Tacticular Cancer: We'll have your balls

  1. Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
    Dismiss Notice

I've lost a Cow.

Discussion in 'SCIENCE!!' started by DarkUnderlord, Mar 8, 2017.

  1. Make America Great Again janjetina Arcane

    janjetina
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Parrots:
    4,070
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Torment: Tides of Numenera
    Click here and disable ads!
    The problem is that you missunderstand the concept of probability. Probability is, by definition, related to a single experiment. Imagine flipping a biased coin, which lands on its head side 99% of times. Bias is property of the coin. It is inseparable from the coin. Flipping the coin does nothing to change that bias. Probability of the coin landing on heads (or tails) side is quantification of that bias. Therefore it is independent of the number of experiments (tosses) performed. It is an intrinsic property of the coin. At each toss, the coin has probability p=0.99 of heads. The concepts that relate probability and the number of experiments are expected value and variance of the experiments. They are derived from probability, not vice versa.

    If you think of probability in terms of outcomes and outcome space, it is quite clear. We define outcome space S consisting of disjunct outcomes o and state the following:
    1. For each outcome o in S, 0 <= p(o) <= 1
    2. p(S) = sum(p(o)) = 1

    Thus we define probability.

    We can interpret probability of an outcome o p(o) independently of the frequentist approach as a degree of belief that outcome o is true.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
    ^ Top  
  2. Dickie Arcane

    Dickie
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Parrots:
    980
    I'm still confused. Is assuming the contestant wants the car Islamophobic?
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • it is a mystery it is a mystery x 1
    ^ Top  
  3. DavidBVal Arcane Patron Developer

    DavidBVal
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Parrots:
    1,347
    Location:
    Madrid
    PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire
    Those are very clear explanations, especially the last one. I'd like to know if IncendiaryDevice still believes his chances are 50/50 in a contest with a million doors, and thus he'd still give himself a 50% chance to have picked the right door out of a million.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Brofist Brofist x 1
    ^ Top  
  4. I'm With Her oneself for prison Liturgist

    oneself
    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Parrots:
    2,112
    Location:
    A minority-white, multicultural hellscape
    This thread when to 10 pages? I am sorry, who is autistic again?
     
    • it is a mystery it is a mystery x 1
    ^ Top  
  5. IncendiaryDevice Arcane The Real Fanboy

    IncendiaryDevice
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Parrots:
    2,684
    I don't deny any of that. Probability is the average of a large data pool. The more we know how probable something is, the better judgement we can make. What probability cannot do is satisfactorily resolve a single event. The problem with the Monty Hall experiment is that it provides a scenario where, on one run, the probabilities are mostly irrelevant. They exist and are real, but bare no relation to a single one-off event. I'm finding it difficult to find an example of how to express myself what with having to keep coming back to answering how it relates to the complexities of the door puzzle. The door puzzle only exists because it's a repeatable pattern and because it's had the added complexity of the free goat reveal, giving the impression that you get two doors for one, when, in reality, you're just making a placeholder for a 50/50, should it be a one-off non-repeatable event.

    Lets try and transfer this to RPGs, something a bit more relatable:

    You're up against the end boss, at the end of the game. During your missions you've acquired an item which you can chuck at the boss. This item says on its description that it has a good chance to hit [bypassing any saves automatically].

    This is a single use item that once used you have no more of them.

    You have a binary result - it either hits or it doesn't.

    The chance to hit might be 66%, but that is meaningless to you, either it hits or it doesn't, it is, in effect, a 50/50.

    What makes it 66% is that over the course of 100 playthroughs you'll have hit the boss with it 66 times. So if you play the game 100 times you can apply a number to the item and imagine 66% instead of "good".

    The graph for end results will show that on one result you got a binary, a 50/50, but as each playthrough was resolved, that the graph line will gradually smooth out into a constant of 66/33.

    So the closer you are to the smaller sample size, the more the results 'appear' 50/50. And they appear that way because the 'random element' is affecting the probability. Probability seeks to put a number to random, when random is inherently chaotic and uncategorisable in smaller sample sizes.

    So while probability can put a value on the singular by examination of the plural, it is completely incapable of quantifying the random nature of small sample sizes, in that, the fewer events that take place, the less relevant the probability is.

    And it's a problem for mathematicians because there's no formula to measure the quantifiable element of random in any given low-sample-size scenario. This is what gives rise to paradoxes such as the door puzzle where there is a known probability, but that probability is irrelevant for a single event. Which is likely what stumped people for so long. But now that the puzzle is 'solved', the same difficulty is being experienced in trying to visualise the puzzle without the knowledge of the plural.

    I really can't think of a way to describe this any better, it's such a unique kind of puzzle with very few relatable comparisons, so I'll leave it that yes, you can have your 66%, but that I disagree that on a one-shot of the puzzle it makes any difference at all.
     
    • retadred retadred x 2
    • WTF am I reading WTF am I reading x 1
    • Build the Wall! Build the Wall! x 1
    ^ Top  
  6. Suicidal Magister

    Suicidal
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Parrots:
    1,233
    Location:
    Worstest cuntry EU
    We need an autism rating button.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    ^ Top  
  7. Lazing Dirk Arcane

    Lazing Dirk
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Parrots:
    1,864,559
    Location:
    Shooting up your ride
    Winning the lottery is 50/50, either you win or you don't

    Buy them tickets, guys

    You know, I kinda get what you're saying, but it's utterly nonsensical to apply it to this. We're not trying to figure out the odds of an unknown event from a small sample. We know exactly how it works and what the odds are. To say those odds change just because you're only doing it once is absurd.
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Brofist Brofist x 2
    • Fabulously Optimistic Fabulously Optimistic x 1
    ^ Top  
  8. Burning Bridges Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk

    Burning Bridges
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Parrots:
    14,619
    Location:
    Tampon Bay
    :lol:

    Do it twice and the chance is 100%. Bummer.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Fabulously Optimistic Fabulously Optimistic x 1
    ^ Top  
  9. IncendiaryDevice Arcane The Real Fanboy

    IncendiaryDevice
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Parrots:
    2,684
    Yeah, take it to the extreme and belittle, whatever.
     
    • retadred retadred x 1
    ^ Top  
  10. Burning Bridges Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk

    Burning Bridges
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Parrots:
    14,619
    Location:
    Tampon Bay
    Hey bro do you remember how you went to the brain surgeon the other day? The world famous surgeon? You asked him, hey Doc, I got some problems with my head lately can you fix me?

    Dr. Sauerbruch takes a deep look over his spectacles. Then he said don't worry son, I can do everything. I have already fixed thousands of patients.

    All right so he opens your skull, takes a look inside, looks closer and then shakes his head definitely.

    No, theres nothing I can do here anymore. No one can fix so much shit all at once. Close him up again. When he wakes up ask him if he wants a new brain, thats the only thing I can recommend him.

    And that was as far as the story with your brain surgery went bro.

    Now get a new brain and throw the old one away, and then make a new start here. Until then I will only talk in the derogatory case with you.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Shit Shit x 1
    ^ Top  
  11. Burning Bridges Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk

    Burning Bridges
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Parrots:
    14,619
    Location:
    Tampon Bay
    This one here is also good.

    Mustard scratched out the cases 3 and 6, before he made his bid to revolutionize number theory.

    What this says is, that this does not happen in Mechiko. We never put the Auto behind Door 3 if you switch, and we also dont do that if you dont. Therefore the chance is always 50%. The car is always behind Door 1 or 2.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    ^ Top  
  12. Norfleet Moderator

    Norfleet
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Parrots:
    6,829
    If there's an actual car and goats behind those doors, your odds are better than you'd think, because goats are living creatures with bioelectric emanations that can be detected by their interference with your own. Unless this door is shielded, a practiced individual can sense the lack of goat. Use the Force, Luke!
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    ^ Top  
  13. Multiple Sarcasm Arcane

    Multiple Sarcasm
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Parrots:
    2,880
    The way things are, "not autism" button would probably be more distinctive. :M
     
    ^ Top  
  14. dunno lah Arcane

    dunno lah
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2013
    Parrots:
    1,345
    Location:
    Boleh!land
    This is so educational.
     
    ^ Top  
  15. Spectacle Arcane

    Spectacle
    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Parrots:
    6,151
    We need a "dumber than a pigeon" tag for certain posters in this thread.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • :M :M x 1
    ^ Top  
  16. Raghar Arcane

    Raghar
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Parrots:
    8,424
    It's 1/2. Some people sucks at math. The original choice become 1/2 as well after opening that third door.
     
    • retadred retadred x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • "It was Aliens" "It was Aliens" x 1
    ^ Top  
  17. Make America Great Again Lady Error Arcane

    Lady Error
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Parrots:
    1,864,730
    Yeah, mathematicians suck at math. Thanks for letting us know.
     
    ^ Top  
  18. Raghar Arcane

    Raghar
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Parrots:
    8,424
    He's popular science writer. And yes some mathematicians sucks at math. There are two independent probability outcomes. Because correct result of one isn't shown, they are not really interdependent. The ending choice is 1:1.
     
    • retadred retadred x 2
    ^ Top  
  19. Skittles He ruins the fun.

    Skittles
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Parrots:
    923
    • Fabulously Optimistic Fabulously Optimistic x 1
    • "It was Aliens" "It was Aliens" x 1
    • it is a mystery it is a mystery x 1
    ^ Top  
  20. Burning Bridges Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk

    Burning Bridges
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Parrots:
    14,619
    Location:
    Tampon Bay
    That is still flattering.

    I bet he instantly understood that /irony

    You could have just written that in mathematics probability is expressed as fractions of 1 and the sum of all disjunct probabilities must always be 1.

    He failed even at this basic level, because 1/3 + 1/2 is not 1 so he should have known someting is missing. That means he does not know how to express probabilities in mathematics. Completely independent from the fact that he did not understand the problem, he also does not understand the methods to solve it.

    Protip is that you can just write down all individual cases, until you understand what is going on, and then translate it to proper mathematical expression. Mathematics is worthless if you don't know how to apply it, so is always better to take the direct approach. Unfortunately they dont teach that in school and scare off people with cryptic contractions, for relatively trivial problems. This is where I hold a grudge against mathematicians, bro.

    Now I guess you are a real mathematician which is of course [​IMG]. My own mathematic talent is very limited, mostly because I cannot directly apply your symbolic expressions. But I solve most problems with quadrille paper. That was the best hint I could give him. He failed that too, because he is imbecile. There is no point in trying to talk sense into him, except with a heavy 1m ruler, which his teacher should have done much much earlier.
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 3
    ^ Top  
  21. Lazing Dirk Arcane

    Lazing Dirk
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Parrots:
    1,864,559
    Location:
    Shooting up your ride
    >30 year old problem that has been conclusively solved
    >5 pages of discussion and multiple explanations on why it's 2/3 for switching
    >Suddenly


    Oh thank god, our saviour! Lead us to the promised land!
     
    • Funny Funny x 6
    ^ Top  
  22. Charles Eli Cheese Neckbeard Shitlord

    Charles Eli Cheese
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Parrots:
    1,864,979
    Location:
    Molding the devil's bullets
    No no that's all wrong.

    First the doctor removed 1/3 of his brain which was malfunctioning, then he used his logic toconvince the doctor remove another third so that he would have twice the brain size.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    ^ Top  
  23. Charles Eli Cheese Neckbeard Shitlord

    Charles Eli Cheese
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Parrots:
    1,864,979
    Location:
    Molding the devil's bullets
    In mehicho the auto is always behind door number one, so why would you choose anything but door number one? These gringos sure are stupid shits sometimes.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    ^ Top  
  24. Burning Bridges Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk

    Burning Bridges
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Parrots:
    14,619
    Location:
    Tampon Bay


    We got insight in the inner workings of a true dumbschmuck, that vindicates this largely pointless battle [​IMG]

    Thread archived for the sake of science.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    ^ Top  
  25. Make America Great Again Lady Error Arcane

    Lady Error
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Parrots:
    1,864,730
    It's not. That's what the last 5 pages have been about.
     
    • Brofist Brofist x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    ^ Top  

(buying stuff via the above buttons helps us pay the hosting bills, thanks!)