l.strether wrote:You're response was too fascinating to resist. I take it you won't back up your arguments. No worries.
Glad I could provide some fascination. OK, since you're back in the discussion let me ask one question which I guess I should have asked in the first place. In reading the fourth post of this thread (which I believe was written by you), among other points that you make, I get the impression you are implying that rolling four consecutive sixes is AS LIKELY as rolling four non-repeating numbers. Is that what you are implying or no?