[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:

View post   
>> No.9964675 [View]
File: 664 B, 101x51, 1465476227746.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9964675

>> No.9949341 [View]
File: 664 B, 101x51, 1465476227746.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9949341

>>9949313
>>9949324
>>9949327
yes: the reason it's paradoxical is because the answer is so obviously "DON'T BET"

the problem is that this violates the Sure Thing Principle:
"In decision theory, the sure-thing principle states that a decision maker who would take a certain action if he knew that event E has occurred, and also if he knew that the negation of E has occurred, should also take that same action if he knows nothing about E."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sure-thing_principle

>> No.8132944 [View]
File: 664 B, 101x51, prod_e_n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8132944

>>8132607

>> No.7657406 [View]
File: 664 B, 101x51, prod_e_n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7657406

>>7651373
The [math]\pi[/math] in the equation is only arbitrary, though. You could just as well write it as
[math]e^{i \cdot 180 °} = -1[/math].

>> No.7274661 [View]
File: 664 B, 101x51, prod_e_n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7274661

>>7274650
No.

>> No.7011533 [View]
File: 664 B, 101x51, prod_e_n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7011533

>>7011530

>> No.6832751 [View]
File: 664 B, 101x51, prod_e_n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6832751

>>6831243

>> No.6753707 [View]
File: 664 B, 101x51, png[1].l.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6753707

Pic is as humorous as this is gonna get.

>>6753696
no, it isn't. n is an arbitrarily chosen natural constant with the way the statement is set up.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]