Author Topic: Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"  (Read 1112 times)

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #30 on: September 18, 2004, 04:48:22 PM »
There is however a chance you could miss all three.

If you took a thousand shots there is still a slight chance that you could miss all of them.

Probability remains uncertain. No matter how many times you shoot, the possibility that you make just one of however many times you try never achieves 100%.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #31 on: September 18, 2004, 05:07:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hortlund
google on it. The statement is simply not true because there is no memory in random numbers.


The same can be said for my statement then cant it? ;)

roll em enoght times and you will get there.

Offline Tuomio

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 523
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #32 on: September 18, 2004, 07:41:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
There is however a chance you could miss all three.


Yes, a 12.5% chance.

Quote
If you took a thousand shots there is still a slight chance that you could miss all of them.
[/b]

Of course, chance would be close to zero but nevertheless its present. Are you trying to prove something here?

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #33 on: September 18, 2004, 07:56:07 PM »
I explained the statistical fallacy of the following statement:

Quote
You see, if the dice are thrown often enough, eventually you will get all numbers in the possible range. just a question of time.


Hortland correctly stated that there is no memory in random numbers.  

A statement similar to the one above that would be correct is "The longer your series of throws of the dice, the greater your chance of covering all the combinations within that series."  but the chance never attains dead bang certainty.  If you want that last combination the chance of each throw is still 1:36.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Tuomio

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 523
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #34 on: September 19, 2004, 06:52:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
A statement similar to the one above that would be correct is "The longer your series of throws of the dice, the greater your chance of covering all the combinations within that series."  but the chance never attains dead bang certainty.  If you want that last combination the chance of each throw is still 1:36.


But there is a problem with infinite throws, because the test stops only when all the numbers have been thrown. If there is only one possible outcome, then you dont have to even start throwing, you already know the result.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #35 on: September 19, 2004, 11:01:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... been awhile since I studied statistics and probability, but I'm guessing that you're referencing some limit theorem that I don't recall.

Maybe DMF knows.



Okay... I'm guessing that some hypergeometric distribution applies.

DMF?
sand

Offline Mini D

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6897
      • Fat Drunk Bastards
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #36 on: September 19, 2004, 11:20:33 AM »
Holden and Hortlund are correct on the probability theories.

The likelyness of your numbers being a match do not increase with the number of times numbers are picked.  You'd be just as likely to win (if not more likely) picking random numbers every time.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2004, 12:47:31 PM »
Discussion of Borel's Law

The first is Probability and Life, a 1962 Dover English translation of the French version published in 1943 as Le Probabilites et la Vie. The second is Probability and Certainty, a 1963 Dover English translation of the French version published in 1950 as Probabilite et Certitude. Both of these books are "science for the non-scientist" type books rather than scholarly treatments of the theory of probability.

In Probability and Life, Borel states a "single law of chance" as the principle that "Phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur". At the beginning of Chapter Three of this book, he states:

When we stated the single law of chance, "events whose probability is sufficiently small never occur," we did not conceal the lack of precision of the statement. There are cases where no doubt is possible; such is that of the complete works of Goethe being reproduced by a typist who does not know German and is typing at random. Between this somewhat extreme case and ones in which the probabilities are very small but nevertheless such that the occurrence of the corresponding event is not incredible, there are many intermediate cases. We shall attempt to determine as precisely as possible which values of probability must be regarded as negligible under certain circumstances.

It is evident that the requirements with respect to the degree of certainty imposed on the single law of chance will vary depending on whether we deal with scientific certainty or with the certainty which suffices in a given circumstance of everyday life.

The point being, that Borel's Law is a "rule of thumb" that exists on a sliding scale, depending on the phenomenon in question. It is not a mathematical theorem, nor is there any hard number that draws a line in the statistical sand saying that all events of a given probability and smaller are impossible for all types of events.

Borel continues by giving examples of how to choose such cutoff probabilities. For example, by reasoning from the traffic death rate of 1 per million in Paris (pre-World War II statistics) that an event of probability of 10-6 (one in a million) is negligible on a "human scale". Multiplying this by 10-9 (1 over the population of the world in the 1940s), he obtains 10-15 as an estimate of negligible probabilities on a "terrestrial scale".

To evaluate the chance that physical laws such as Newtonian mechanics or laws related to the propagation of light could be wrong, Borel discusses probabilities that are negligible on a "cosmic scale", Borel asserts that 10-50 represents a negligible event on the cosmic scale as it is well below one over the product of the number of observable stars (109) times the number of observations that humans could make on those stars (1020).

To compute the odds against a container containing a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen spontaneously segregating into pure nitrogen on the top half and pure oxygen on the bottom half, Borel states that for equal volumes of oxygen and nitrogen the odds would be 2-n where n is the number of atoms, which Borel states as being smaller than the negligible probability of 10-(10(-10)), which he assigns as the negligible probability on a "supercosmic" scale. Borel creates this supercosmos by nesting our universe U1 inside successive supercosmoses, each with the same number of elements identical to the preceding cosmos as that cosmos has its own elements, so that U2 would be composed of the same number of U1's as U1 has atoms, and U3 would be composed of the same number of U2's as U2 has U1's, and so forth on up to UN where N=1 million. He then creates a similar nested time scale with the base time of our universe being a billion years (T2 would contain a billion, billion years) on up to TN, N=1 million. Under such conditions of the number of atoms and the amount of time, the probability of separating the nitrogen and oxygen by a random process is still so small as to be negligible.

Ultimately, the point is that the user must design his or her "negligible probability" estimate based on a given set of assumed conditions.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2004, 12:55:58 PM »
Interesting...

Quote
The point being, that Borel's Law is a "rule of thumb" that exists on a sliding scale, depending on the phenomenon in question. It is not a mathematical theorem, nor is there any hard number that draws a line in the statistical sand saying that all events of a given probability and smaller are impossible for all types of events.



In essence, Nilsen is arguing that it is mathematically possible while Borel's Law says it's so close to impossible, you might as well call it impossible.

Right?
sand

Offline lasersailor184

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8938
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2004, 12:57:57 PM »
You guys are placing the word "Will" into the place of the word called "May."  Meaning that there are equal chances of a certain number being picked each time.


But don't forget to use murphy's law.  Your lottery number will never get picked until you acknowledge that and change the number.
Punishr - N.D.M. Back in the air.
8.) Lasersailor 73 "Will lead the impending revolution from his keyboard"

Offline Mini D

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6897
      • Fat Drunk Bastards
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2004, 01:01:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
Interesting...




In essence, Nilsen is arguing that it is mathematically possible while Borel's Law says it's so close to impossible, you might as well call it impossible.

Right?
Actually, Nilsen is arguing that it is likely, not probable... given enough drawings.  Borel's law says it's just as probabable (very very very very very unlikely) that it will happen... to the point of being impossible.

There is a difference... especially given the context of nilsen's statement.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #41 on: September 20, 2004, 01:11:05 PM »
The way I see it, Borels law is the Occhams razor of probabilities.

Offline RTSigma

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1318
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2004, 05:18:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ASTAC
In the year 1999, high above Macross Island in the South Pacific, a phenominal event ocurred in the skies which altered the course of human history



Great, just great, Zentraedi's.......

Sigma of VF-17 JOLLY ROGERS

Offline Nifty

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #43 on: September 21, 2004, 11:10:49 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by RTSigma
Great, just great, Zentraedi's.......

oh, they don't show up until 10 years after the "Visitor" gets here.  Since it hasn't gotten here yet, the countdown until they show up hasn't started.  ;)

Then, are you gonna go by the Harmony Gold version (Masters and Invid) or the regular versions of Macross, II, and Plus?  :)

As for the probability stuff, it just depends on if Borel's Law would apply to the 1:22,957,480 odds of say the Florida Lottery, and also how you interpret the Law.  If you interpret "negligible probability" to mean "at this probability, this event will NEVER happen" then Borel's Law does NOT apply to a lottery.  Simple explanation is the fact people do win lotteries, so obviously their numbers have been picked.

So, 1:22,957,480 odds for a lottery, IMO, does not fall under Borel's Law.  The chance is not small enough to say that it will never happen.  Again, it seems that what the law applies to and when it applies are subjective.
proud member of the 332nd Flying Mongrels, noses in the wind since 1997.

Offline Mini D

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6897
      • Fat Drunk Bastards
Nostradamus "In The Year 1999"
« Reply #44 on: September 21, 2004, 11:14:16 AM »
Actually, that's a missinterpretation.

Most (nearly all) people playing the lottery will never wind.  If they lived to be a million and the lottery were running during that time, they'd still never win.  That's what makes the statement "if I kept playing the same lottery numbers eventually I'd win" wrong.  Most likely, you'd never win.