have to look up where I read about it. Been really sick for a while here, just starting to get back to normal.
Anyway: First throw, 2 heads = 2, any other combo = 3. Second throw, heads = 2, tails = 3. Add them up, that's your line. Repeat for all lines ordering them from bottom to top.
I'm probably not being very clear. If that's so, will try to reframe it, plus will look up where I read it. You know, thinking about it, I probably read it right here on Clarity Next, somebody's going to tell me I've been doing it wrong this whole time
A computer most of the times will use a PSEUDO Random Number Generator, a "formula" that produce outcomes that are not distinguishable from real random numbers but that could potentially be knonw in advance (by knowing the initial random generator state).
Does that mean that the RNG is in a certain state from the minute I turn on my computer and until I activate it the first time to get the first line of the hexagram [...]
If so, at least the first line is destined to be the same whatever I ask about! (or whenever I press the button). Well, the same goes for the rest of the lines, since they are destined upon the first line.
If this is so... which I don't hope...I could just as well throw a hexagram right now, so I have a hexagram readily available for future reference whenever I wish to consult the I Ching at a later time....?
..yes, why not? According to Shao Yong (as I understand it so far) the future is determined for several thousand years in advance. So, I think that some benifit can be drawn by predetermined hexagram patterns, simular to the predetermined "random" strings of a pseudo random generator, but I think it has to be interplayed with other readings based on a more tactile method, viz. Yarrow Stalks, coins, etc.If this is so... which I don't hope...I could just as well throw a hexagram right now, so I have a hexagram readily available for future reference whenever I wish to consult the I Ching at a later time....?
I never put together all the sources but from what I've gathered, yarrow stalks-based divination was in use for a long time before using coins, sometimes as an alternative method to confirm/enlight oracles got with scapulomancy (using tortoise shells or ox bones). The exact method used, however, has been lost to us.
Then the three-coins method became common and only much later the yarrow stalks method we know has been "reconstructed" based on previous commentaries.
So, it's true that yarrow stalks were in use before coins but it is also true that the yarrow stalks method we know is more recent than the three coins.
Sooner or later I will muster the energies and will required to diligently read and report all the sources. For now, this is what I can remember on top of my mind .
You are right that, even if seeding is done properly, the entire hexagram might be determined by the first click you do, but I wouldn't be too worried about this: it's like instead of throwing 3 coins 6 times, you throw 18 coins at once and then divide them into groups of three. Clicking on the button to get the next line is like revealing the next group of coins.
Whether the "first click" determines the entire hexagram or not is entirely up to the programmer. I would say that the most common solution is that it does as it is much simpler to implement it this way.From your answer, I gather that there is a possibility of it being this way or not, but maybe your answer was regarding a not specified program. Do you know how Resonance Journal is constructed?
Hi RemoD,Actually, the simplest way to cast a hexagram is to generate a single random number between 0 and 16.777.215 (2^24 - 1) and derive the lines from groups of four bits. However, I would not recommend it as it would be very sensitive to any pseudo-random number generator imbalance (for example the less significant bits being "less random" than the most significant bits).
Drawing 6 numbers, instead, would make it more robust against this issue.
Thanks! Let me know if you spot something "strange". As I said, I did not prove that generating random numbers that way gives a uniform distribution. I don't see how it could not, but you know how tricky these things are.Hi RemoD,
I've just taken a look at your JS code on GitHub, looking forward to read it thoroughly and learn how it works, but the idea is really cool!
I find it to be a great way to link more directly the response to the user's questions.Just for the sake of curiosity, the Tumbling Coins online reading draws at least 3 numbers for each line (some numbers are discarded, so the PRNG may be called more than once to move each coin). Moreover the user can "shake" the coins at will during the cast, and each "shake" draws 3 more numbers.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).