Higher than "chance"

[Interesting Ian]

That's it Ian - keep throwing out random examples in the hope that one may at some point be correct.
But it won't change your being wrong about the cards issue. You have demonstrated over and over your lack of understanding about probability.

This reminds me of a conversation I had ages ago with a co-worker.
We were talking about the lottery and he confidently declared some combinations of numbers would never come up, for example 1,2,3,4,5,6

Almost definitely it won't.

I explained that this was equally likely or unlikely than any other series. But he couldn't get his head round this.

That is why, when I used to go on the lottery, I used to pick series of numbers like 10,31,32,33,34,46. People erroneously think that some sequences of numbers are more likely to come up than others. That is of course awesomely stupid -- something like what the people on here would believe But anyway, I chose a sequence of numbers like that because no-one else, or at least not many other people, would be likely to choose the same sequence. Thus it was quite likely I would get the jackpot all to myself if those numbers did come up. I never chose 6 numbers in a row because other people would have the same idea. Anyway, ever since Camelot introduced the lucky dip I haven't bothered.

He said "I guarantee those numbers wont come up next week."
I then picked six random numbers and guaranteed they wouldn't come up either.

{shrugs}

Of course they are equally likely. Why doesn't anyone ever say anything on this forum which I don't already understand?

We give such significance to random series when they form a pattern that is meaningful to us.

It seems you have fallen into the same trap Ian.

No.

 

[Interesting Ian]

A car is parked next to a wall. Now, physical laws allow it to suddenly disappear and reappear on the other side of the wall within the next 5 seconds (quantum tunnelling).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Physical laws does not allow this. Skimming through obscure interpretations of quantum mechanics doesn't help your case one bit.

It doesn't allow it? Do the equations dictate this is impossible? Yes or no.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I nevertheless realise that, prior to its occurence, some event may have had a zero probability of happening, yet it nevertheless did happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What? What? Has your mind finally dribbled out of your nose into your pint?
You are saying that something, by your own definition, is impossible, and yet it then happened?

Uh, what exactly would that be Ian? What is this impossible event that actually happened?
Did you admit you were wrong or somethig?

LMAO! Civility Ashles, civility

I didn't say that the event happening was impossible, I said zero probability

 

[Jocce]

It doesn't allow it? Do the equations dictate this is impossible? Yes or no.

yes.
Or rather, Quantum tunneling has nothing to do with instant translocation.

 

[Ashles]

Almost definitely it won't.

Right... you're on your way...

That is why, when I used to go on the lottery, I used to pick series of numbers like 10,31,32,33,34,46. People erroneously think that some sequences of numbers are more likely to come up than others. That is of course awesomely stupid -- something like what the people on here would believe

Uh yes, that is exactly what you are not understanding about the card example.
You are implying that the cards are less likely to be dealt as described as in some other 'random' way.
You are now describing yourself as 'awesomely stupid'.
Another Interesting Ian moment for the scrapbook.

But anyway, I chose a sequence of numbers like that because no-one else, or at least not many other people, would be likely to choose the same sequence. Thus it was quite likely I would get the jackpot all to myself if those numbers did come up. I never chose 6 numbers in a row because other people would have the same idea. Anyway, ever since Camelot introduced the lucky dip I haven't bothered.

It's weird, you seem to undersand the concept here.
In fact I used to do the same thing so as not to share the lottery (until the lucky dips).

Of course they are equally likely. Why doesn't anyone ever say anything on this forum which I don't already understand?

It's hard to say. I think it's mainly because you do such a perfect impression of someone who actually doesn't understand.

No.

 

[Hawk one]

Ian's post reminds me of the part in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe that showed how life was impossible, simply because there was only a semi-infinite number of worlds that had life on them, and since any finite number divided with infinity would be so close to zero as makes no difference, it then follows that the population of the universe is exactly zero.

Do you agree or disagree with this math and the conclusion, Ian? It is, after all, the same kind of math employed that you are using to show how four people being dealt a full suit each is impossible (i.e. not going to happen).

 

[Ashles]

LMAO! Civility Ashles, civility

◊◊◊◊ civility, this is the internet.

I didn't say that the event happening was impossible, I said zero probability

For the fun of everyone in the world, please explain how something that has zero probability is possible.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Actually, although I have had no education whatsoever in statistics, I nevertheless realise that, prior to its occurence, some event may have had a zero probability of happening, yet it nevertheless did happen.

Actually, I have a confession to make. I didn't actually know this until I started this thread a year ago. I hasten to add though that I was definitely correct in my original contention in that thread. Shamefully only 10.89% of people who voted in the poll realised I was correct

 

[Ashles]

Ian's post reminds me of the part in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe that showed how life was impossible, simply because there was only a semi-infinite number of worlds that had life on them, and since any finite number divided with infinity would be so close to zero as makes no difference, it then follows that the population of the universe is exactly zero.

That's exactly what it reminded me of as well.

 

[Interesting Ian]

yes.
Or rather, Quantum tunneling has nothing to do with instant translocation.

Can you substantiate that? References please. Are you saying an electron actually physically traverses the intervening distance in going from one orbit to another?

 

[Jocce]

I'm no expert in quantum mechanics but so far I have seen nothing that would make instant translocation of a car possible.

Again you fail to base your assumptions on a complete set of facts. In your example of a car such things as friction and density come into play.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'm no expert in quantum mechanics
but so far I have seen nothing that would make instant translocation of a car possible.

Again you fail to base your assumptions on a complete set of facts. In your example of a car such things as friction and density come into play.

Hang on a sec. Instant translocation is impossible for all macroscopic objects, but not so for the very small?? If so what is it about the equations which disallow translocation for macroscopic objects? My understanding was that QM completely describes the world (ignoring incompatibility with general relativity) -- it's just that the smallness of Plank's constant means that the effects cancel out for macroscopic objects. This is why Newton's equations describe macroscopic objects (almost) perfectly. So I thought anyway.

BTW, you do realise that whether or not physical laws allow cars to translocate doesn't alter my fundamental point?

 

[Harlequin]

I said more likely to occur -- not more probable.

Wow, this must be another case where Meriam-Webster got it wrong.

What exactly is the difference between something being more likely to occur and something being more probable?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Wow, this must be another case where Meriam-Webster got it wrong.

What exactly is the difference between something being more likely to occur and something being more probable?

Probability is a technical term.

 

[Beth]

◊◊◊◊ civility, this is the internet.


For the fun of everyone in the world, please explain how something that has zero probability is possible.

An impossible event would have probability zero, but not all events with probability zero are impossible. There are a couple of ways this can occur.

For example, an event might actually have a non-zero but very low probability such as 0.000000000001 and this could be rounded to zero.

Also the probability of any particular value occurring in a continous distribution (such as the normal distribution) is zero. This has to do with the fact that there are an infinite number of values possible, thus the probability of any one particular value occurring is zero.

What is commonly done is to convert the single value to a range. Instead of calculating the probability of 1.45 occurring, you might instead calculate the probability of getting a value between 1.449 and 1.451. This will then have a non-zero probability.

 

[drkitten]

Probability is a technical term.

So is likelihood. So what?

 

[Gr8wight]

You know, if we are not allowed to actually delete our posts, why is that option even shown to us?


I began responding to posts in this thread, but every single post Interesting Ian made was so outrageously more silly than the one before that I had to stop trying. The combination of unwilling to understand and unable to understand cannot be overcome.

Oh, and:

No.

I believe you owe PixyMisa a quarter.

 

[CurtC]

Using 0.5*0.5...etc is irrelevant since that only calculates the probability of an exact sequence (ie. 48 correct in a row) and we don't know if that happened.

I had assumed from the wording of what Suezoled described that it was 48 in a row. She didn't mention how many trials there were - I guess it could have been two decks' worth, in which case 48 would be in the completely expected range.

But if it was any 48 out of 52 that she was talking about, it would reduce the number of possibilities by C(52,48), or a factor of 270725. That would be only about a one out of a billion chance. The fact that it's sampling without replacement would have a smaller effect, which I'm not sure how to calculate. For sure, the last of the 52 cards would be known, and that would cut it in half, assuming that the last one was one that she got correct, which is assuming that she had been keeping track. But for an 11-year-old, she probably wasn't keeping track, so you wouldn't need to make this last adjustment.

 

[Jocce]

My understanding was that QM completely describes the world (ignoring incompatibility with general relativity) -- it's just that the smallness of Plank's constant means that the effects cancel out for macroscopic objects. This is why Newton's equations describe macroscopic objects (almost) perfectly. So I thought anyway.
]

As I see it, it's two ways of looking at the world. Which way you choose would depend on the scale. Since experts in the field hasn't agreed on how this works yet it's pretty stupid arguing for any one side or trying to fit them together here. One could cause the other and that wouldn't be the first time simple behaviour on a local scale gives rise to complex phenomena in the bigger picture.

BTW, you do realise that whether or not physical laws allow cars to translocate doesn't alter my fundamental point?

Unfortunately I'm not sure what your point is any more. Can you repeat it in some condensed manner?

 

[Ashles]

For example, an event might actually have a non-zero but very low probability such as 0.000000000001 and this could be rounded to zero.

Well that's not zero though. We could round 0.5 probability to 1, but it wouldn't make heads coming up on a coin toss a certainty.

Also the probability of any particular value occurring in a continous distribution (such as the normal distribution) is zero. This has to do with the fact that there are an infinite number of values possible, thus the probability of any one particular value occurring is zero.

The probability is not zero but reciprocal infinity:
This link explains it as understand it:

It is possible to divide by infinity. Any non-zero number divided by infinity is the reciprocal of infinity (1 / infinity), NOT ZERO! Reciprocal infinity is as close as you can get to zero without actually being zero.

What we have to remember is that infinity is a concept rather than an actual number.