Random probability theory. Napalm continues! - page 13
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
For example, take a coin and everything will fall into place - the probability of both heads and tails falling out simultaneously for you and for the observer will be 0.
P.S. If the probability of encountering a living dinosaur is different for you and for an outsider (observing you), it is no longer a theorist, it is psychiatry
I have a coin with no heads, how do I do that?
And it has such a thickness that it has chances to fall on a rib, on which it is written "DECUS ET TUTAMEN".
And in general, you talk about Thomas, and you - about Yeroma.
I have a coin without an eagle, what about that?
And it is so thick that it has a chance of falling on a rib that says "DECUS ET TUTAMEN" on it.
Anyway, it's about Thomas, and you - about Eurya.
What if the coin also has no tails? What if there is something written on the edge, but it is illegible? What if it's not a coin at all, but a spherical horse in a vacuum? What if it is not a horse, but a coin, but enchanted? What if there's no coin and no horse, but the orderlies forgot to bring the pill again?
What if the grandmother were a grandfather?
What about it?
ok
you come to the field of miracles, you see Yakubovich wiggling and saying - here are 20 (twenty) boxes. according to MathRand(), there is random money in them. choose one.
and then bang - David Blaine shows up, takes you back 5 minutes and you see that the 19 boxes are empty.
Fair enough, it's random. Fair enough, it's random. You don't know about one box.
what's the odds? With three boxes, by changing your choice, you increase the odds, but what about this? Any chance of getting the money, or you won't even try?
I'm trying to talk about series probabilities, but they keep trying to stick me with the probability of one(!) last spin.
I'm trying to ask why everyone believes in the Fibo numbers (without proof, just for statistics). Let's go with number 3, too.14 - the Earth is round, so markets rotate on it. divide 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 the series have (in each area) a practical limit. why not start with that? yes, there is a possibility that a meteorite will hit the earth, a couple will be taken off the market etc. - but why should we consider it, even theoretically? as dr. house said - if the diagnosis is that the patient will die - we are not interested in this diagnosis, look for another.
further I was waiting for sane mathematicians here, while here are pando-trolls, capable of shit and unable to think, even in joking tone.
let's imagine for a moment that a coin has a memory for exactly one spin (more precisely, let's assume that randomness is a change of previous state to any of the other possible). and from this position let's review the theory. :-) or can we copy off formulas derived by someone else?
GameOver:
в случае с тремя шкатулками, меняя свой выбор, вы увеличиваете шансы
I don't see anyone really trying to get into it.
And yourself? What does additional a priori knowledge (peeking) have to do with a series of coin tosses?
Has nothing better been thought of in six years?
And yourself? What does additional a priori knowledge (peeking) have to do with a series of coin tosses?
Has nothing better been thought of in six years?
ok, let's not peek. what does it change. how does a pre-formed series change from what we peeked at or not? will the number of outcomes suddenly change or what?
it's a delusion, the odds don't change.
*Go to the three box problem. D.
or the problem of the three boxes. D's.
teacher, did you graduate high school in time?
how does a pre-formed series change from what we peeked at or not? will the number of outcomes suddenly change or what?
the answer to the first question is: who says it cannot be used? if the object is suitable, the wind is in the wind. and if it is not, then of course it cannot be used.
The second: trying to improve or supplement the classic terra firma is akin to inventing the perpetual motion machine. if it were a new discipline suitable for describing the market, then yes, it is a worthy thing.
Let's find out how... I found it, but are you interested? Or am I singing for nothing...
trying to find the grail is eternal. does that mean you don't have to look for it? :-)))))
and the market... the market is subject to statistics no less than any other phenomenon.
why do you give up in advance, why do you think that the terrier cannot be supplemented?
we have to lie down, all is lost? everything was discovered before us?