/lit/ - Literature

1 in 5^5.

Next.

>>1414128
Hilariously wrong.

/lit/ is so fucking dumb.

A) That kid isn't stupid he got assaulted by birds, asshole
B) A math problem has nothing to do with reasoning abilities
C) This is lit, not sci

>>1414134
Then leave

>>1414142
This. OP's a moron.

Pretty sure it's a 1 in 25 chance

but this is a stupid fucking thread

and OP is a maroon

(4/5)^5 = 0.32768

It has an 80% chance of destroying only one of them

/lit/ can't even solve one simple alphabet problem. Pathetic.

>>1414158


ya answer is 33% rounded

can u explain how it works?

>>1414171

oh, just 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8...etc

>>1414171
If you're so smart, how come you haven't found out how to have a personality anyone likes?

>>1414171

Weapon X has a 80% chance of intercepting a missile.

If the first missile intercepts, the chance for the second one to do so is 80% of 80%, the third 80% of 80% of 80% and so on and so forth.

>>1414163
Why do you give a shit? Go away.

Obviously a 100% chance of destroying all 5.

Weapon X is Wolverine, you cocktards.

>>1414221

0.8^5

32%

>>1414111
out of 10,000 ppl on /lit

only 2 know basic probabilities

lit confirmed for pseudo intellectuals with no common sense

>>1414190

No. The chance is 80% for each missile, it doesn't go down because one succeeds or fails.

Also, the question fails to provide some important information: Can Weapon X only be attempted once per missile?

>>1414301
in my defense i am tired and thought there was an 80% chance not to destroy it

but i knew how to do the operation correctly, i just fucked up on the 'reading comprehension' part which is ironic as this is /lit/ but WHATEVER

>>1414301
Some of us just don't give enough of a fuck to answer "IQ" questions.
You tell us something about Quine without checking Wikipedia. Give the definition of anxiety of influence. What's the poem "O Captain! My Captain!" about?
Don't want to answer? You might even know these. Guess you understand why I didn't give a shit.
I like math; I like reading; but I don't have to prove a damn thing to anybody about my enjoyment of either one, especially not an ant turning over bits of dirt for shit to eat like you.

>>1414341

That is true, but the probability for each missile to be intercepted consecutively decreases by the relation I posted.

20%

>>1414358

The only Quine that matters is Willard Van Orman Quine

Books are like movies, they are for entertainment and causal thinking. Making a career out of reading literature is just as empty as making a career out of watching movies, or listening to music. lol...so vacuous

>>1414365

THen why isn't the final percent 80?

god math makes no sense...

why is it harder to kill 5 than it is 1 if the probability is independent each time?

>>1414423
I'm in school for a science degree. Try again, derpster. It's funny that 4chan is full of children who immediately assume interest = vocation. It's telling of an incredibly narrow-minded view of people. I have dozens of interests. So do you. Many of them we have no intention of making careers.

>>1414428
because killing five requires you to successfully kill each one

so if you only had two missiles, right, you would have one independent 80% chance to kill the first one, and a second independent 80% chance to kill the second one. So you only kill BOTH of them if BOTH 80% chances go off - and that's less likely than either one of them going off is, because a lot of the time what will happen is one will go off but not the other.

>>1414423

I have a friend that thinks just like this. It goes without saying that nobody likes him.

>>1414358
>You tell us something about Quine without checking Wikipedia.

Never heard of Quine.

>Give the definition of anxiety of influence.

Isn't that when a writer gets creative claustrophobia when he starts to realize that "everything's been done" and so sets out to chart his own original territory? I think that's a Harold Bloom idea.

>What's the poem "O Captain! My Captain!" about?

Lincoln's death, if I remember right. Whitman?

>>1414358
I wrote a letter to Quine in 1994 (about Wittgensteinian limits and the technological singularity as envisioned by Vernor Vinge) and got a prompt, handwritten response.

The gist of it was that Vinge is probably correct, btw.

>>1414440

I get that now. Out of interest what do I do to figure it out? I admit I'm bad at mathematics, but that is why I'm on /lit/.

>>1414452
You multiply all the individual chances together.

So in this case it's (4/5) * (4/5) *(4/5) * (4/5) * (4/5) or in other words (4/5)^5

>>1414440
>>1414440


is it because there are three possible outcomes when there are 2 missles

one case, the first gets destroyed
second case, only the second gets destroyed
third case, both get destroyed

is there a more in depth way to explain the probabilities than just saying 0.8^2

im sure theres some addition going on, adding the chance to succeed with the chance to fail in each case, or something like that

80%

>>1414467
finally someone got it

let a = all the missiles will be destroyed

a v ¬a

>>1414462
>>1414462

>4/5

Does that mean divide?

>>1414472

nope.avi

learn2statistics101

>>1414482

Don't confuse me even more than I already am.

>>1414462

80% times 5? How does that work? You can only go to 100%, everyone knows that.

4/5 x 4/5 x 4/5 x 4/5 x 4/5=answer

>>1414467
I can't believe it took /lit/ so long to arrive at the correct answer.

So sad.

>>1414496

You can't switch from percentages to fractions, I don't know how to use fractions.

>>1414499

But that's not the right answer.

Probability of destroying all 5 is infinity. Not even trolling.

Statistics are a lie, because based on this there would be an 100% chance to destroy four of the five. There is no such thing as certainty, though.

>>1414505
Learn to math broseph than come back 2 tha thread, u look real silly right now.

>>1414513

An infinite probability? That's big. That must mean it's definitely going to happen right?

The answer is 100%

>>1414496

I don't get it. What does / mean?

is it because there are three possible outcomes when there are 2 missles

one case, the first gets destroyed
second case, only the second gets destroyed
third case, both get destroyed

is there a more in depth way to explain the probabilities than just saying 0.8^2

im sure theres some addition going on, adding the chance to succeed with the chance to fail in each case, or something like that

>>1414525

Deja vu

>>1414525

0.8x2= 1.6

That doesn't sound right...

I hate these threads because I honestly think you're all this retarded. If that means I "got trolled" then so be it.

>>1414537

I don't see you telling us how to solve it smart ass? And also what is that little up arrow? Is it times or power? What's a power again?

>>1414531

indeed, try 0.8^2 instead


ya can someone explain this in terms of probabilities and sample spaces or something, the fact that you go (4/5)^5 just seems like a formula to me, i dont get the logic behind it

>>1414555

WHAT DOES THAT LITTLE ARROW MEAN?

>>1414561

it's just exponential notation

means raised to the power of

>>1414565

HOW DO I CALCULATE A POWER? I HAVEN'T DONE THIS FOR OVER SIX YEARS!

>>1414111

Wow, random /sci/fag comes in here and posts some upper level math problem and is surprised we aren't inclined to answer it.

good job genius

>>1414573

>implying this isn't 14-year old level maths

>>1414423
Agreed, I'd much rather sit in a cubicle from 9 to 5 every day for the rest of my miserable existence.

How many weapon x's do you have? If you have infinity then your probability is 1, if you have less than 5 then your probability is zero, or near zero if there is some probability of destroying more than one missile per weapon x.

>>1414573
This isn't upper level. It's not even algebra.
It's the same thing happening 5 times with the same probability each time.

1. Assumption: Weapon X is used on all 5 missiles, with independent probabilities .8 of destroying each, and failing otherwise (.2 probability). This problem is therefore a Bernoulli trials problem with 5 trials.
The sample space can thus be understood by labelling each missile with numbers from 1 to 5 (arbitrarily) and then writing a sequence of 5 letters for each, S for success and F for failure: To illustrate this, note that SSFFS would denote an instance where the first, second, and fifth missiles were successfully destroyed, and the third and fourth were unsuccessfully destroyed. Continuing with this example, the probability of SSFFS (denoted P(SSFFS)), will, by the assumption of independence (and the identical distribution {S=.8, F=.2} of the trials, be P(SSFFS) = P(S)*P(S)*P(F)*P(F)*P(S) = .8*.8*.2*.2*.8 = 64/5^5 = 64/3125. Notice that our event's probability only depends on the number of successes (alternatively, the number of failures) in the event. P(SSSSS) = P(S)*P(S)*P(S)*P(S)*P(S) = .8*.8*.8*.8*.8 = 4^5/5^5 = 1024/3125, or just slightly less than 1/3, by mathematical coincidence.

Thank you. I also do children's parties.

32% chance of destroying all of them, 1 in .8^5

>>1414606

I'm going to stop looking at this thread now. Maths is dead to me.

>>1414606

Also, fun fact, the mean number of missiles destroyed is 4, as you might expect (80% * 5 = 4 missiles, yes, you can just do that). The standard deviation is sqrt(80%*20%*5) = sqrt(.8) = 2/sqrt(5) = sqrt(5)*2/5 or about .9 missiles, which means that your average distance away from the mean, 4, is going to be about .9, which really means that 3s and 5s are common, even though 4s are expected. So, while you might expect only 1 missile to hit, your infrastructure and planning would have to take the strong possibility of a second missile into grave account.

80%, this was already answered woop woop juggalo for life mmfwcl

>>1414606
Protip for /lit/izens: Just draw a picture next time and you're doing the exact same thing this guy is saying.
http://www.ehow.com/how_5547310_do-probability-tree-diagrams.html

>>1414606

Thanks, that was orgasmic.

>>1414698
>cheryl cole
ihavenotasteinwomen.jpg

>>1414644

I appreciate the link but there were twelve bullet points with many words and I can't be bothered.

>>1414644

Very true. I wanted to make it clear that independence *is* just an assumption, because I think it's easy to see stats as a very reductive perspective, but statistical reasoning can be arbitrarily complex and take very many types of beliefs and evidence into account if the situation requires it.

0%

>>1414712

oh you

>>1414712

i agree totally. hate these fags with undiscerning visual faculties. ppl who are into cheryl cole are just really dumb.

Here is the deal. I don't think the individuals who answered the question incorrectly and knew they were not sure are unintelligent, because they seemed to be the ones who desired to know why they were incorrect. They actually took the time to learn something rather than being high and mighty. They humbled themselves and gained insight through openness.

the pigeon has shit on this child's head.

unfortunately, the child has just shit on the sidewalk

discuss

>>1414771
u being sarcastic bro? but anyway her & keira knightley are so generic like 12 year old boy pin-up poster girls

50%, it's either going to happen or it won't, regardless of the statistics you still only have two outcomes yes and no. pretending you can predict life is only hurting you math fags. sorry

So it was really just .8^5?

I thought that was it but I figured that this bitch had presented us with a more difficult problem, so I didn't answer out of fear of being wrong.

>>1414985
This anon is living in denial

0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 = ~33 %

Amirite?

Admittedly, I dropped out of mathematics.

>>1414985

And if I put my hand into a tub containing a green, yellow and blue ball and can only draw out one, is it yes or no?

Seriously, enlighten me.

>>1414999
nice trips but good luck man and i mean that literally and ironically. math is legitimate on paper, i've studied it and enjoyed doing so. but when it comes to life it's only yes or no. if you've actually lived like most of us why does the least thing you expected always seem to happen. also inb4 you've never gone through anything unexpected and painful, well what was the percentage chance for that to happen and why did it happen to you?

/a/ was just talking about this

>>1415023
herp derp, I obviously can't apply statistics to random shit I do everyday, but it if weren't for statistics I guarantee your computer wouldn't be working right now.

>>1415023

>>1415011
if you're religious and find some inherent meaning in your life than no i can't answer that. if you aren't well learn that if nothing else you're subject to 'fate' and have to be banking on one choice not just trying to get a grasp on life. if you still don't get it than it's who cares and you're rolling dice and hoping to find some pattern. i'm drunk and wrote this wrong but i sill promise you that it's the same chance you'll get accidentally killed in some drive-by-shooting than you will meet your true love.

>>1415058
It's time to stop posting.

>>1415023
>>1414985

Listen, I see where you're coming from and but this is ridiculous anti-intellectual populism: "It either happens or it doesn't"? Yeah, or it happens to some extent, or the statement that it is happening is coming from a mistaken point of view and it is neither true nor false. Or it happens with a roughly normal distribution in thousands of experiments, or it happens because certain chemical reactions, etc. This isn't math, it's merely descriptions, many of which can be quantified meaningfully if (to be "that guy") always already imperfectly. Life is more than "yes" and "no" even before using math, and the problems in particular admit many quantitative formulations and predictive capacities. Because of math's expressive power it is often used in lieu of understanding, just like every shitty blog you read contains so many misunderstandings of the social part of the human condition(s). This doesn't make math, or literature, meaningless or obsolete. It means we have to try harder, be humble about what we are figuring, and avoid reductive and trivial statements, while constantly being questioning of any methodology we are revealed by preference to believe in. And don't forget that there is a world outside of the equations, that every equation must (by objective or subjective truth) ultimately answer to. But your approach (the "every event is special" approach) is its own form of reductionism as sinister as any materialist's.

>>1415053
so i wouldn't be on a computer, so we wouldn't have any of the modern technologies. so if we were both born a millennium ago and were miserable idiot farmers we would have any different chances of being happy as we do today? well alright, you can believe in that if you want to. we live today and share the same uncertainties as anyone else who's ever existed. just because computers and math theory exist doesn't mean our lives aren't going to be destroyed tomorrow through no fault of our own.

>>1415072
Thank you. Seriously.

this thread is making me laugh and laugh
i love you /lit/

four percent?

>>1415079
MAN I DONT KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ANYMORE.

>>1415072
i really do appreciate the detail and consideration of your response, and i do agree life is much more than yes and no. but if you've studied biology which i imagine you have look at animal populations vs their environments and how they come to some homeostasis with their resources. then look at humans how our exponential growth in population models the graph of most viruses, a slow increase and than a fucking huge spike that kills the host. this technology and math is great today but i'm an empathetic faggot and worry about our future generations.

nobodyisrighteverybodyiswrong.jpg

The answer is: probability theory is irrelevant to this problem.

How many uses of weapon X do we have? Are any of the 5 missiles incoming? How many?

>>1415151
you're right. but i graduated as a chemistry major and philosophy minor from UCLA and i enjoy argument. the minor part made me an idealist pussy so i rejected career opportunities with pharmaceutical and research companies and work at a book store instead. i live with my girlfriend and have to spend most of my shit paycheck on student loans but i couldn't be happier. fuck your statistics and belief that any of you have any chance of being happier than i am. i hope you are but just realize that your efforts and your chances are irrelevant to what your life may or may not allow to you.

>>1414985

so the chance of me winning the lottery is 50%?

cool story, your philosophy is really solid.


Anyway, this is most interesting thread on /lit/ in a long time.

>>1414606

and this was a great reply

>>1415151
I'm intrigued, trying to puzzle out whether you mean the semantics of the problem or there's a mathematical way to solve it despite the lack of information we just made assumptions about. Care to explain before I go to bed?

I took college statistics, got the highest grade in the class, and promptly forgot all of it through massive amounts of booze and pot. I think I'm better for it.

fuck your missiles. i gotsa plan-ible on orderz from hanibal.

you guys are so stupid

It's 33%.

A simple way to illustrate this is to throw a dice. You have a 1/6 chance of getting a 6 on your first throw, but you do not have a 1/6 chance of getting five sixes in a row. The possibility of getting one particular result in one single event is not the same possibility of getting that result five times in a row.

>>1415469
prove it

(4/5)^5

>>1414111
Stupid OP, doesn't tell us how many times we can fire weapon X.
100%, blaze away until they're all done.

Missile Commander here, bitches.

Today I learned something I have learned many times before and each time promptly forgotton.

>>1416496

Your symbols are confusing. Can you write it out please e.g. one plus one equals two.

>>1416509
Nor does he tell us if each missile has an independent 80% chance of being destroyed, imagine for instance that there is an 80% chance that all five missiles come from a batch that is instantly and certainly destroyed by weapon x and a 20% chance that the missiles are invulnerable. Then there is still an 80% chance of destroying _A_ missile with weapon x, but once you know if that missile is destroyed or not, you know with certainty the result for the other 4.

best thread on /lit/ imo

>>1416509
Good point.
>>1416537
Doesn't matter.

>>1416581
It most certainly does matter, its the difference between 33% success and 80% success

>>1416509
What?
He says there's an 80% chance to destroy an incoming missile NOT an 80% chance each time weapon X is used.

UGH THIS THREAD

REPORT REPORT REPORT

bitches don't know Bayesianism

>>1416598
you're telling us to report, with that name?

>>1414573
>Upper level
Try basic stats.
Like 6th grade basic
Its 0.8^5
or 0.8*0.8*0.8*0.8*0.8

right answer - 1016/3125

>>1416604
its been going on way too long & such a boring thread too

I reported for illegal content. Help us delete the terrible thread guys.

>>1416615
nwefag dteceted

>>1416615
I reported you for rule violation.

>>1416622

lols. "new fag?" that's THE INFAMOUS blueNONYMOUS. look for the clues, young ones. something makes him different.

This is retarded beyond belief... hilarious though.

Part B: What is the probability of destroying all 5 if the missile launcher is operated by famous writer and philosopher Ayn Rand?

The answer is that each missile has an 80% chance of being destroyed.

>>1416647
Depends is the city being attacked socialist or free market?

>>1416647
RULE 4 violation. Reported. also sage

>>1416643
what is "lol"?? are you retarded american?
True English is British English.

If the city has a population of 10 million with a gaussian distribution about the center, and 95% of the population localized within a radius of 5 miles. and 5 missiles are incoming each with a warhead has a probability of death per person given by another Gaussian distribution with 100% at the center and a standard deviation of 1 mile.

Given that if weapon x fails it will still deflect the missile by 10 degrees and that all missiles are aimed at the city center. Give the expected number of casualties in terms of weapon x's range.

>>1416679

"are you retarded american?"

english???????

>>1416695
nigger?

>>1416679
izzzzzzzit? innnit?

ITT: tiny faggots who've never played Missile Command

>>1416727
This is /lit/ you mean, ITT: Faggots who never read "Missile Comman: A Novelization"

Oh no! Someone posted a maths problem on a literature board and is laughing that people didn't get it!

HOW WILL WE COPE?

I still don't understand what ^ is

and how people solved this puzzle.

>>1416765
>I still don't understand what ^ is
'to the power of' jeez.

>>1416765


god damn /lit/ is dumb as shit

What's a power?