Originally posted by Zymologist
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
First Gun Confiscation Killing...
Collapse
X
-
Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostOr cancer. Maybe cancer would be a better example. Or getting killed in an auto accident. Or having a heart attack. Or being struck by lightning...
or winning the lottery.
P.S. You're wrong about lightning. More USans die in mass shootings than from lightning strikes.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSorry Zym, but I'm going to disagree with you too. The chances of being exposed to the flu may increase every year but that still doesn't mean you contract it. I don't think it reaches anywhere near 95% even. That formula is too simplistic to define all the variables that make up the 5% - 20% yearly number. I'd be interested if anyone has the actual number, not one posited via a formula.This whole thing is just another Roy nitpick to avoid the topic by attacking an analogy with minutia.
A flu vaccine protects the person who gets it. If some-one doesn't get a flu vaccine, that won't remove the protection from some-one that does.
A gun confiscation protects other people. If some-one doesn't give up their guns that [u]does[/u[ remove the protection from some-one that does.
They are not comparable.
And again, flu was only introduced to avoid talking about the increased frequency of mass shootings.
As for "nit-picking," that's become your excuse to admitting you're wrong.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostIf
1) Each year 5-20% of USans get the flu.
And
2) You get the flu every year without a flu shot
Then
3) 80%-95% of Usans must be getting flu shots each year
But that's false, so one of your premises is wrong.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostNope, because I'm not wrong in this instance. You saying it over and over doesn't make you right either. The equation you posted to support Roy's number stated that there was statistically 100% chance that you would get the flu over your lifetime. That's just wrong. Both of you are wrong. There's a 5% - 20% chance every year that you will contract the flu. That doesn't accumulate because of the years you live. You'll have to do more to convince me than just your say so.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostI do, but the above doesn't involve either correlation or causation...as I now know you don't know.
noun
- a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.
Everything looks connected to me. an IF, IF, THEN statements are inherently correlation. I agree by the way that your example's conclusion is correct. But, these do not represent my premises...so, hence my statement. You continue to burn a straw man IMO."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostJim showed you the calculation. The reason you aren't convinced isn't because it's just his say so, it's because you think your inexperienced gut-feeling is more reliable than actually doing the calculation."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostA flu vaccine protects the person who gets it. If some-one doesn't get a flu vaccine, that won't remove the protection from some-one that does.
A gun confiscation protects other people. If some-one doesn't give up their guns that [u]does[/u[ remove the protection from some-one that does.
They are not comparable."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostGuys - this is basic stuff. The probabiliy of an event stays the same, per event, yes. But the probability there will HAVE BEEN a hit goes up with each event.
So, just like if I toss a coin, the probability I'll have seen at least one heads is 50% on the first toss, 75% on the second, 87.5% on the third and so on. The way you calculate that is 1 - (probability of a miss)<number of tries>
So if I take a single die with probabilty 1/6 that any of the 6 numbers pops up, then the pobability I get a 1 the first time is 1/6, the probability I will have seen a 1 after two tries is 1-(5/6)2 and so on.
When I play the lottery it's the same. And it doesn't matter if I play the same set of numbers or a random set of numbers each time, though it's more intuitive to think that sooner or later my numbers will come up. So if I play the lottery 14,000,000 times with a probability of winning of 1/14000000, then the probability is about 63.2%* I will have won at least 1 time.
Jim
*btw, anybody recognize what number we are running into here with that 63.2%? Very famous. Not pi
I get the idea of if you are trying to get a heads, the more flips you make the better your chances. But what if rather than trying to get heads, you were trying to match my flips? I flip a coin and you flip trying to match it. Would your odds go up with every flip then? If so, explain it to me.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI am not a mathematician - but I think you are wrong on the lottery thing. Each time would be the same odds. The current drawing is not related to the previous ones. You are not taking a second guess at the same number each week. You are trying to guess a new number each week. So each week you have a 1/14M chance.
I get the idea of if you are trying to get a heads, the more flips you make the better your chances. But what if rather than trying to get heads, you were trying to match my flips? I flip a coin and you flip trying to match it. Would your odds go up with every flip then? If so, explain it to me.
But to clarify the problem when two elements vary: consider If you are tossing a coin, and I am tossing a coin, and we want to know the probability of a match. Then the odds of the match is still 1/2. We can both get heads. or we can both get tails. Same with two die. will they match? there are 6 possible matches and 36 possible combinations. 1/6, same as the toss of a single die. So in this case, adding in the fact we need a match doesn't change the probability of a hit at all.
Now we are not taking all possible numbers in the lottery, so it is different in that we have to factor in number of possible combinations taken 6 at a time or whatever the number of numbers vs the number of picks is - as the case may be. But again, this is the problem of determining the probability of a single hit, a single event. We can assume the 1/14M is the probability of the match calculated under those circumstances, otherwise it would be false advertising.
Once the probability of a match is established( a hit ), then the probability of a hit over a given number of tries is determined by the same equation:
1 - (probability of a miss)<number of tries>
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View Post
Stop responding to LPOT? You've run away.
Keep playing whack-a-mole? You've got OCD."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIt's the same because we are dealing with the probability of a single event over the number of events and determining the odds of at least one instance of the event. The chance of the match, each time, is 1/14M. That defines the odds of the match. What you are concerned about is how we get that initial probability of a hit, which is a bit more complicated in the case of selecting some subset of numbers from a larger set and defining that as a 'hit'.
But to clarify the problem when two elements vary: consider If you are tossing a coin, and I am tossing a coin, and we want to know the probability of a match. Then the odds of the match is still 1/2. We can both get heads. or we can both get tails. Same with two die. will they match? there are 6 possible matches and 36 possible combinations. 1/6, same as the toss of a single die. So in this case, adding in the fact we need a match doesn't change the probability of a hit at all.
Now we are not taking all possible numbers in the lottery, so it is different in that we have to factor in number of possible combinations taken 6 at a time or whatever the number of numbers vs the number of picks is - as the case may be. But again, this is the problem of determining the probability of a single hit, a single event. We can assume the 1/14M is the probability of the match calculated under those circumstances, otherwise it would be false advertising.
Once the probability of a match is established( a hit ), then the probability of a hit over a given number of tries is determined by the same equation:
1 - (probability of a miss)<number of tries>
Jim
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostOK the odds are still 1/2 that they will match. But how do you get that the odds they will match is higher than that if you flip several times? Each time is a discrete event not related to the events before it. That is what I am not getting.
So back to my other joke comment... if the odds of you NOT catching the flu each year is 80%, then why doesn't THAT add up and after a few years the odds of you NOT catching the flu become close to 100%?
{ remembering x = (probability of a miss)<number of tries> }
Consider a die with 6 faces, so saying I won't get a one on the first toss is similar to saying you won't get the flu this year, and has a similar probability - 5/6. But what about not getting a 1 on either of two tosses? Both event probabilities are the same, but the odds of not getting a one on either toss is (5/6)2, which is 25/36<5/6.
Can we validate this? Can I show I'm not just making this up? Sure. here are all the possible pairs of tosses.
1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6
2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,6
3,1 3,2 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,6
4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6
5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4 5,5 5,6
6,1 6,2 6,3 6,4 6,5 6,6
So how many are there with 1's in them? 11. And 36-11 = 25. So there are 25 that don't have a 1. There you go - 25 out of 36 is your odds after 2 tries of not getting a 1. And that is what we get from the formula, 25/36 :).
So back to your scenario. If you have an 80% chance you won't catch the flu this year, and next, and the next, over your entire life, then the probability you will NEVER catch the flu (assuming you live 80 years) becomes .880, which is .000002%, or very UNlikely, which incidentally when added to the probability from the other formula you WILL get the flu for a 20% chance of catching it, is 1, as it should be.
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 11-15-2018, 02:13 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostCareful. We are not saying the odds change on the second flip. We are looking at the odds it matched on the first flip OR the second flip OR both flips. The probability that after two tries, you will have seen at least 1 match.
Because it's the complementary problem. That is, this problem is just the complement of the 'will catch it' problem, which means it is defined not by 1 - x, but x itself
{ remembering x = (probability of a miss)<number of tries> }
Consider a die with 6 faces, so saying I won't get a one on the first toss is similar to saying you won't get the flu this year, and has a similar probability - 5/6. But what about not getting a 1 on either of two tosses? Both event probabilities are the same, but the odds of not getting a one on either toss is (5/6)2, which is 25/36<5/6.
Can we validate this? Can I show I'm not just making this up? Sure. here are all the possible pairs of tosses.
1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6
2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,6
3,1 3,2 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,6
4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6
5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4 5,5 5,6
6,1 6,2 6,3 6,4 6,5 6,6
So how many are there with 1's in them? 11. And 36-11 = 25. So there are 25 that don't have a 1. There you go - 25 out of 36 is your odds after 2 tries of not getting a 1. And that is what we get from the formula, 25/36 :).
So back to your scenario. If you have an 80% chance you won't catch the flu this year, and next, and the next, over your entire life, then the probability you will NEVER catch the flu (assuming you live 80 years) becomes .880, which is .000002%, or very UNlikely, which incidentally when added to the probability from the other formula you WILL get the flu for a 20% chance of catching it, is 1, as it should be.
Jim
PS there are 12 1's.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
PS there are 12 1's.
Jim
* each comma separated pair is 'an event' where an event is a possible sequence of 2 tosses of the die. So perhaps it would have been clearer to say "How many events have at least one 1 in them".Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-15-2018, 03:12 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Ronson, Today, 08:45 AM
|
5 responses
48 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 03:01 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-03-2024, 01:19 PM
|
26 responses
205 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:06 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-03-2024, 12:23 PM
|
100 responses
421 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 07:45 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-03-2024, 11:46 AM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 06:52 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-03-2024, 04:37 AM
|
23 responses
115 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
05-03-2024, 02:49 PM
|
Comment