Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant

[gibsonbaud]

I sure hope your statician works this out correctly, Last time I came on here and tried to explain it I got shot down. I'm not sure of the new protocols details, but if it is similar to those that where in place last time I checked on here you guys will be handing out a million dollars to someone that can guess just slightly better then chance.

 

[Cuddles]

I sure hope your statician works this out correctly, Last time I came on here and tried to explain it I got shot down. I'm not sure of the new protocols details, but if it is similar to those that where in place last time I checked on here you guys will be handing out a million dollars to someone that can guess just slightly better then chance.

Last time you came on here you made a very basic error, had that pointed out to you and left having admitted that you were wrong:

ahh, im an idiot... Guss I've been out of school too long...lol.

Unless you've taken some maths classes since then, I'd think twice about accusing everyone of getting it wrong again.

 

[gibsonbaud]

Hehe, Last time i dropeed it like that because it was very apparent that arguing the point was useless. You cannot convince some people the earth is round. I have taken plenty of math classes in my time. I suggest waiting to hear back from the stetician before talking trash like that.

My point is that you are resetting the odds each time. If you started with 60 envelopes, with 20 correct ones and 40 incorrect, he would have a 2.4% chance of getting all 20 correct, if you do sets of 3 where the previous envelopes are removed each time and it is reset to 1 correct, 2 incorrect, the odds will always be 1/3, so in a total of 20 tires, that would be 20/60, or 33%. But like I said, if you start with all 60, 20 being correct, each choice would reduce the odds, meaning, the first choice he would have 33% chance (20 correct cards, 40 incorrect), 2nd choice he would have a 32.2% (19 correct cards, 40 incorrect), keep going until the last one, which he would have a 2.4% chance of getting the correct one (1 correct card, 40 incorrect), which would satisfy the odds requerment.

 

[jsfisher]

Hehe, Last time i dropeed it like that because it was very apparent that arguing the point was useless. You cannot convince some people the earth is round. I have taken plenty of math classes in my time. I suggest waiting to hear back from the stetician before talking trash like that.

My point is that you are resetting the odds each time. If you started with 60 envelopes, with 20 correct ones and 40 incorrect, he would have a 2.4% chance of getting all 20 correct, if you do sets of 3 where the previous envelopes are removed each time and it is reset to 1 correct, 2 incorrect, the odds will always be 1/3, so in a total of 20 tires, that would be 20/60, or 33%. But like I said, if you start with all 60, 20 being correct, each choice would reduce the odds, meaning, the first choice he would have 33% chance (20 correct cards, 40 incorrect), 2nd choice he would have a 32.2% (19 correct cards, 40 incorrect), keep going until the last one, which he would have a 2.4% chance of getting the correct one (1 correct card, 40 incorrect), which would satisfy the odds requerment.

Just to be absolutely sure of what you are saying here, gibsonbaud, are you talking about a series of tests with 20 sets of envelopes, three in each set and with only one correct "target" in each set? Moreover, are you saying the probability in each test of correctly selecting the target envelope is 1/3?
Then, finally, are you saying that the probability of getting each and every test correct, all 20, is 1/3?

A "yes" response to the first two queries will get you no argument. Please tell me I misinterpreted your post, though, and that you won't say "yes" to the third.

 

[Coveredinbeeees]

Last time you came on here you made a very basic error, had that pointed out to you and left having admitted that you were wrong:

Hehe, Last time i dropeed it like that because it was very apparent that arguing the point was useless. You cannot convince some people the earth is round. I have taken plenty of math classes in my time. I suggest waiting to hear back from the stetician before talking trash like that.

I'm going to hold off from commenting on your views on the test you described in your most recent post until you have answered jsfisher's question.

In the mean time your post seems to infer that you still stand by your earlier calculations regarding the 50:50 odds per trial test.

It could easily be that you are being sarcastic but, just in case, I'll have a go at convincing you "that the Earth is round."

Your second post seemed to sum up your opinion most clearly.

Not true, you have a 50% chance on envelopes 1 and 2, and a 50% chance on envelopes 3 and 4. No matter how many times you do it, if you are choosing between a correct and an incorrect it will always be 50%.

You could do it 500 times. The chance of getting them all correct is always 50%. It would be different if you had 4 cards, chose a correct one from the 4, then chose a correct one from the remaining 3... Then the overall probability would change, but as long as the total number of envelopes increases at a rate of 2 for each one attempt, the probability does not change.

Like I said... I could be wrong... Just how it appears to me...

bolding mine

Let me take the example of two consecutive tests. Gr8wight pointed out, correctly, that the odds of guessing a 50:50 chance correctly twice in a row are 1 in 4. You responded with the post I have just quoted claiming that the odds of guessing correctly twice in a row would actually be 1 in 2. If this is not your claim then feel free to ignore the following.

Consider the case of a coin toss. Each toss there are two possible outcomes and they are equally likely, heads or tails. Lets say that heads (H) represents a correct guess and tails (T) represents an incorrect guess. The odds of guessing this toss correctly are 1 in 2.

Now lets consider two tosses in a row. Again heads (H) will represent a correct guess.

There are four possible outcomes to a pair of tosses, all equally likely.

HH
HT
TH
TT

Only one of these four outcomes represents two correct guesses, the first one HH. The odds of correctly guessing two consecutive tosses is therefore 1 in 4.

Now consider the case of three tosses in a row. Now there are eight possible outcomes.

HHH
HHT
HTH
HTT
THH
THT
TTH
TTT

Only one of the eight outcomes above represents three correct guesses (HHH), so the odds of correctly guessing all 3 tosses is 1 in 8, not 1 in 2 as you suggested.

You can easily demonstrate this to yourself by following Startz' advice.

What Gr8wight said is right. This very easy for you to check. Take a coin, guess heads or tails. Do it again. If you're right both times, score it as a success. Now run this two-toss experiment a few dozen times. You'll see that you get both tosses right about one time in four.

I hope this helps.

'beeees

 

[gibsonbaud]

hehe, worry not guys, Its been a while since ive been on here and just figured id come back to "stir things up" a bit...
I was wrong the first time around I was WRONG and I admit it, this time around... Im just messin around. The only reason I kept it going this time was because of Cuddles jackass comment.

 

[gibsonbaud]

Does anyone know if Pavels revised protocol was approved yet?

 

[Akhenaten]

Considering your approach to this thread, how do you rate your chances of a polite response?

Hint: Aim low.

 

[chillzero]

Please remember to keep reponses in threads in this section strictly on topic to the Challenge.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[pavel_do]

I know its off topic..Mrs Moderator.. but still would like to post it..

Dear Boys and Girls.. Ho Ho Ho..
I know its a bit too yearly for Xmass letter, but since I am not sure that I will have an Internet access on xmass days, so sending you it now.

Marry Christmas and Happy new year to you and your beloved ones! Have a great holly days and a new year coming. Wishing you all the best, may all that you wish for 2009 will come true the way you want it, with allots of pleasant surprises!

Sincerely yours.

Pavel

 

[Akhenaten]

I'll join you on the Naughty List.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year Pavel, to you and yours.

Cheers.

Dave

 

[The Professor]

Does anyone know if Pavels revised protocol was approved yet?

Why no word on this approval?
What's the hold up?
It's been a MONTH!!!!!

 

[rjh01]

I would not worry, Professor. Sometimes applicants can take months to work out that they cannot work out a good protocol. Example here. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122607

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Why no word on this approval?
What's the hold up?
It's been a MONTH!!!!!

Rjh01 already made a valid point.
Also, the JREF lacks the resources to update the progess on each claim. I also find it unfortunate but we have to live with that - unless you want to donate a large sum and speed the process up.

And only a snarky cynic would say the JREF Staff's precious little time is often consumed by insincere applicants, wouldn't he?

 

[Klaymore]

So once the new protocol is vetted, where does Pavel get tested?

 

[Akhenaten]

So once the new protocol is vetted, where does Pavel get tested?

Pavel travels a bit, and if I recall correctly he was at one stage hoping that a test could be arranged to coincide with one of his visits to the United States.

 

[pavel_do]

Hello to everyone,
Well I am planing to go to US in April-May for a few weeks, so I could be tested while I am there, as according the rules my claim is expires in 1 year after submission that is June 5th. So I must be tested by that date.. As last time JREF said, now they finishing with claimant who's protocol is ready and only testing left.. than they get back to my.. It still takes time but, since till April there are still a few month, I guess it will be all arranged.

 

[RemieV]

A preliminary protocol has been completed and posted in Pavel's thread in the Challenge Applicants subforum.

Pavel - the application does not expire one year from submission. It expires one year from loss of contact with the applicant. Additionally, a failed test will bar a claimant from re-submitting an application for one year.

 

[Sparhawk]

The protocol states that the answer is disclosed at the end of each guess (yes/no). This may create bias in the claimant if they get too many consecutive no results.
What about only disclosing the answers at the end of the test to the claimant, but conduct an open test every hour, to determine that the claimant is still satisfied that his powers are working.

 

[Startz]

The protocol states that the answer is disclosed at the end of each guess (yes/no). This may create bias in the claimant if they get too many consecutive no results.
What about only disclosing the answers at the end of the test to the claimant, but conduct an open test every hour, to determine that the claimant is still satisfied that his powers are working.

My understanding is that it is Pavel's preference that the envelopes be opened immediately.