Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dice Man
Is the subtext of this that you know a way of beating roulette, or that we should remain agnostic regarding its possibility?
Either way, practically plagiarising off Wikipedia doesn't constitute providing good counter-examples. When I referred to triangles I was referring to them in a Euclidean context, and when I referred to primary colours I was referring to them in an art-based context, outside the scientific field of light wavelengths.
One could just as easily refer to a Wikipedia entry on roulette that says there's a way to beat it which includes being very lucky.
|
I wrote the Wikipedia entry you are referring to: primary colours, marsupials, birds, and women all being specialist subjects.
The art-based view of primary colours is even more medieval than the light-based view. It's akin to thinking the world is still flat.
As for the triangle you stated there is no such thing as a triangle with more than 180 degress, when as any fule kno, there clearly is. That's not from wikipedia, though I did google for it to help with the phrasing.
I don't believe there is a working roulette system currently in existence, but I'm also not sure if it would be impossible to create one. After all, blackjack was considered unbeatable until the card counting systems were invented.