Random probability theory. Napalm continues! - page 17
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
what is the potential? what is the potential?
price is not a physical object
the potential of traders' desires to start a rally.
But you don't need to, because it's clearly about electrostatic potential.
ed: oops. yes, that was ironic.
the potential for traders to want to start a rally.
but you don't need that, because it's clearly about electrostatic potential.
there is some statistically stable value that (having a certain accuracy) signals that the market is starting to store energy.?
I've already answered that - read it again. What you write is philology, psychology, etc. It has nothing to do with theorists.
Well, as you know, actually I thought it was easy enough to understand... By the way, the set-theoretic (and even classical) interpretation tells us exactly the same thing, I assure you, all said can be written down in formulas as well. However, if you want, you can calculate it yourself...
Agreed:
"This is an example of you being sure of the existence of some "really", absolute truth. But the problem is that even if it exists, it is fundamentally unknowable. So there is no "right", "in-the-fact" probability in reality either. It is different for everyone. To get the one, the absolute one, one would, strictly speaking, have to look at the universe from the outside, stop being part of it - then relative to us it would become a closed system, and hence become fully cognisable as well."
Spell it out in formulas - I'll see. The world holds its breath...
You've got it:
"This is an example of you being sure of the existence of some "really", absolute truth. But the problem is that even if it exists, it is fundamentally unknowable. So there is no "right", "in-the-fact" probability in reality either. It is different for everyone. To get the one, the absolute one, one would, strictly speaking, have to look at the universe from the outside, stop being part of it - then relative to us it would become a closed system, and hence become fully cognisable as well."
Spell it out in formulas - I'll see. The world holds its breath...
Just go already, you bigmouth.
I theme is also very interesting. not me of course with my advice to get into, but do not pay attention to such chatterboxes. You see that this branch just drowns in floods, do not respond to their posts and all ...
Now, everyone is probably familiar with both the reel and the task.
So has anyone checked with statistics, separately win/loss for
1- if you change the solution after the first door.
2- if you don't change the decision after the first door opens
The first event cannot be taken into account, because the presenter (by the terms of the problem) always opens the door, behind which there is no car.
In this formulation, the probability of a favourable outcome is always 0.5
The first event cannot be taken into account, because the presenter (according to the problem condition) always opens the door, behind which there is no car.
In this formulation, the probability of a favourable outcome is always 0.5
When only two of the three doors remain, the probability for one of them is 1/3, for the other 2/3.
The paradox of the three doors
The first event cannot be taken into account, because the presenter (according to the problem condition) always opens the door, behind which there is no car.
In this formulation, the probability of a favourable outcome is always 0.5.
And assuming that the organiser of the show is keen to keep the car, then changing the door only lowers the probability of winning.
In general, this is similar to the "duck" launched by the TV show organisers - both more spectacular and safer, when the contestant starts floundering at the choice.
when only two of the three doors remain, the probability for one of them is 1/3, for the other 2/3.
the paradox of the three doors
Take off the rose-coloured glasses.
The first event cannot be taken into account, because the presenter (according to the problem condition) always opens the door, behind which there is no car.
In this formulation, the probability of a favourable outcome is always 0.5.
Open any of the 3 and keep the statistics separately, cases where the result fell on the auto, and see.
You are being naughty with the example, then you had an example above - a bag and one ball in it, to which another ball is added.