/sci/ - Science & Math

>your IQ lies on the imaginary plane

>another IQ thread

I can't imagine anyone on this board is sub 100 IQ, especially since the Flat-Earthers have dispersed

>>10964610
>I can't imagine anyone on this board is sub 100 IQ
Make a thread with this image as the op and you will promptly be proven incorrect

>>10964633
2/3 right?

>>10964633
>Make a thread with this image as the op and you will promptly be proven incorrect
But that's not a over 100 filter. That's more like an over 110 filter.

>>10964633

I think it's 1/2.

There is only two boxes containing a gold ball, and only one of them has another one.

So 1/2 to pick a new one? Feels like I'm missing something.

>>10964650
You are mistaken because on the first pass you can pick one gold ball or the other one from the all-gold box. So there are 2/3 scenarios in which you get a gold ball.

>>10964647
Not if they factor in the all-silver box.

>>10964610
considering most people are here to discuss IQ, I think you are gravely mistaken.

>>10964659
Yes now I understand since there is three balls two of wich are in one box the probability to pick another one is 2/3.
Guess I'm a sub 100 iq.

>>10964563
so low?

>>10964633
Don't lots of "geniuses" also fail the goat test?

>>10964686
No, the fact that you didn't spend 2 hours arguing that it's 1/2 puts you above most of the people in those threads

>>10964741
What is the goat test?

>>10964741
goat test?

>>10964633
2/5

>>10964781
>>10964798
probably talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

>>10964822
Absolutely based

>>10964633
50%, either happens or it doesn't. This goes for all probability by the way, do not (You) me.

>>10964633
there are gold balls in 2of 3 boxes, and of all the 4 balls possible on those 2 boxes 3 are gold, so 3/4.
2/3 * 3/4 = 1/2 chances

>>10964741
Even Ph.D. mathematicians that contributes with theorem etc were accusing that girl to be wrong.
So, just because of it, they are labelled as "geniuses" in quotation mark as a way to say they are not geniuses?
They are geniuses, a single error counts nothing.

>>10964633
-1/12

>>10964668
Fucking /pol/tards. They ruined every board on 4chan.
>typical /pol/tard looks like a smart guy

>>10964633
>being unable to solve Bertrand's box paradox makes you a sub-100-iq/brainlet
I fucking hate this way of thinking even with my co-worker
t. mathematician

IQ posting should be banned

>>10966761
>>10966765 go on reddit

>>10964659
isn't it asking for the probability *given* that you've just picked up a gold ball? And therefore given that you must be in either the first or the second box?

You guys really need to ask yourself which is more retarded. Failing le epic puzzle game or letting a puzzle game tell you that you're retarded contrary to a lifetime of experience which tells you otherwise. Hell, you wouldn't even frequent a board like /sci/ if you were retarded. That's not to say you're all of exceptional intelligence but you at least have average IQ's. Glad I could put your minds at ease.

>>10966933
yes but you were three times as likely to pick a gold ball in the first place

Also Richard Feynman's IQ was 125, which was about as low as a colleague in his field could get away with being. Also Anton Bruckner was largely regarded as a simpleton but he wrote this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT5kreOhjxU

And Chris Langan is basically a pseud retard.

>>10967433
au contraire, if you use /sci/ you MUST be retarded

>>10967467
in some meme sense yes. But someone with an IQ below 88 likely wouldn't take an interest in scientific and mathematical topics. That alone would constitute an anomaly.

>>10964647

Spotted the sub 100

>>10964610
missed me retard

>>10964610
The board's IQ has plummeted because the Flat-Earthers left.

>>10964633
1/2. what kind of a stupid question is that. i didn't read other replies. but you take from the SAME box. So it is either box 1 or box 2. 1/2

>>10964633
>You pick a box at random.
...
>It's a gold ball.
Is that really random?

Also the setup does not state whether you remove the ball permanently or replace it after taking, so it is infact unanswerable as it is ambiguous. It could either be 1/2 if you remove without replacing, or it could be 3/4 if you do replace.

>>10966707
Is this the power of murican education?

>>10967439
the "first place" doesn't count. you calculate what happens AFTER you picked the 1st ball.

>>10968377
we don't even have flags here, retard. you can bait on /int/

>>10968374
Jesus fucking Christ you have to be baiting at this point

>>10968382
how

>>10964633
A certain woman you know has two children, and at least one of them is a boy. What are the chances that both are?
tl;dr: this is bait

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

>>10964563
Same. Probably too high to measure.

>>10966735
I do too. When taking a single test, passing it confirms ability, but failing it doesn't disprove ability.

>>10966735
>Bertrand's box paradox
>>10968403
Re-read what the pic says. It is a *variation* of Bertrand. Only in this case it is stated that you have made the first pick and even though it was "at random" you already know the outcome. So you need to calculate what happens after that. In the original paradox you need to calculate the prob before you even draw the first egg (or a coin). Since Originally, all three boxes are equally likely to be chosen. This is bait.

>>10968402
>>10964563
that's what happens when you click random shit and score low as fuck.

>>10967457
Top notch Bruckner, sir.

Any /sub70/ frends?

>>10968402
kek. no, this is what you get when that happens.

>>10966735
>>10968403
>i-i am totally not sub 50 iq
kekkkkkk this denial
>>10964641
ye everyone else is either retarded or trolling

>>10970116
literally nobody who is capable of posting on 4chan can have an iq that low

>>10970120
>bots with an iq of below zero post on 4chan
>b-but my iq is definitely above 50

>>10970126
>computer programs work in the same manner as the human mind
>simple bots even have measurable IQ

Well, we can be pretty sure you have midwit IQ.

>>10968402
Basically you took too much time. Personally I could give fuck all about how much time it takes me to figure stuff out (especially if we're talking about minutes as opposed to hours or days). That's not a true test of intellectual ability. Admittedly I did poorly on this test but I've never been stumped by a mathematical or logical concept my entire life. Maybe I don't figure these things out in mere minutes but I always do figure them out eventually. That's good enough for me.

>>10964741
>the goat test

The Monty Hall problem is almost always stated in an ambiguous, non-rigorous way that naturally leaves it open to interpretation, so no, Erdős wasn't dumb for questioning it and Marilyn Vos Savant freely admits that this ambiguity is meaningful. Still, a decent number of mathematicians do seem to have a totally fucked understanding of it, and suck at intuitively understanding statistics and probaility in general despite having formally book learned them. You really do need to think about the philosophy behind these issues and can't just treat them as if they must be reducible to pure math.

>>10964633
So why is it 2/3rds and not 50/50?
Process of elimation means it's not the 3rd box. With 2 boxes left, it's 50/50 right?

>>10971938
Look at the probability of being in box 1 or 2. 2/3 of the time you pick a gold ball you will be in box 1. Therefore 2/3 of the time the other ball will be gold.

>>10972136
But anon that's a 66.66% chance of picking a gold ball even though they're evenly distributed and the odds of picking a gold ball are just as likely as picking a silver one? So how come?

>>10972136
it's objectively 1/2 and if you can't see that I feel bad for you.

>>10964633
50/50
Either the next ball is or isnt gold.

>your verbal score is outside the measurable area
>your IQ range indicates a learning disability

>>10972636
Autism??

>>10964633
Probability is the easiest fucking thing in the world. You just have to remember not group things together just because they are the same, like a fucking ape.

For those saying its 1/2 what if the non-grey balls were green blue and red, and the question was "you picked a colored ball" what are the chances you pick a green red or blue ball next?

>>10972816
ADHD, highest score >145, lowest 89.
I struggle to follow conversations and have very little sense of time among other things. At least autists aren't painfully aware of their retardation.

>>10972885
>At least autists aren't painfully aware of their retardation.

This is false, I'm autistic and well aware of the fact that I'm retarded.

Never passed an Iq test but I bet it would look a lot like your since I have good spatial ability but poor verbal skills.

>>10972849
Still 50%, you either pick a ball of such and such color or you don't.

>>10972899
Now you've done it. You've overcooked me eggs. HEEEHEHEHHEEHH BOMPBIDOPDIBOMBOMDOP! BLBLBBLBLBLB
WHERE IS MY LAWNMOWER?!!!!

>>10972136
Because Box 1 is more likely than Box 2.

I know it's counter-intuitive, so let's change the problem a little bit. Let's say Box 1 has 50 gold balls, and Box 2 has 49 silver balls and 1 gold ball. You pick one of them at random and extract a ball, and it's a gold ball. If you had to guess, would you say the box you picked was Box 1 or Box 2?

My first instinct was also to say 1/2, but 2/3 is correct. Our intuition on statistics is fucked up.

>>10968378
Actually no it does, I just looked it up and it makes a lot of sense. It's also why it's considered a 'paradox' (although there is a correct answer).

>>10972899
Okay invert the question such that if the first ball you pick is gold, what's the probability the 2nd ball is gray? There's three gold balls and only 1/3 are in the gray box therefore you have a 1/3 chance of landing in the gray box.

Which means the other 2/3 of the time you are in the gold box because you can start with either ball 1 or ball 2 on the first grab pass which automatically leads to the 2nd grab being a gold ball.

>>10972912
Well the point of the problem is to subvert our intuition. No would realize it was 2/3 on first try.

>>10972893
Damn, the obviously autistic people I've met were confident except for sensory issues. I guess we're pretty similar. My lowest points were general speed and auditory cognition but the highest were spatial and verbal. I can write well but I speak like a retard.

>>10964563
Not knowing the trick and or gotcha! Edge case from seeing the puzzle before

https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>IQ

>>10972933
Actually no. You either pick a grey ball or you don't, anything else is literally impossible.

>>10972907
BASED

>>10964633
Theres 2 ways to draw a gold ball from the first box. TWO WAYS!

>>10972966
You are ignoring the initial conditions as a result of the first pass being gold every time. There are 2 ways to end up in the gold box initially but only one way to end up in the gold/gray box.

2/3 of the time you will have landed in the gold box forcing the 2nd grab to be gold. Only 1/3 of the time will you have landed in the gold/gray box initially which makes the 2nd grab gray.

>>10964633
1/2
The first ball is guaranteed to be gold, so your second ball is going to be gold or silver.
That's the only "chance" that's presented.