Subject:
|
Re: Now the stakes are higher....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:11:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
287 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, David Eaton writes:
<snip>
> Proof #5 (statistics. Again):
>
> Have him try it. Probably the safest way being 50+ times.
>
> DaveE
That's perfect! I owe you a lunch!
Now whetehr or not my co-worker succumbs to 'outside sources' as valid enuf
to change his position remains to be seen
I'm trying to explain his fallacy and I think I know where it lies now--
His solution:
r1 r2
r1 b
r1 w
r2 b
r2 w
b w
He states that position doesn't matter, but by his very layout of the
columns presupposes that it does--column 2 is not the same as column 1--if
column 2 is the one we expose, then we're missing possibilities--he has to
either add all the possibilities (which you did wonderfully) or he has to say:
r r
r b
r w
b w
are the unique possibilities, and we're still left with 1 in 3
Love it--thanks!
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Now the stakes are higher....
|
| (...) Effectively, he's right but he's not giving things the probability they're due. In his solution, the (r1 r2) choice is GUARANTEED that no matter which one you reveal (r1 or r2), the one revealed will be red. However, with, say, (r1 b), there's (...) (22 years ago, 6-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Now the stakes are higher....
|
| (...) HA! Congrats on winning 100 bucks :) (...) Proof number one: (pure stats) #!/usr/bin/perl for(1..1000) { @marbles = ("r","r","b","w"); $pick = ''; for(1..2) { $n = int rand(@marbles); $pick .= $marbles[$n]; splice @marbles,$n,1; } $tot++; (...) (22 years ago, 6-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
