15 Apr 08
Originally posted by deriver69Why should i have to explain YOUR errant stoopidity and superficial arrogance, hmmmm? Give me a break. Your simulation only reflects your interpretation of this poorly worded problem, in other words you are forcing a permutaions calculation when a combinations calculation is also equally valid.
That is pure rhetoric. Can you explain away the fact that when I actually simulated this (despite knowing I didnt need to) the results were consistent with 67% not 50%?
Incidently I have a friend who was teased by his older sister, another friend who teased his younger sister, they are clearly two different things.
(PS have another friend who loved her younger brother but she is another story)
15 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by eldragonflySometimes I think you just cut up a copy of the National Enquirer and paste the words back together in random order when you talk to us.
Why should i have to explain YOUR errant stoopidity and superficial arrogance, hmmmm? Give me a break. Your simulation only reflects your interpretation of this poorly worded problem, in other words you are forcing a permutaions calculation when a combinations calculation is also equally valid.
15 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by eldragonflyWhy don't you try paying attention. Especially since others are patiently taking the time to explain things properly to you (seeing as how you frickin suck at probability). I applaud them for their diligent efforts in light of the fact that you have been nothing but a smug twit in response.
Pay attention.
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloOne of these days, the US Navy is going to get a hold of eldragonfly's noggin and start making impenetrable bulkheads. eldragonfly, your gifts are many but time is too short.
Why don't you try paying attention. Especially since others are patiently taking the time to explain things properly to you (seeing as how you frickin suck at probability). I applaud them for their diligent efforts in light of the fact that you have been nothing but a smug twit in response.
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by eldragonflyActually all I did was examine 500 examples and see how many fitted the criteria. Actually you can use combinations if you use for example :
Why should i have to explain YOUR errant stoopidity and superficial arrogance, hmmmm? Give me a break. Your simulation only reflects your interpretation of this poorly worded problem, in other words you are forcing a permutaions calculation when a combinations calculation is also equally valid.
X~B(2,.5)
P(X=0) = .25
P(X=1) = .5
P(X=2) = .25
Required probability = P(X=1)/P(X>=1) = .5/.75=2/3
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloAnd i applaud you and the others for their errant self-induced stoopidity. Bravo!
Why don't you try paying attention. Especially since others are patiently taking the time to explain things properly to you (seeing as how you frickin suck at probability). I applaud them for their diligent efforts in light of the fact that you have been nothing but a smug twit in response.
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by PBE6What, you mean it's over now? I certainly hope not. I'm interested if some people ever learn the same way I'm interested in soap operas. I know it's stupid, but I just got to see the next episode. My every answer is in fact a cliff-hanger.
I applaud you for making this thread last almost 500 posts!!! Bravo! 🙂
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by kbaumenI hear ya, I feel the same way. Maybe eldragonfly has a twin?!? How else could he have murdered Jade and still made it back to the Harper estate in time for Jenessa's sweet sixteen? 😲
What, you mean it's over now? I certainly hope not. I'm interested if some people ever learn the same way I'm interested in soap operas. I know it's stupid, but I just got to see the next episode. My every answer is in fact a cliff-hanger.
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by deriver69He, let's put some gasoline in the fire.
I think this thread ought to assume legendary status and run into 4 figures. It brings fond memories of 6 of us trying to explain to a chemistry lecturer the monty hall problem, he couldnt see it either.
Eldragonfly, do you know the Monty Hall problem?
quoted from Wikipedia
Suppose you're on a game show and you're given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. The car and the goats were placed randomly behind the doors before the show. The rules of the game show are as follows: After you have chosen a door, the door remains closed for the time being. The game show host, Monty Hall, who knows what is behind the doors, now has to open one of the two remaining doors, and the door he opens must have a goat behind it. If both remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses one randomly. After Monty Hall opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door. Imagine that you chose Door 1 and the host opens Door 3, which has a goat. He then asks you "Do you want to switch to Door Number 2?" Is it to your advantage to change your choice?
15 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by eldragonflyOK, I'm finished with you. You get caught in a statement so demonstrably false that even you can't deny you're wrong...so you ignore the refutation and fall back on the old "poorly worded question" defence. The question was rock solid. It's not just conditional probability you don't understand, it's the English language.
Unless for the sake of argument, you pose an similar question, the youngest is a boy. The question is equivalent and satisfies both condition... and then your logic fails. Again a poorly worded problem, again the same profusion of thick incoherent nonsense.
I think you're winding us up. I know this stuff, can pretty much do it in my sleep. I've taught maths at degree level, and while I've taught plenty of people who don't understand stuff, most people can realise when they don't understand it. I've never met someone quite so resistant to recognising when they are wrong. You can do simulations of these problems, and the results of the simulations agree with us. So you're arguing with the universe here. It takes a hell of a lot of arrogance to assume you are right and the universe it wrong.
Good luck everybody. See you in a different thread.