/lit/ - Literature

The Emigrants
We just don't know.

>>12301657
What do you mean you don’t know? Not even an approximation?

>>12301634
Moby Dick
Nearly 100%

>>12301634
How many specks in each box?

The Holy Bible
Nearly 100%

>>12301748
The number shouldn’t affect your response. Most people either say nearly 100% or 50%

>>12301634
slightly less than 50% provided the equal number of specks in each box

>>12301634
I don't get why you'd say 50% unless it's a purposely dumb meme answer.

>>12301772
Are willing to make a wager? You pick a gold speck. My $1,000 against your $10 says the next speck will be gold.

>>12301757
I want to know the probability of getting the single gold speck in the middle box. op never said we can't ask

>>12301792
It doesn’t matter. Provide your own number. It’s a test of intuition, not quantitative skills

>>12301788
Because people who like the god delusion are brainlets

>>12301634
Noddy Goes to Toyland
Just under 100%.

Brothers Karamazov
~100%

>>12301790
bitch if i had 10 fucking dollars on me i would be drunk right now and not posting on Taiwanese puppet show imageboard

It is nearly 100%, more precisely it is y/y+1 where y is the number of gold flakes. I had a proof written, but the page crashed.

>>12301796
I don't have a favorite book because I'm older than 8 and your game is stupid. The chance of picking the single golden speck in the middle is relevant to the question, this is crucial information to determine how close the chance is - on second pick - to get gold. It is a quantitative assessment exercise whether you like it or not. Also I would btfo you in poker

>>12301847
Answer this one, then

Are you supposed to think of it as what are the odds of picking the gold flake out of the middle box or the odds of the next flake being gold? I was never good at stats

>>12301634
Talmud
50%

given that you chose a golden speck, the third box is out. you either pick the only golden speck in the second, or one of the hundreds of the first. so the remaining specks are either silver of gold: 50-50

>>12301869
Why do you think most anons ITT disagree with you?

>>12301864
2/3?

its 50%, the third box is completely out of the equation at that point and the other two boxes are equal.

>>12301867
It’s asking you which box you pulled the speck out of

>>12301864
Not him, 50%

>>12301864
50 percent to the six balls one

Ok people are arguing over this so I'll rewrite my proof (I'm on mobile).

Proof: let y be the number of flakes in the 1st box the x in the 2nd. Forget the literal boxes and tag each flake to represent where it came from. The chances of pulling a gold flake is y+1/x+y, but we already have picked a gold flake. Hence we can discard the silver flakes as they do not effect the probability. Thus there are y+1 flakes, where y are from the first box. Thus there is a y/y+1 chance of pulling a flake from the 1st box, which is near 100% for large numbers. QED.

Note this is true for all y,x greater than 2 since it doesn't make sense for anything less, but this is just an observation. The number of flakes in each box doesn't really matter if both are above that.

>>12301883
You cant be serious

>>12301864
(3/6 * 1/2) / (1/2) = 0.5?

>>12301885
Ok but it's not intuitive which way to solve it because I got >>12301877 2/3 for the ball one

>>12301904
The OP pic is the dumbed down versions for brainlets. You’re fine...

>>12301634
n/n+1

n=total number of specks in the "gold dust" box

>>12301904
Ya it would be, see my proof above>>12301891

>>12301917
and catcher in the rye

>>12301917
Why did I get n/2n-1?

>>12301886
>>12301889
>>12301899
Please google "conditional probability" before continuing to post in this thread. The fact that the drawn ball is gold shifts the distribution of outcomes for the second draw. The answer is unequivocally 2/3.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_box_paradox

>>12301926
Show your proof, but I think it is because you're including the silver flakes.

>>12301864
interesting as this is the same problem as the OP pick, so the answer is still n/n+1, although i would have said 50% for this one for some reason.

>>12301937
(1/3)/(1/3 + 1/3*1/2) = 2/3

>>12301963
Why not include the silver flakes?

99.9%

>>12301963
>>12302057

Nevermind I got it

>>12301634
Notes from Underground
The probabilty is so absolute that it is virtually 100%.

>>12301788
I'm guessing it's to do with the number of specks not being stated so yuh cant no nuffin other than it is definatly 1/2

>>12301864
See, given a number, this is wildy different
As in, a totally different problem.

Gravity's Rainbow
uhh?

>>12301634
>50%
This has to be bait

>>12302135
How? It's the same math

>>12302157
I meant, method for answer is the same, final answer is not.

East of Eden
Nearly 100%

all the brainlets saying 50% are forgetting that the question is "the probability on the rest of the box being gold"

yes there are two boxes containing gold specks. and if you were choosing between these two boxes without having pulled any specks out of them before, you would have a nearly 50% chance of choosing the solid gold box.

HOWEVER, we have pulled a gold speck out of our box. We know therefore that unless we chose the only gold speck in the silver box, which is extremely, extremely unlikely, our box is likely to be the gold box.

The probability is nearly 100% that our box was the all gold box.

>>12301634
>The Histories by Herodotus
It's obviously 50%. God damn, common core really fucked people up, huh?

>all these brainlets who think that two possible outcomes means 50-50 chance

this is why eugenics is neccesary

>steals your gold box

>>12302180
>something either happens or it doesn't, so the chance is 50%
>must be uneducated lmao

>>12302182
There was a 50% chance for Hillary to win.

>>12302192
>how can I bring politics into this?

>>12302174
>we chose the only gold speck in the silver box, which is extremely, extremely unlikely
That isn't the question, though. We do not even start the equation until after the gold spec is picked up. Even if getting the gold spec out of box #2 is a chance of 1 in a million, it is completely irrelevant.

>>12301734
I'm skeptical about the concept of knowledge.

>>12302191
>given that you chose a gold speck
Come on, dude. Don't be a nigger. The question is laid out quite clearly. This is a /lit/ board. Have some reading comprehension.

>>12301634
99.99999999999%

>>12302204
Right, because even though you’ll select the gold speck hundreds of times out of the first box before ever finally picking it out of the second box, you’ll keep repeating 50/50, expecting both boxes to produce the gold speck at an equal amount over time, right???

>>12302204
>>12302204
It's relevant because the question is like asking what are the odds the gold flake was from box A

>>12302204
No, that's how i saw it at first too, but the equations starts before you pick the gold speck. In order for you to have a 50% probability of having chosen the gold box, there would have to be an even chance of you pulling the gold speck out of each box. There is not. Pulling the gold speck out itself tells us that the answer is one of those two boxes, but it does not make it evenly probable that the speck came either one. It's still vastly more probable that you already chose the gold box.

>>12302216
I show you the boxes. You know that one will always give you gold, one will never give you gold, and one will almost always give you silver. You pick a box at random. You pick a gold speck at random. Now I ask you...
“GIVEN that you picked a gold speck, which box did you probably choose?”
Do you actually think there’s a 50/50 chance you chose the middle box? If you played the game 900 times, you will choose box 1 300 times. Therefore on 300 occasions you will pick a gold speck, and I will ask you,”Given that you picked a gold speck...”
Since you think the answer is 50/50, do you actually think the middle box would produce the gold speck 150 times?

>>12302258
>Since you think the answer is 50/50, do you actually think the middle box would produce the gold speck 150 times?
Well, obviously I'd pick the gold speck every time. It's not like I'm blindfolded.

>>12302291
>at random
Nice try

There's not enough information to answer. You would have to know the chance of picking the one gold speck out of the silver box.

>>12301634
Anyone who says 50% is literally retarded.
>close your eyes and select a box
>without looking, select a speck of dust from the box
>it's gold
>now guess which box you chose from
>if you're right, you get a million dollars
>if you're wrong, you get shot in the head
If you are a 50%er then you should be indifferent between guessing box 1 or box 2.

>>12302300
everyone who isn't a pedant is assuming the odds to be greater than zero, but very close to zero. the actual odds are not important. just assume it's infinitesimally small

>>12301864
The answer is 50%. At this point the box in front of is one of two boxes. Each possibility is equally likely.
I don't like that answer though because the chance is higher that you pulled a gold ball out of the gold box to begin with. But you know it has to be from one of those two boxes, so the chance you pulled a gold from the gold box is 2/3?
Would it be 2/3?

>>12301864
This is diff from the first. The first question is about 90.90% you will get the whole gold box.
In this question it’s 50%


I have a few favorite authors. Favorite lit is surrealism

>>12302323
>each probability is equally likely
>proceeds to explain why this is not the case
wtf anon

>>12302323
>Each possibility is equally likely.
brainlet that you are. it is not equally likely that you pulled a gold speck from the silver box, as if you pulled one from the all gold box. What are the odds of pulling a gold speck from the all gold box? What are the odds of pulling one from the mostly silver box?

>all the people in this thread getting baited
holy fucking shit /lit/, you are worse than /pol/

>>12302336
he's talking about the balls not the specks

>>12302320
That's fair but I like to be precise when I'm answering shit like this because oftentimes people will use your own lack of rigor to trick you.

>>12301869
The odds of picking a speck of gold where there are a shit ton of silver specks it’s slim

>>12302330
Wrong>>12302258

attention 50%ers (to the OP problem or the original posted later itt):

I will play this game with you irl. A neutral third party will recreate the scenario. Each time the second speck / ball is drawn from the pure gold box, you will give me a dollar. Each time it is drawn from the other box, I will give you a dollar and twenty five cents. If you are so confident, you should have no problem playing this game for say, 10000 rounds.

>>12302335
>>12302336
I changed my mind halfway through hbut wanted to leave my initial reasoning.

>>12302341
my bad

>>12301634
You pick a box at random, 1/3, and then pick a speck at random, 1/y, y being the number of specks in each box. The chance that you pick any one speck is 1/3y, which is a very small fraction. You have picked a gold speck, meaning you picked either box 1 or box 2. Your chance of picking that gold speck, period, was y+1/3y. If you picked it from box 1 (1/3), your chance was y/y, if you picked it from box 2 (1/3), your chance was 1/y. Your overall chance for a box 1 gold speck is 1/3, your overall chance for a box 2 gold speck is 1/3y. I don't know where to go from here, but statistically there is a much better chance you picked from box 1. If I was a betting man, I'd wager all my money that the rest of the box was gold.

My favorite book is Fear and Trembling

>>12301634
I dunno, maybe something by Hesse or J. Krishnamurti.

If there are infinitely many (countably or not, doesn't matter) specks of dust in the silver dust boxes then the answer is exactly 1 (100%). If there are only finitely many specks of dust, then the answer is (1-e) for some small e>0 depending on the number of specks of dust.

>>12301864
Guys it's not 50/50.

If you pulled a gold ball, there is a greater than 50/50 chance that you're in box 1 because there are two gold balls in that box but in box two there is only a 50% chance that you will draw a gold ball.

I believe the chances of you drawing the gold ball from box two (ignoring the existence of box 3, which I think you are allowed to do here), are 0.5*0.5=0.25. Therefore there is a 25% chance that you are in box 2 and a 75% chance that you are in box 1. My math might be wrong but it is definitely not 50/50.

>>12302348
Wrong where??

>>12302370
Why are you multiplying?

>>12302373
>50%
So long as the the ratio of gold to silver is higher in the left box, the answer will always be greater than 50% because you expect most gold objects to be selected from that box

>>12302377
There is a 0.5 chance that you will pick box 2 given two options, and then a 0.5 chance that you will pick the gold ball from box 2 because there are two balls. So from the start, if you pick an box and then pick a ball there is a 0.25 chance that the ball will be the gold one in box two. This makes sense because there are two boxes with two balls each, making it four balls, so each one has a 25% chance of being drawn. (if you did 100 draws, about 25 would be ball 1, 25 would be ball 2, 25 would be ball 3, 25 would be ball 4)

>>12301864
(The probability you chose the left box)/ (the probability of choosing a gold ball)
(1/3)/(1/3 + 1/3*1/2) = 2/3

the answer is 2/3

>>12301864
>>12302370
just apply bayes:
p(2nd is gold | 1st is gold)
= p(1st is gold and 2nd is gold) / p(1st is gold)
= p(picked the box with two gold balls) / (p(picked the box with two gold balls and the first ball picked is gold) + p(picked the box with one gold ball and the first ball picked is gold) + p(picked the box with no gold balls))
= (1/3) / (1/3 + (1/3)*(1/2) + 0/3)
= 2/3

>>12301796
If there's one speck of dust in each box, then It changes a lot.

>>12301864
20 percent. Prove me wrong.

>>12302457
you’re an atheist, aren’t you?

If someone wants a visual example of the gold ball puzzle, I've labelled the balls.

Gold balls 1 and 2 (G1 and G2) are in Box A, Gold ball 3 (G3) is in Box B with Silver ball 1 (S1) and Box C has S2 and S3 of course

If you pick a ball and then must pick the other ball from the same box (second picking indicated by ->), there are six possibilities.

Since we are concerned with what happens when you pick a gold ball we can disregard 3 of the possibilities.

>>12302497
Of the 3 remaining possibilities, 2 lead to you picking another gold ball, so your odds of picking two gold balls having already picked one is 2/3.

Those 2 possibilities are the ones in which you picked the first ball from the box with another gold ball, Box A, so we can do this with Flakes too.

If there are 100 flakes in each box there are 300 total but we are concerned about the 101 gold flakes

You picked 1 of those 101 gold flakes, what are the odds it came from a box with other gold flakes, Box A? 100 out of 101 or >99%

It's like I'm on /sci/ and it's not a good feeling.

>>12302497
So what if the left box has 1,000 gold balls?

>>12302497
It can't be the same box it has to be a a box at random

>>12302508
Do you think /sci/ is better at /lit/ than /lit/ is at /sci/?

>>12302497
That's a useful illustration anon

>>12302540
I don't think so, they're too easily distracted when someone mentions Elon Musk or IQ.

>>12302527
I can't tell if retarded or trolling

>>12302591
I think that the problem is a lot of STEMlords disregard the humanities - especially Philosophy, which probably has the most to give them - right off the bat. I know the mindset as I used to be one of them.
Whereas there may be fewer physicists and mathematicians here than on /sci/, /lit/ has respect for the sciences.
Also, in my case, school education for the humanities was either dire or non existent, whereas every school kid learns at least some of the fundamentals of science and maths.

>>12302637
>/lit/ has respect for the sciences.
Does it? Most non-fiction read around here is politics, history or psychology and any mention of the sciences is mostly confined to rambling defenses of the metaphysical and bait threads about how physics has made philosophy obsolete.

>>12302661
Well, it's a literature board (and philosophy, basically), why would it discuss sciences?
Writing on science are mostly pop science fluff or ones that would require study of said science to understand, and would be better off discussed on /sci/ anyway. Why would anyone come to lit to discuss the sciences.
Also, there's stuff like pic related that gets posted in chart threads a lot (there's non meme charts too).

>>12301634
Brave New World
99,(999)%

Only because the speck is chosen at random.
If you were given a gold speck, for sure, from the box you chose, then it's 50%

>>12301864
>you put take gold ball
>there is box that contain 2 gold / 1 silver / 2 silver
>basically 3 boxes
>1 box is sure to be gold
>2 arent
33 percent it will be gold... if im wrong explain it to me

>>12301864
50%

>>12301634
Emma

If picking a gold speck is ‘given’ by the question then it would be a 1 in 2 chance right - not ‘nearly 100%’ because as you’ve been ‘given’ the event of picking a gold speck by the question the fact that it’s less likely to have been picked the out of the middle one rather than the left box doesn’t factor into the answer.

>>12302688
>all those freaking Springers
Gee, it looks kinda Conspiranoic, am I right?

>>12302457
Well there's clearly not one speck of dust in each box, because the second box is said to have one speck of gold and some amount of silver dust

>>12301740
>>12301755
Ultrabased

>>12302345
but it is given that you chose a golden speck, you negroid

>>12301634
2/3
hamlet

>>12305648
you have to figure out the odds you picked a certain gold flake dumbass

>>12305648
Is always 50% 50%, either you do or you don't.

the little prince
i dont know and i dont care,whatever

>>12302057
We only are considering cases where a gold flakes was picked.

>>12301634
Gravity's Rainbow
In the absence of Bayes' theorem I will just say the probability is very close to 1.

>>12301634
>OP is a retard
not surprised about your book preferences.

50%
Beyond good and evil

(Sup bayes)

>>12305679
False. Reread.
It’s not the chance of picking out a gold speck. Rather, if you have picked a gold speck, what’s the chance the rest of gold? It messes with your intuition because it’s sorta going backward.

>>12301634
Dead Romance
N/(N+1)

>>12301840
Oh piss off Fermat, you and your excuses.

>>12302893
There are 3 potential opportunities for you to pick a ball and for it to be gold. 2 of the of the chances that the ball will be gold are within the same box. The third ball that is gold is within the box with the silver ball.

Assuming you pick randomly and get a gold ball, there is a 2/3rd chance that the second ball within that box is gold.

It's a basic (not insulting you just explaining that if you took a probability course, which most people will never do, it would be fairly close to the beginning of the semester) conditional probability problem.

50%

>>12301634
Zero percent

Artemis Fowl II: Revenge of the Fowl

>>12301864
Guys, It's Baye's law:
A={1,2,3} [boxes]
B={1,2} [gold or silver ball]
We want P(A=1|B=1)
P(A=1)=P(A=2)=P(A=3)=1/3
P(B=1)=(1/3)+(1/2)*(1/3)+0=1/2=P(B=2)
P(B=1|A=1)=1*(1/3)*(2)=2/3 [Baye’s Law]

>>12301634
obviously I am a 100% guy. But why is this posted? Is this a meme in some way? Someone mentioned the God Delusion but I don't see it

>>12301634
Holy shit, is this post a dig at the atheist's inability to understand the fine-tuning argument? Is this actually a funny /lit/ post?

1. Neuromancer
2. Given n = number of specks per box, the probability p = n / (n + 1). For example if there were one million specks per box, p = 1M / (1M + 1) = 0.999999 or 99.9999%.

>>12301634
Considering nothing god does is random, I ask him to guide my hand.
The percentage that I choose from His Chosen Box is 100%, and all other riddles are distracting us from His message.

>>12310385
its only 2/3 if the problem is
*IF* you choose a gold ball, what is the chance that the other ball in the box is gold

but you're already guaranteed a gold ball, thus it is 50%

this is like the monty hall meme

>>12312083
you picked a gold, so that would make it more likely that you picked from the box with two golds, no?

>>12301864
2/3
Lolita
You are all brainlets, seriously

>>12301634
These are normal sized cardboard boxes, right?

The ultimate instant pot cookbook
100%, unless the boxes are smaller then we'd assume a box to be