Random probability theory. Napalm continues! - page 14
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
teacher, did you graduate high school?
Did you graduate from high school yourself, buddy?
buddy, did you finish high school yourself?
Don't be rude, my eldest son almost graduated.
If the outcomes of the series are related, we gain additional a priori knowledge :) . But a fair coin certainly has no such connection. Why the question?
Is the series changed by looking at its history. yes or no?
If not, what is the probability that in a series of XX spins there will be no one outcome in principle?
Don't be rude, my eldest son almost graduated.
The question is the same as the answer. i keep to the framework - have the honour to behave as you do.
*I'm not a bad guy, I'm a bad guy. i'm a bad guy. i'm a bad guy. i'm a bad guy. i'm a bad guy. i'm a bad guy.
to whether the series changes from watching its history. yes-no?
If the outcome depends on us looking at the story, yes.
The three boxes have been dealt with more than once, the first time, if I remember correctly, 6 years ago on the Alpari forum.
*The three boxes problem has been solved many times, the first time, if memory serves me correctly, 6 years ago on the Alpari forum.
You can get it right, the probability does not increase.
you can at least get an image, the likelihood doesn't increase.
I feel sorry for you.
* and these people forbid me to pick my nose? (с)
I don't see anyone really trying to get into it.
ok
You come to the field of miracles, and Yakubovich is wiggling in front of you and says - here are 20 (twenty) boxes. According to MathRand(), there's money in them.
And then, boom, David Blaine shows up, takes you back 5 minutes, and you see that 19 boxes are empty.
Honestly, it's random. Honestly, it's random. You don't know about one box.
what about the probability? in the case of the three boxes, by changing your choice, you increase the odds, but here how? is there a chance to still get the money, or you will not even try? :-))
I'm trying to talk about the probabilities in a series, but all I keep getting is the probability of one(!) Last spin.
I'm trying to ask why everyone believes in the Fibo numbers (without proof, purely by statistics). Let's also add the number 3.14 - the Earth is round, so markets rotate on it. divide it by two or by four, we obtain nice ratios, and believe in them.
why does everyone flatly refuse to admit that according to the same statistics series have (in each area) a practical limit. Yes, there is a probability that a meteorite will hit the earth, a couple will be withdrawn from bidding, etc. - but why should we consider it, even theoretically? as dr. Howes said - if the diagnosis is that the patient will die - we are not interested in such a diagnosis, we are looking for another.
Further, I kept expecting sane mathematicians here, but here every other pando-trolls who can shit and can not think, even in a joking tone.
Let's imagine for a moment that a coin has a memory for exactly one spin (more exactly, let's assume that randomness is a change of previous state to any other possible one). And from this point of view let's review the theory. :-) or can we copy off formulas derived by someone else?
Such an approach has long been developed and is called Bayesian (search for Bayesian probability, approach or analysis). It differs from the classical "frequency" approach in that it uses a priori expectations and new data refine them and integrate them to obtain more accurate a posteriori assumptions.
If the outcomes depend on us looking at history, yes.
so do they or don't they. I asked you.
two examples.
you are given 20 closed spins - fair random. ask you what is the probability that there is no red.
your probability is the payout.
Option two - you are also given twenty spins, but are allowed to open 19.
conditions are the same.
Are the probabilities the same?
This approach has long been developed and is called Bayesian (search for Bayesian probability, approach or analysis). It differs from classical "frequency" in that it uses a priori expectations and new data refine them and integrate them to obtain more accurate a posteriori assumptions.
OK, thank you. At least someone's smart.
have you done this yourself?