TC 20 not delivering - MASTER TC20 Vent Thread

To be clear, your response to me pointing out that several parts of your last post are entirely incomprehensible is:

and later

Yes, I do not understand at all what you were trying to communicate in at least two parts of your last message. That’s why I wrote “I do not know what that means” and invited you to “clarify”. When you then choose not to explain yourself it makes me think that perhaps you can’t - maybe you didn’t have an actual point to make.

You think I omitted some relevant context? Okay, let’s review the sentence as a whole

So far as I can tell, nothing has changed. You have referred to a “10 septillion % chance that something will never go wrong”. Any competent 10 year old ought to be able to explain why this is nonsense.

I guess you have three options here:

  1. Acknowledge your ridiculous stuff up. Everyone makes mistakes so why worry?
  2. Ignore that fiasco of a sentence. Just pretend it never happened.
  3. Try to defend it, explaining that you meant something sensible. (I would love to read that.)

This misunderstand the nature of mathematics. Maths is the study of the logical implications of axioms, and thus cannot be “proven wrong”. Mistakes in arithmetic can happen, of course, and underlying axioms may be incorrect, but mathematics itself is absolute and indisputable.

As I’ve carefully explained from my first response to you and you still seem to be struggling to grasp, a player summoning 1500 times in a row with no 5* heroes resulting would not call into question the mathematics of probability in any way - it would prove beyond doubt that the underlying probabilities provided by SG, and upon which the maths was based, were wrong. (That’s the whole point of Taleb’s book, by the way, and the essence of what is sometimes known as the Black Swan argument. You seriously need to read the book instead of the Cliff notes.)

This is correct: mathematics, by definition, is axiomatic. That’s what we mean when we use the word “mathematics”. (It occurs to me that I’m trying to discuss mathematics with someone who, it is rapidly becoming clear, may not actually understand what mathematics is.)

No, maths results are always up to be questioned. That’s why I try always to provide my calculations in full, if possible, and invite you to review them and point out any errors I have made. I often make stupid errors.

I don’t understand what this means, so I assume that no, it’s not what I am trying to say. But if you believe that at some point I have got the number of 000s wrong in my calculations, then please - explain where you think I made the mistake. We can review the numbers together and identify whether there is a problem.

I hope I have now resolved your confusion by clarifying my meaning. (I would appreciate it if you would return the favour and do your best in good faith to clarify your meaning.)

Here’s an excellent example - I would love for you to explain what you mean here. Running a test 100 times sounds like an attempt to generate an empirical result, not an application of the mathematics of probability. Repeating that test 1 million times “until they reach my desired results” sounds like the fever dream of a mixed up mind: what the holy heck are you talking about?

Honestly, my suspicion, upon reading that paragraph multiple times, is that you wrote it without there being any genuine meaning to the words. I think you’re just sort of saying, I don’t trust all this daggum maths and probability and zeroes and whatnot.

If you mean something more than that - if you have an actual point - then I invite you again to explain it. So far you have not.

No idea what your dance metaphor refers to, I don’t know how the weather got involved in your thoughts, and I certainly don’t know what point you’re trying to make.

I’m doing my best to understand your position, but you are awfully unclear. Be better!

1 Like

And tgat doesn’t surprise me tgat you don’t understand simple sentences.

But the problem is I can’t make any simplier for you and for that I appilogise and since your only respose you can offer is that, you don’t understand, to me it’s like…! “well it is what it is right”.

Since where doing nothing but going around in circles it’s best just to call it quites on the matter.

It’s been very amusing , I always enjoy a good laugh .
See ya round.

That was like Einstein and Peter Hawkins having a casual,chat, I didn’t understand most of it but I was dead impressed guys, :face_with_monocle:


If you choose to step away from our conversation then you do so with my best wishes, but do you really think the reason I don’t understand what you are trying to communicate is that I “don’t understand simple sentences”?

I would be quite disappointed if you left without explaining what you thought you meant by the following gems of incoherence:

If you think that diarrhoea makes sense then you’re delusional, and if you genuinely can’t make it any simpler then you might not actually have any ideas to express beyond a superstitious rejection of mathematics as if it were witchcraft.

You will recall, btw, that I was wondering how you would address your misuse of percentages in such a way as would shame a young child:

I’m going to give myself some credit here: my money was definitely on you taking the second option. And lo, it came to pass. You now have form for being unable to admit when you make even a simple, understandable error.

But go in peace - best of luck for the future. :wink:

1 Like

This is the problem, as all I seem to be doing is repeating and changing the way I say things and explain explaining things because you don’t understand them, I am over it m8.

Even though I have agreed that your theory and calculations are correct in this current pay, It seems that you lack the ability to to accept that there are other possibilities in true reality (thence the Black Swan effect) and that math and probabilities are only as correct as they are until proven wrong.

In your eyes there is no wrong in maths and probabilities and that belief my friend is the biggest mistake any human can make but you clear lack the ability to both understand and accept that fact.

Even Taleb (since you brought him up) understands that concept and has clearly stated such facts that the black Swan effect is not taken into account by the majority of humans because they lack the understanding of that possibility actually ever accurring which clearly the category you are in atm.
I never stated Taleb’s name nore did I suggest it was from his book that I now about the Black Swan theory as there where many before him and I was around and in high school (late 70’s) before he wrote some of those books. He merely used it as a reference based on past reading himself I would imagine. But anyway.

Maybe one day will see the lite m8 for your sake not mine.

So yes my discussion here is both proven and complete.

Thank you

There you go getting it wrong again - fundamentally misunderstanding the Black Swan Effect. Maths is maths - it’s simply not up for debate, ever. But maybe you’re beginning to understand this just a little bit. The probabilities that we estimate events have can often be wrong. Black Swan events come totally unexpectedly; they prove beyond doubt that our probability estimates were incorrect.

In the case of E&P, we are not dealing with probability estimates we are dealing with ‘actual’ probabilities provided to us by SG. So if a ‘Black Swan’ event were to occur, it would immediately prove that those ‘actual’ probabilities were wrong - that SG had given us the wrong numbers.

This is why I said, in my first reply to you in this thread:

You seem to be making progress. Do you finally understand this? I hope so,

Only the superstitious and the ignorant can question maths. Again: by definition, mathematics is axiomatic. Do you just not understand what ‘axiomatic’ means, or how it applies to maths? If you don’t understand then by all means tell me and I’ll do my best to explain it to you in even simpler terms. If you do understand but disagree, then explain why you disagree (that ought to be entertaining). And if you understand and agree, then at least have the self respect to express that fact.

This is a whole lot of awful nonsense. You have totally misunderstood the Black Swan Theory, as I have now explained to you repeatedly and in detail. (I just went to my bookshelves to find my copy so I could quote a cogent summary. I couldn’t locate it. Perhaps I am too drunk.)

You claim that the ‘Black Swan Theory’ predates Taleb’s book. This is either a straight out lie on your part, or a conflation of the almost entirely irrelevant philosophical construct with Taleb’s completely on point probabilistic notion.

Shall we review a few references just to check that it was Taleb who formulated the Black Swan Theory? Let’s do so:

(I generally hate Wikipedia but I can’t be bothered looking for anything more authoritative than the first three results that pop up in my search engine. Do the reading for yourself! I shouldn’t have to be your tutor.)

What is it that you think you have proven, I wonder? And how do you think it is complete?

Maybe it’s time to step back from the details and consider who we really are.

I have noticed, on my journey through life, that when I encounter males of a particular generation (yes, it’s always the males) they tend to be very willing to talk a lot about subjects of which they have very little knowledge. They are always quite resistant to facts, they rebel against such trivialities as mathematics and logic, and they are brazenly, consistently, hilariously unwilling ever to recognise that they might have made an error. They will often just pretend their mistakes never happened, rather than suffer the horror of acknowledging them and moving on.

I try not to waste my time contemplating people’s gender and age, but when such tidbits as this are offered up, unsolicited:

then all sorts of pieces suddenly fall into place, making extremely satisfying clicking noises as they do so.

Okay boomer. :slightly_smiling_face:


Play time is over m8, get over it and have a good day. You will understand it one day I guess just not today it seems.

I encourage you to continue participating in our conversation. I’d love you finally to explain what a

means. I dearly want you to tell us more about how Nassim Taleb did not in fact formulate the Black Swan Theory (perhaps it was invented by one of your high school chums in the 1970s?), and of course I want to hear much more from you about how

It would be a tragedy for everyone reading this thread if you were to leave without addressing these matters, and any others that might occur to you.

1 Like

This is a quote I just found on wiki that will show you this theory used long before Taleb including you and I.
All Taleb did was reword what had already pre-dated our century, and yes we did learn this back in my day at school.


The phrase “black swan” derives from a Latin expression; its oldest known occurrence is from the 2nd-century Roman poet Juvenal’s characterization of something being " rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno " (“a rare bird in the lands and very much like a black swan”).[3]:165 When the phrase was coined, the black swan was presumed not to exist. The importance of the metaphor lies in its analogy to the fragility of any system of thought. A set of conclusions is potentially undone once any of its fundamental postulates is disproved. In this case, the observation of a single black swan would be the undoing of the logic of any system of thought, as well as any reasoning that followed from that underlying logic.

Juvenal’s phrase was a common expression in 16th century London as a statement of impossibility.[ citation needed ] The London expression derives from the Old World presumption that all swans must be white because all historical records of swans reported that they had white feathers.[4] In that context, a black swan was impossible or at least nonexistent.

However, in 1697, Dutch explorers led by Willem de Vlamingh became the first Europeans to see black swans, in Western Australia.[5] The term subsequently metamorphosed to connote the idea that a perceived impossibility might later be disproven. Taleb notes that in the 19th century, John Stuart Mill **used the black swan logical fallacy as a new term to identify falsification.[6]

As I said you still have ways to go my friend.

No meu caso a cada 10 herois ou 20 3* é que vem sair um 5*, ruim demais

Haven’t had a single 5* from TC20 for months :nauseated_face::face_vomiting:

So to be clear, you are now claiming that this passage from your earlier post:

refers not to Nassim Taleb’s Black Swan Theory, but to Juvenal’s satires? That would be why you referenced the European arrival in Australia, right?

Okay boomer.

(I’ve just made another little bet with myself that you’ve never read a single word of any of Juvenal’s satires. Mens sana in corpore sane? No? Nothing?)

You said it did not me, lol.
Give it a rest will ya, you will understand it one day.

I hope because as an engineer you should.

Again, just to be clear, you’re now saying that your reference to black swans was unconnected to Taleb’s Black Swan Theory? Seriously, this is your position? I ask because Taleb’s Black Swan Theory is relevant to our discussion; Juvenal and JS Mill’s considerations considerably less so.

Unless you think that the views of an unnamed “Frenchman mathematatiovn [sic and dear lord, were you having a seizure when your wrote that?]” about white swans have some relevance? If so, please do explain why. I’d love to read your reasons.

(Why on earth would you imply that I’m an engineer? I certainly am not. My vocation is entirely irrelevant, so far as I can tell, although I have previously disclosed it in the forum.)

Honestly, so your saying that the fact that a theory was brought up in some lesson before it was published some 30yrs later has no I portantence to that meaning.

Do you Ever stop trying to enforce others needing to justify comments and always wanting (no wait “NEEDING” ) to downgrade others to make yourself sound superior in some way to feel better about yourself.

Yea I may have used the Black Swan theory in conjunction with one that I was taught long before it was published, SO WHAT, it does not change the theory or concept in which it was written m8 and I so to simplify the example for yourself because it seems you have difficulties in understanding what others write when giving examples.

Please get over yourself and give it a rest.

This is a done, answered and à completed issue.

1 Like

Not at all. I am saying that there was no Black Swan Theory before Taleb - there was simply the observation that Europeans thought Black Swans impossible before they arrived in Australia to find them. If this facile observation was the extent of the point you were trying to make then I gave you far too much credit and I apologise for that.

That’s a pretty confused sentence that’s quite difficult to decipher. I certainly don’t think I “sound superior” to anyone, nor do I care to “downgrade others”. Perhaps you are asking why I care at all about your opinions? It’s because I am interested in the views of other people. I like to read them, talk about them, understand them, and share my own. If a person’s views are a bit silly or obviously haven’t been thought through, then I like to give that person the opportunity to explain them properly.

Isn’t that what this sort of forum is all about?

So you are changing your position. Earlier this evening you disavowed Taleb comprehensively, noting that:

But now you say that you actually were using Taleb’s theory “in conjunction with” one you were taught long ago. How strange to change your mind like that!

And just so I can understand properly, do you still claim the source of the theory you claim to have learned at high school in the 1970s (!?) to be a “Frenchman mathematatiovn [sic]”, as you said in your original post, or is it Juvenal, or is it JS Mill? Or has it become Taleb since last you posted? I want to be sure I grasp what your story is now, so I can be ready when it changes again. :wink:

I must in all good conscience disagree with you there. It seems that there are a raft of issues, both fundamental and peripheral, that you have not yet even begun to answer. I hope you take the time to do so, out of respect for those who have taken the time to read your posts so far.

1 Like

Finally pulled another 5* from TC20 since Justice in mid-January.

Interestingly enough, my last two 5*s to pull TC20 or Summon are Fire Element when before Feb 1st, I had zero Reds. She joins Jean-Francois…



1 Like

Its been my 3rd month now, since i got the TC into lvl 20, one month later i leveled up another TC20, so currently running two TC20, one 3rd month, another one for almost two months - and yet i have got zero 5*. its a major letdown for me, and it really feels like its broken. hope the RNGod will show some mercy soon, coz i starting to think that running two TC11 instead will be better outcome than this lol

I shut all mine down and switched over to tc 11, 2 & 19 after 3 months of 3*s taking 2 days to make lol. If you already have 5’s to level, I think it’s a waste of time and the only benefit is storing food

Cookie Settings