0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: damocles on 05/05/2013 14:46:17Thankyou Yor_on! your example just highlights my reasoning! Because you only had a 1 in 100 chance of getting the first door right, then you are 99% sure if you change doors that you will be right after the game leader has opened 98 of themThat's not how probability works. Take a guess out of the 100 doors. Your probability of guessing right is 1/100. A door is opened and its empty. Regardles of whether you keep or change doors the probabiligy will be 1/99 of choosing the right one, and so on. This is different if you were playing the lottery. When playing the lottery always play the same number since its your goal to win in your lifetime, not merely today even if the chances of the new number you pick has the same probability of winning as any other number. Each problem is specific and needs to be addressed in each case. In the Montey Hall problem the winning door is never changed whereas in the lottery problem the number is always changed.
Thankyou Yor_on! your example just highlights my reasoning! Because you only had a 1 in 100 chance of getting the first door right, then you are 99% sure if you change doors that you will be right after the game leader has opened 98 of them
When playing the lottery always play the same number since its your goal to win in your lifetime, not merely today even if the chances of the new number you pick has the same probability of winning as any other number.
I disagree with these interpretations of quantum mechanics. A cat is a macroscopic animal whereas an atom is not. A cat is either alive or dead and not in a superposition of both.
That's not how the game works! If you choose the wrong door, the host is obliged to show you where the prize is by revealing the 98 doors where he knows the prize is not, giving you a sure pointer to the prize. So your chances of winning are 1% if you stand, but 99% if you swap.
Can you explain the reasoning here? you surely have the same chance whether you change your number each time or not.
As I understand it, the only criteria for selecting a lottery number is to avoid one that other people might be likely to pick too; it doesn't help your chances, but if you do win, you're less likely to be sharing the prize.
The probability of you getting more money during experiment number one is greater than that of number two.
Can you explain your reasoning why you expect differently?
In Monte Carlo simulation, the entire system is simulated a large number (e.g., 1000) of times. Each simulation is equally likely, referred to as a realization of the system. For each realization, all of the uncertain parameters are sampled (i.e., a single random value is selected from the specified distribution describing each parameter). The system is then simulated through time (given the particular set of input parameters) such that the performance of the system can be computed. This results is a large number of separate and independent results, each representing a possible “future” for the system (i.e., one possible path the system may follow through time). The results of the independent system realizations are assembled into probability distributions of possible outcomes. As a result, the outputs are not single values, but probability distributions."That one sound close to what I called 'patterns' to me. And the number fits too Anyone that have a simple example of it, maybe?
Then we just have randomness left it seems, and Pete's suggestion going the other way defining a ordered approach.
That's pure probability, as I read you JP But using uncertainty to lower a uncertainty of the other side, aka, not knowing the dices outcome before they show it? Is there really a way to do that? And a example of it please =Or better expressed, can you fight the dice or lottery's randomness by introducing your own randomness. It's not the exact same as what Pete suggested but the idea caught my imagination. Is it possible? And in what ways/situations?
Yes, I agree. Let me put it this way though, when I think of randomness then I do it from chaos. Maybe that's not correct but to me they become equivalent, although you might want to define randomness to superpositions microscopically, as a example of how I think versus chaos macroscopically. Even though you can call chaos deterministic, as in if we only knew all parameters we could describe it, I personally relate it to a randomness.
Maybe I could express it as I don't think there ever will a possibility of knowing the whole history, of anything. It seems to go through all physics that one, no matter what scales you look at it from?
So, either we define it as a 'random behavior' inherent in Chaos equations, or we call them deterministic. If they really are deterministic then we should be able to simplify a chaotic system to the degree where we can control all parameters, and so 'predict' its outcomes. But we can't do that, as far as I know. So that leaves us a randomness, but is it a same randomness as in the coin throws?
I'm very displeased that this thread has been taken so off topic that the actual topic is no longer being addressed.
What interests me is that if at the stage of having 98 goats staring out of opened doors and 2 closed doors, one of which has a prize, someone new enters the studio and is asked to choose a door, would he (or she) be given any advantage by asking what the previous person chose?
I just discovered the Khan Academy, ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINThis covers a number of areas of Maths & Science in a progressive and clear manner (I needed a statistics refresher)....although I am puzzled about how & why they combine "Science & Economics" into a single category??