/sci/ - Science & Math

one of the only maths that is highly inuitive for me. I'm learning math related to physics and half the concepts are hit or miss with the intuition. Main key in probability is the standard distribution and also dividing desired outcome by all possible outcomes.

probability is a way of quantifying how likely something is to happen.

>>11272818
Do an experiment N times. For N large enough, divide the number of results of a certain outcome by N. That's probability.

>>11272818
"i'm probably dead"
- God-Daffy

>>11272818
Pure frustration

>>11272818

>>11272818
It's pseudoscience.

>>11272818
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XhaKvQyHzeXdNnFKy/probability-is-subjectively-objective

>>11272878
how the fuck is the most fundamental truth to reality pseudo-science?

>>11272878
>subway fapper has spoken

>>11272867
1/2?

>>11272893
3/4

>>11272896
GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE
5/6

>>11272818

..oh, you dont know about the Monty hall probability thing?

The fact that we use probabilities to describe quantum mechanics is hilarious when we all know too well there's nothing to it.

>>11272818
it is the quantification of information in uncertainty.

>>11272893
2/3

>>11272959
>there's nothing to it
...except confirmed in every lab test ever

>>11273041
You're retarded.

>>11273041
Sure mate, let us all pretend that you know anything about QM.

>>11273035
no, it says you got a gold ball the first time so the only second ball you could pick is the grey one. It's 1/2

>>11273108
look at the bottom left box

>>11273077
>projecting

>>11273072
Impressive, did you quote that from your PhD?

>>11273108
You have a higher chance to pick the golden ball from the box that have 2 of them

>>11273145

>>11273145
>>11273142
Seethe harder

>>11273041
What exactly do these "lab tests" confirm?

>>11273151

>>11273041
There's literally no such thing as chance in our universe.

The reason why physicists use probabilities and statistics to describe quantum mechanics phenomena is because we cannot directly "see" how electrons behave on a (x,y,z,t) space.

>>11273165
>There's literally no such thing as chance in our universe.
Please, expand on this idea.

>>11272883
bayes is for gays
lesswrong is literally just slightly-higher IQ reddit

>>11273155
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Applications

>>11273194
>citing Wikipedia on /sci/

>>11272818
Nobody knows, is an abstract mathematical concept like number, or like point, line and congruence in Hilbert's axiom's of geometry, you can only refer to it by stating the axioms of its properties

>>11273213
knock 'em down big boy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#References

>>11273218
Oh wow, you read all of those? I'm proud of you.

>>11273194
>Applications

That doesn't confirm anything.

>>11273229
Just Ignore that retard.

>>11273225
someone had to
stop bullshitting and start the knocking down

>>11273229
>shitposting confims anything
kek

>>11273240
Not an argument.

>>11272854
>>11272833
>>11272824
Wrong.

>>11272818
It's just measure theory. Once you learn probability from a measure-theoretical perspective, it's nothing special at all.

>>11273341
Maybe you can just just say that probability is a measure, although that is not the whole story, measure theory does not define randomness it's only used to state the rules of how to measure random events, but that only tells me that you can measure randomness but as far as I know there are no formal definitions yet

brainlet here
what's the point of measuring probability if chaos theory is a thing

>>11273328
incorrect

>>11273532
ask Las Vegas

>>11273532
Chaos theory just deals with systems that are very sensitive to initial conditions, ie most non-linear differential equations. These systems are still considered deterministic, it can just be very hard to predict long term behavior for things like weather, which are completely described by classical mechanics, since small errors in measurements result in very different predictions later on.

>>11273714
>very sensitive to initial conditions
not enough.
x^999999999999999999999999999999999999
is very sensitive to initial conditions, but not one bit chaotic

>>11273724
That’s not sensitive to initial conditions. It’s just a function that grows rapidly. Google how to make a bifurcation diagram then test it out on that function. The result will just be a straight line unless you run into error due to an overflow error.

>>11273072
>>11273077
>>11273155
>>11273165
Samefag or the ongoing retard invasion of /sci/?

>>11273328
Great post. I learned so much. You're an idiot by the way:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

>>11273179
Do you have some system of epistemology that is better than Bayesianism?

>>11273179
Bayesed frequentist.

>>11273328
>>11273534
>>11273784
He's not "wrong", statements like
>>11272854
>>11272833
apply to a frequentist notion of probability. One ought to give it a seperate name. Probability as its generally used is broader - for better or worse.

>>11273328
>>11272818
>>11273215
/thread

>>11273833
hello

>>11273910
re

>>11273779
You look like a retard too.

>>11273917
You never saw my face.

>>11272867
2/3?

>>11272818
proportions and shit

>>11273927
But this thread is about probability.

>>11274327
And there’s a 100% chance on him being a retard.

>>11274331
Thus, the probability is great, of him looking like a retard?

We live in a purely deterministic universe. The “God doesn’t play dice” meme is true.

The only reason why probabilities exist is simply because humans don’t (and never will) be able to describe every event accurately.

>>11273521
Random variables are measurable functions.

>>11272867
2/3

>>11273215
crect

>>11273165
>There's literally no such thing as chance in our universe.
false, the universe is fundamentally stochastic

>>11274869
Noe use that definitition to generate Random numbers

>>11274327
>>11274331
Samefag retard.

>>11274341
bullshit, learn some QM before having an opinion

probabilities are fundamental

Its a system developed to make educated guesses about things people cant accurately calculate.

Ie is the coin gonna be heads or tails when i flip it.

Basically just a guessing game

>>11272818
what is the probability that Gematria is total coincidence?
gematrinator.com

what is the probability that
twenty two divided by seven=314 in the first base cipher?

itt samefags calling samefags samefags

>>11276232
just type them in yourself and see how the related words have matching numbers

>>11276235

the republicans came from the whig party.
think whos the big whig

I would love for someone to calculate the odds of a few of these gematria comparisons

>>11276206
You’re retarded.

>>11276206
The only reason why probabilities are used in QM is because it’s literally impossible to photograph electrons.

So please, stop vomiting diarrhea out of your mouth.

>>11272867
50% because you have to get a specific box to get two gold balls. since you already drew a gold one, we can rule a box out. so that would just leave it up to chance whether you got the box with a silver ball or two gold balls.

>>11278185
nah it's 2/3
g1 --> g2
g2 --> g1
g3 --> s

>>11278216
this is some science bullshit like people thinking the double-slit experiment was supernatural

the gold balls are the same and the 2/3 bullshit is because the you think the balls are different thus making the original draw pointless

what the fuck is 2/3 even mean when in reality there are only 2 boxes and either the next ball is gold or silver

you fucking fags are trying to over-complicate it to sound smart by looking at some retarded perspective like sex/gender
>2 genders
>2 balls

>>11276482
>>11276477
Samefag.

>what is Bell's inequality
You are the retard for not understanding this simple foundational truth about our universe.

>>11278581
>you think the balls are different
because they are

>>11278945
>Bell's inequality
>Proved

Not an argument.

>>11278581
>what the fuck is 2/3 even mean
3 possible paths
2 favorable paths

>>11278951
It is, moron. Watch the news sometimes. Been completely proven some years ago.

>>11278953
Incorrect.

>>11278953
>News
>Source for /sci/

kek

>>11278958
if the references are ok, it's ok

>>11278955
>>11278958
>I'm a spastic retard, spoonfeed me
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments
>In October 2015, scientists from the Kavli Institute of Nanoscience reported that the Quantum nonlocality phenomenon is supported at the 96% confidence level based on a "loophole-free Bell test" study.[5][6] These results were confirmed by two studies with statistical significance over 5 standard deviations which were published in December 2015.