Random probability theory. Napalm continues! - page 12
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
statistically, live dinosaurs are more likely to be encountered by those with no knowledge of palaeontology at all?
The law of inverse proportionality between the probability of encountering a living dinosaur and the amount of knowledge in palaeontology?
We mean probability, you mean statistics.
PapaYozh is the founder of the new science of Relative Probability Theory.
One of the conclusions of this science is that man's complete ignorance of the even distribution of coin tosses in a game of horoscope turns it into a game with a deterministic outcome - a coin falls out on one side only.
The bitching coin, before each flip, scans the brain of the flipper and makes a decision about the result of the flip based on his knowledge
Imagine someone meets a living dinosaur (or dinosaur him/her) on a daily basis. Did it work ?
What if someone called their cat a "dinosaur" ?
It's not even mat statistics anymore - it's biology and linguistics
PapaYozh is the founder of the new science of Relative Probability Theory.
One of the conclusions of this science is that man's complete ignorance of the even distribution of coin tosses in a game of horoscope turns it into a game with a deterministic outcome - a coin falls out on one side only.
You should not show off your ignorance.
You don't have to stick out your ignorance.
Let it stick out - I'm not ashamed.
And why ignorance is a complete analogy with the dinosaur story
So, if I am not a paleontologist and know nothing about paleontology, then for me the probability of going out and meeting a living dinosaur = 0.5? Get over it.
This probability is the same for all people, regardless of their degree of awareness of palaeontology, and it is not 0.5 at all. This is an example of a "false" probability.
You have the knowledge that you're going out in 2012 and that you're talking about animals that went extinct millions of years ago. But you're right that 0.5 isn't a probability, it's an estimate. And the best estimate in the absence of information is an equal probability of events. Best in terms of minimising prediction error. Although the criterion for better)) may be different.
As the number of outings increases, the probability estimate will change, and so will its accuracy. And with an infinite number of exits)) the probability estimate will converge to the probability itself. But only if the conditions have not changed. So in practice one always deals with probability estimation, while probability itself is an abstract concept.
You have the awareness that you are going out in 2012 and that you are talking about animals that have been extinct for millions of years. But you're right that 0.5 isn't a probability, it's an estimate. And the best estimate in the absence of information is an equal probability of events. Best in terms of minimising prediction error. Although the criterion for better)) may be different.
As the number of exits increases, the probability estimate will change, as will its accuracy. And with an infinite number of exits)), the probability estimate will converge to the probability itself. But only if the conditions have not changed. Therefore, in practice you always deal with probability estimation, and probability itself is an abstract concept.
I couldn't agree more.
Absolutely not obvious. If I don't know which of two events is more likely, I answer "I don't know".
When a person answers without knowing that they are equally likely, it is called false probability
You stubbornly link your own probability of the event occurring to the probability that can be determined by the observer. For example, take an electron. Its probability of being in two places at once is substantially greater than zero. But you detect it as a particle with a precise location in space-time. So for you its probability of appearing at the other end of the world is zero, while for him the probability is non-zero. Moreover, both probability estimates are true for each observer, although there is only one observation object.
You are stubbornly linking your own probability of an event occurring to the probability that can be determined by the observer. For example, take an electron. Its probability of being in two places at once is substantially greater than zero. But you detect it as a particle with a precise location in space-time. So for you its probability of appearing at the other end of the world is zero, while for him the probability is non-zero. Moreover, both probability estimates are true each for its observer, although the object of observation is only one.
For example, take a coin and everything falls into place - the probability of both heads and tails falling out at the same time for you and the observer is 0.
P.S. If the probability of encountering a living dinosaur is different for you and an outside observer (observing you), this is not a theorist, it is psychiatry
Information is primary, matter is secondary. Or rather, matter is tertiary and wave is secondary.
is there a god? the same thing.