Subject:
|
Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:38:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1387 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> I know that 1-6 is just as likely to be selected as any other ‘random’
> combination. However, I can’t help thinking that any selection is more
> likely to a non-sequential combination.
Most definitely, but that's only because there are more non-sequential
combinations. But any PARTICULAR non-sequential combination is just as
likely, obviously...
> Further, if a sequential combination
> were to be selected - it would be slightly less likely to be that one than
> almost any other.
And again, the same applies... given that it'll be sequential, the
probability that it's NOT 1,2,3,4,5,6 is bigger than the probability that it
is. But the probability that it's any PARTICULAR sequential sequence is just
as likely...
Here's an interesting one probability: (totally non sequeter):
There used to be a game show on TV where they'd have 3 doors. Behind ONE of
the doors was a prize. Behind the OTHER two doors, there was either nothing
or just something stupid... I think when I heard it, it was a 'goat' as the
'gag' prize.
Anyway, the contestant would pick a door. And of course the host, trying to
build up suspense would open one of the remaining doors with a gag prize,
and give the contestant one last chance to change their mind.
So the question: is it statistically to your advantage to switch your choice
to the remaining unopened door or to stick with your original choice?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
