/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11655328
a

>>11655329
wrong

>>11655328
D

Autist soon to swoop in...

>>11655341
The autist has landed

>>11655329
>>11655382
Retarded faggots, learn some math.

Wouldn’t we need to know the percentage of the population who took the test?

>>11655428
Nope

>>11655328
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibINrxJLvlM

wtf 9% only!

>>11655328
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC8yj7FFi-4

>>11655434

Oh right, same answer any population.

1000 x 0.1% = one infected

1000 x 1% false pos = 10 false pos

1/11 = 9% Cool

Now what happens when it’s like real life and we have Switzerland at 9.7%, Sweden at 10, Madrid at 11%, NYC at 20, etc

>>11655328
>chance im infected
0%. I was a loser sitting at home long before covid.

>>11655449

NYC

20% of 100 = 20
1% false positive = 1
20/21 = chance you’re actually infected = 95%

BTFO doomers

100000 people tested
0.1% are sick = 100 people
99.9% are healthy = 99900 people
test accuracy 99%
of the 100 sick, 99 will test as positive
of the 100 sick, 1 will test as negative (FN)
of the 99900 healthy, 999 will test as positive (FP)
of the 99900 healthy, 98901 will test as negative

99/(99+999)=99/1098=0.09016393443
B. 9%

>>11655476
>of the 100 sick, 99 will test as positive
wrong

>>11655480
>>11655414

>>11655484
see
>>11646801
>>11646795
>>11645762
>>11645691
>>11645506
>>11645330
>>11643674
>>11643243
>>11643234
>>11643133
and
>>11643113
>>11643048
>>11642725
>>11642724
>>11646830
>>11646837
>>11646857
>>11646882
>>11647124
>>11647234
and
>>11647339
>>11647348
>>11647397
>>11647530
>>11647544
>>11647976
>>11647979
>>11648020
>>11649199
>>11649916
and
>>11649948
>>11649949
>>11650068
>>11650103
>>11650119
>>11651906
>>11652905
>>11653884
>>11653885
>>11653888
and
>>11653891
>>11653899
>>11653904
>>11653930
>>11655412
>>11655414

>>11655505
>see, i'm not an autist, no ocd at all
LOL

>>11655505
I read all of those posts. NEVER STOP, you are gifted in subject analysis and mathmatical modeling. I have just started watching, and I'm loving everything I see. Educate the tards far beyond what they ever wanted, learning until it hurts is the cornerstone of intelligence building.

>>11655505
>>11655522
samefag

>>11655341
what kind of gay answer is indeterminant this is a goddamn statistical question of course you don't know the truth just perform more bayesian gambling on all the unknown variables

>>11655341
clearly that's not the right approach if the question comes with multiple choices and your answer is indeterminate.

of course you could just attack the premise of the question but that doesn't help anybody

>>11655564
>doesn't help anybody
Wrong - I have a medal of honor from the Autist Bleating Society

>>11655564
>doesn't help anybody
Wrong - I have a medal of honor from the Autist Bleating Society

>>11655328
D the first stat dosnt matter if you ook the test and came up positive and its 99% accurate

>>11655528
wrong

>>11655586
awww, the autist deleted the massive ocd listing

>>11655590
wrong

>>11655592
kek

>>11655480
the test is correct for 99% of people
how is that wrong

>>11655616
because we aren't allowed to assume that the randomly wrong test will select wrongness randomly between all possible wrongness options

>>11655616
the 1% is enough to create boatloads of false positives

>>11655328
You can't be infected if the virus doesn't exist. Bullshit question.

>>11655621
holy shit, there's more info in a fart than in what you just wrote

>>11655328
How is that supposed to be hard? Answer is D and the fraction of the population infected doesn't matter since the test was done to you. You are expected to assume in this hypothetical situation that the accuracy of the test is correct.
If someone can't answer it just mean they are letting politic get in the way of logic.

In this case: As retarded musk can be, dropping his face&company in this question have no impact whatsoever on the answer, so OP is a /pol/tard

>>11655627
I agree that anon is illiterate. Here's another way to understand the problem:

The test is correct 99% of the time. Let's say you take the test and it's positive, but the virus' true rate in the population is 0%. How certain are you that you're actually infected?

>>11655328
Its d its d its d its d. Consider that some of you reyards have calculated that your chance of having a disease goes DOWN when you are tested POSITIVE for it. Retards

>>11655328
I doubt Elon Musk is smart enough to order a hamburger from a drive-thru menu.

>>11655711
When the sage points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger
the post

>>11655668
I'm certain I'm not infected then

>>11655328
[math] P(\textrm{infected}|\textrm{positive}) = \frac{P(\textrm{positive}|\textrm{infected})P(positive)}{P(infected)}[/math]
[math] P(\textrm{infected}|\textrm{positive}) = \frac{(0.99)(1-0.99)}{(0.1)}[\math]
[math] P(\textrm{infected}|\textrm{positive}) = 0.99[/math]

>>11655806
lol, keep your day job

>>11655781
now what if it's 1 in a trillion? 1 in a billion? 0.1%? The question is obviously flawed since we don't know what percentage of the population has been tested. if 100% of the population has been tested, then you know the test will be wrong 1% of the time, or in other words, be positive for 1% of 99.9% of the population which are healthy, when it should be negative, and be negative for 1% of 0.1% of the population which do have the virus. In other words, assuming everyone is tested, you end up with 0.999% of healthy people who test positive, and 99% of infected people who test positive. You add the two and find out that in the general population, you have 0.00099 + 0.00999 = 0.01098 = 1.098% of the population which will end up testing positive. out of 1.098% of the population which tests positive, only 0.099% are truly positive. You therefore have 0.099/1.098 = 0.0901 = 9.01%, or B

>>11655806
you forgot something.

https://youtu.be/R13BD8qKeTg?t=97

>>11655806
holy fuck how retarded do you have to be to not even be able to remember a simple formula correctly

Let [math]A[/math] be the event that you are infected by the virus and [math]B[/math] be the event that your test is positive. The question is then asking precisely the value of [math]P(A \mid B)[/math], i.e., the probability of event [math]A[/math] occurring given knowledge that event [math]B[/math] has occurred.

By Bayes' theorem, [eqn]P(A\mid B)=\frac{P(A)}{P(B)}P(B\mid A).[/eqn]
We will compute each quantity of interest on the right side of the equation first.

We know [math]P(A)=0.001[/math] from the beginning.

We also know that [math]P(B)=P(C \text{ or } D)[/math], where [math]C[/math] is the event "you are infected and the test is accurate" and [math]D[/math] is the event "you are not infected and the test is inaccurate". Since [math]C[/math] and [math]D[/math] are mutually exclusive events, [math]P(C \text{ or } D) = P(C)+P(D)[/math].

We assume that the accuracy of the test is independent of the whether or not you are infected. Thus, [math]P(C)=P(\text{You are infected})\times P(\text{The test is accurate})[/math] and [math]P(D)=P(\text{You are not infected})\times P(\text{The test is not accurate})[/math].

We are given that [math]P(\text{You are infected})=0.001[/math] and [math]P(\text{The test is accurate})=0.99[/math], so [math]P(\text{You are not infected})=1-0.001=0.999[/math] and [math]P(\text{The test is not accurate})=1-0.99=0.01[/math]. Substituting values gives [math]P(C)=(0.001\times 0.99)=0.00099[/math] and [math]P(D)=(0.999 \times 0.01)=0.00999[/math], thus [math]P(B)=0.00099+0.00999=0.01098[/math].

Finally, we see that [math]P(B\mid A)=0.99[/math], since the test is 99% accurate and we know you are infected. Putting all the parts together into Bayes' theorem, we see that [math]P(A\mid B)=(0.001/0.01098) \times 0.99 \approx 0.0901[/math], or about 9%.

>>11655937
>Finally,weseethat[math]P(B∣A)=0.99,
FUCKING FORMATTING
KILL ME

>>11655937
I suppose I should highlight that there is only one real assumption built into the entire argument:
>We assume that the accuracy of the test is independent of the whether or not you are infected.
If you assume this, everything else follows exactly as written and we arrive at B for the answer.

>>11655328
D. 99% headass the pop/n percentage doesn't matter

>>11655328
Is this a bait thread?

>You test positive
>Tests are 99% accurate

????????

OP, kys faggot.

>>11655989
the missing 1% is enough to create boatloads of false positives

>>11655995
It doesn´t matter at all.

The question is:

What is the CHANCE that you´re actually infected?

And you tested positive in a test that´s accurate 99% of the time.

Hence the only good answer is D.

You´re asked the CHANCES, not the absolute term of being infected or not.

>>11655564
The question as asked doesn't help anybody either and it's deeply flawed. The only appropriate thing to do is attack the premise of the question.

>>11655997
>>11655476
>>11655837

>>11656003
The only autistic thing...

It's 9%. B. Proof,
[eqn] P(i|p) = \frac{P(p|i)P(i)}{P(p)}[/eqn]
[eqn] = \frac{(0.099)(0.001)}{(0.001)(0.099)+(0.099)(0.01)}[\eqn]
[eqn] = \frac{0.000099}{0.001089}[\eqn]
[eqn] = 0. \overline{09} [\eqn]

>>11655329
>>11655382
>>11655480
>>11655582
>>11655666
>>11655711
>>11655806
>>11655980
Niggers, all of you.

>>11655711
>going from 0.1% to 9% is "going down"
Okay nigger

>>11656015
>you get tested positive
>hence you are part of the 0.1%
>the only number that matters now is the 99%
>the only thing you could argue is the definition of "affects"
>suck my hairy man nipples faggot

>>11656015
Bullshit made up on a wrong interpretation of a poorly phrased question, probably copypasted from someone's first fakenew.
Total population tested doesn't matter here since the question say you've been tested positive, say the test 99% reliable and ask your chance.

The answer have always been 99% no matter how many time you samefag to pretend your meme is the accepted one.

The question just defined accuracy. So the answer is D lol

>>11656032
Now what if we turn the 0.1% into 0.0%?

Reading most of this thread, I just realized you're all wrong
The correct answer is eugenics

>>11656032

>>11656043

>>11656040
Even better, turn it to 100%
The 99% fag will still say it's 99% (even though it's literally certain)

>>11656040
Basically you'd pretend the virus don't exist and make yourself a retards for asking question with impossible value.
Even if there was only one person infected, if the 99% reliable test is positive, then you have 99% chance of being infected.

>>11656052
...and you must be the same retards because you are also making up clearly impossible value, all this to pretend the test with actually plausible value is different from its logical interpretation.

>>11656029
>you get tested positive
>hence you are part of the 0.1%
Second assertion is wrong. There is a 99% chance that you are part of the 0.1%, but you just assume a positive test guarantees (i.e. 100%) that you are part of the 0.1%. The test is NOT 100% accurate, regardless of whether you are actually infected or not.

>>11656052
No, if you know 100% of the population is infected the 99% fag will say it's 100% because he knows the test is irrelevant. And this not just word play but mathematics by Bayes' theorem:
[eqn]P(\text{infected given that the test is positive})=\frac{P(\text{infected and test is positive})}{P(\text{test is positive})},[/eqn]
and if 100% are infected then [math]P(\text{infected and test is positive})=P(\text{test is positive})[/math] because there is no case when you test positive but are not infected (because you're always infected), i.e. you're infected and test positive if and only if you test positive.

It's the same as saying "the chances of a coin flip and 1+1 equaling 2 is the same as the chance of a coin flip" because what you've added on what side is a 100% guaranteed case, i.e. a tautology, and so it does nothing to change the probability of the combined outcome. I mean, if you have 50/50 chance of heads and tails, it's not going to change if you add a condition of the chance of 1+1 equaling 2.

So [eqn]P(\text{infected given that the test is positive})=\frac{P(\text{test is positive})}{P(\text{test is positive})} =1,[/eqn] so 100%.

>0.1% Affection Rate
>99% Test Accuracy

What the question asks:
What is the chance you are actually infected?
The answer to the dumb question is 0.1%, as it is a precondition set in the problem itself.
What the question should ask:
Granted you have tested positive with the aforementioned preconditions, what are the chances you are actually infected?
Given Ar being the Affection rate and Ta the test accuracy, the answer to that question is [math]A_{r}\cdot T_{a}+(1-T_{a})\cdot(1-A_{r})[/math].
The Correct Question to pose is as follows: What is the chance that you testing positive is directly correlated to you being affected by the virus?
To which the answer is indeed [math]\frac{1}{11}[/math]

>>11656103
yikes you might want to delete that post and rewrite

>>11656103
>Granted you have tested positive with the aforementioned preconditions, what are the chances you are actually infected?
The RELEVANT aforementioned precondition is that the test is 99% reliable. Therefore there's 99% chance of you being contaminated since it's positive.
Don't try to weasel out of a shitty worded question that even failed to serve for fakenews.

>>11656096
The post doesn't specify infected, just affected. If you get tested positive, you will be affected by that result.

Also, regardless of definition, 99% is the closest value to the correct one anyways.

>>11656103
Also your equation is wrong because what [math]A_r\cdot T_a + (1-A_r) \cdot (1-T_a)[/math] gives you is the probability that the test is positive. (See >>11655937 )
In words, the equation is basically saying "OK, you can get a positive by actually being infected and having the test work, or by being non-infected and getting a false positive." Now we just replace "and" with multiply and "or" with add to get the symbolic equation. (This makes an assumption of independence. You also have to show mutual exclusion of the events being "or"d, and both these points has been discussed in the linked post above.)
The question is not asking that, but rather is asking the probability of being infected given knowledge that your test is positive.

>>11656120
Hmm. Let's think through what you're saying.

>The post doesn't specify infected, just affected.
The question specifically says "COVID-19 affects 0.1% of the population." In the interpretation, we have to assume that 'affected by COVID-19=infected by COVID-19'. There is no other valid interpretation of I can think of where you're 'affected but not infected' or 'infected but not affected'.

>If you get tested positive, you will be affected by that result.
We're not talking about actually infected or not, but rather chances of being infected. So you're statement is ill-posed. I can transfer it to the context of probabilities, where it would say
"the chance you get tested positive will affect your chance of getting infected". Phrased like this, it is right: we have to ASSUME this is not the case.

Formally speaking, we have to assume "the chance of the test being correct is independent of the chance of being infected." You can argue that this is an invalid assumption. Bayes' theorem would not simplify this problem for us if we cannot assume independence of the chances.

But as a remark, I will say it is reasonable to assume independence because the question specified no relation/dependence between chance of the test being correct and the infection chance. But this is just a null hypothesis.

All of you math and Stat gags are too retarded to answer the question as something that pertains to real life and are so fucking focused on answering it like a school question to get your autistic dopamine release. For fucks sake the fact that 0.1% of the population has it is completely useless data. There's absolutely no way of knowing that and there never will be. The data that it's 99% accurate is also almost as useless because testing for this virus without actual sequencing is wholly inconclusive. But if we say we have to error on the side of caution and at least trust the data we've generated and not fucking randomly assume what the population statistic is, you have to answer as 99%. You say that's a high fucking number and now treatment should given as if the person has it. You don't fucking go hur dur math ~9% oh ok well you're probably fine bro. No you retards you treat if there are symptoms and you advise preventative measures if there are not. Answer is 99% practically.

>>11656252
The problem doesn't state you show symptoms

>>11655627
unfortunate reading skills anon. i must break things down like i would to a baby

>>of the 100 sick, 99 will test as positive
>wrong
in this post anon disagrees with the claim that a 99% accurate test will hit 99 sick out of 100

>the test is correct for 99% of people
>how is that wrong
in this post you explain that the test is 99% correct and question anon's claim

i then explain anon's reasoning for thinking a 99% accurate test won't hit 99 sick out of 100. anon thinks it is an unjustified assumption on our part, that the 1% of errors will be evenly distributed between false positives and false negatives. it is possible, anon says, and consistent with a 99% accurate test, that the erroneous tests will be distributed in the healthy population. in such a case none of the sick will get a false negative, which will change the proportion of true positives/total positives.

but anon's claim that we are not justified in making this assumption is out of place. since we are already assuming the test is randomly wrong, we might as well assume it doesn't discriminate between sick and healthy people when it comes to randomly failing.

>>11656268
And I didn't use you having symptoms as a necessity for my answer. As I said, even if you're asymptomatic, given that positive test result you should be instructed to take preventive cautions as to not potentially kill your grandparents.

>>11656252
This is not a real world problem faggot
If you want to make it realistic you should add utility and cost functions

Of course it's obvious irl one should get treatment as if infected if the test is positive simply because the cost of ignoring in the event you're actually infected is so much higher than just getting the treatment

>>11656290
>we might as well assume it doesn't discriminate between sick and healthy people when it comes to randomly failing.
This was all you really had to post you blogging retard

>>11656300
Thank you. This is exactly my point. Plus I wanted to throw in the point that most people know, that if you're data is crap, Bayes theorem isn't going to help you.

>>11656300
What a retard. This isn't a real world problem. Lmao and during the pandemic he says that. Oh that's rich.

>>11656304
i'm afraid blog posts are necessary for some people to get the point.

>>11655711
Of course it can go down if the test gives a lot less true positives than there are in the population. Since the test is very accurate this indicates it tells the truth about negatives but lies about positives.

If the test's true positive rate is less than 9/998000 then a positive test reduces your chance that you're infected.

>>11656309
It's clearly phrased as a probability exercise
Just because a problem references a real world issue doesn't mean it's realistic, it's how accurately you model the problem which determines that
Accuracy of a model comes from looser assumptions and high parameter count
You've got to be retarded to think a 2 line problem statement sets up an accurate model
Do everyone here a favor and get off /sci/ forever

This board is legit retarded and full of autists

The answer is literally 50%: either you have it, or you don't.

That's the only real answer to every dumb probability question btw, but you blind motherfuckers will keep doin weird maths like the little nerd virgins you are instead of just accepting the truth.

Sad.

>>11655328
>covid-19 only ever affects your mom
>a test for it is 100% accurate
>you test positive
>what is the chance you are actually infected?
Most anyone not choosing D is trolling. I hope the mods are using this to ban all anons as underage who post in every thread that the answer is anything but D.

>>11656482
This

>>11656482
>The answer is literally 50%: either you have it, or you don't.
Completely off the mark.

The answer is 100% if you have it or 0% if you don't. There's no such thing as probability, things are either true or false.

>>11655328
There isn't enough information. With 99% accuracy, and 0.1% of people infected, the specificity has to be between 98.999% and 99.099%, but the sensitivity could be anywhere from 0% to 100% (note: just because the sensitivity of a test is 0%, doesn't mean you can't test positive; an event can have a 0% chance of happening, and still happen).

>>11656482
>>11656503
You are both wrong, the answer is whatever you write.

>>11655328
The test is 99% accurate.
That means 99% of the time the result shown is correct, and 1% of the time its wrong.
You've tested positive, so there's a 99% chance that's correct, and a 1% chance it's wrong. The first sentence is irrelevant since we know the outcome of the test.

>>11656517
what if you take 2 tests and get different results
you know the outcome of 2 tests now

>>11656506
Show me such an event please

>>11656506
>an event can have a 0% chance of happening, and still happen
you sneak the bait

>>11656527
You could throw a dart with a perfectly 0 dimensional point tip at some grid paper with perfectly 1 dimensional lines. The chance of the dart landing on a line is 0%, but it could still happen.

>>11656536
Video or it didn't happen

YAh!~ He did it! The absolute faggot! OP made this thread again! For the 5th time!

Let the great shitting begin.

>>11656506
>an event can have a 0% chance of happening, and still happen
wat

>>11656522
What is your question exactly? One of them is obvious wrong and the other right, but we have no way of telling which one.

>dude i tested positive for covid-19 and the test is 99% accurate
>don't worry bro. the chances of actually having it, if it only affects some number n of the population is only 9%
>source?
>math
>Are you certain Bayes' Theorem applies?
>dude math

>>11656538
Not the guy you're talking to but what he's discussing is continuous probability functions, or probability densities.

But they don't actually have a probably of 0, for the same reason every integration doesn't equal zero.

>>11656506
>>11655414

Link to old thread ( 4th reiteration )
>>11642478

Methods for shitting on this thread include but are not limited to:
Calling OP faggot, autistic, sperg, retarded, sweetie, etc. Combinations and variations of those themes are welcome
>11649916
>11649949
>11650089
Using google translate to make a post (or just pasta it )
>11653927
>11653943
Pasting the hacked remains of previous posts which have random conclusion
>11645674
Or just simply shitting
>11646837

99% Is correct anyone not getting it is a brainlet. The first statement does not mean anything, we are all affected by Corona.

>>11656548
i paraphrase your post
if a test is 99% accurate, then 99% of the time the result is correct
there is 99% accurate test result.
so there is a 99% chance that(result) is correct

so a result "being correct 99% of the time" also makes it have "a 99% chance of being correct"
but if you took the test twice and got different results then each result must have a 99% chance of being correct and a 99% chance of being wrong
how can chances add up to 198%

>>11656593
ok sweetie

Just follow link to old thread
>>11642478
and then copy paste any post onto this thread. Then it will be the same thread again! Right down to the same exact posts! Yah! Here we go...
>first statement doesnt affect the outcome.
you are 100% infected, by a 99% acc test.

>>11656601
>and a 99% chance of being wrong
lol

>>11656610
Not a conditional probability so 99%

>>11656616
From a mathematical standpoint there is a 99% chance you're infected. From a practical standpoint you're 100% infected and will be quarantined.

>>11656599
>>11642507
>>11642513
>>11642518
>>11642519
Let's test 100000 people.
>100 are infected
>99 correct positives
>1 false negative
>999 false positives
>99 + 999 = 1098 total positive readings
that's ~9% accuracy

>>11656618
>>11656622
lol
las vegas et al. get rich off idiots like you

>>11656591
Aren't autists incapable of lying?

>>11656626
731 KB

>>11642478 (OP)
This problem is boring because there is no possibility of winning a goat.

>>11656627
>not even lying

>>11656601
>but if you took the test twice and got different results then each result must have a 99% chance of being correct
Each test has a 99% chance of being correct, the outcome doesn't change that.
>and a 99% chance of being wrong
They don't. Both tests have a 1% chance of being wrong. 99% + 1% = 100%
>how can chances add up to 198%
They don't, why would you add the probabilites together? They are two separate tests.

>>11656616
the one result has a 99% chance of being correct by virtue of coming out of a 99% accurate test
the opposite result has a 99% chance of being correct for the same reason.
"the opposite result has a 99% of being correct" can be rephrased as "the one result has a 99% chance of being wrong"
this is how the one result gets its 99% chance of being wrong.

>>11656622
>wrong = infected
Youre a moron

>>11655328
I think 32% is the only one that hasn't been said ITT, so I'm going with C. 32%. In doing so, all alternatives have been covered: either your statement that 100% of /sci/ can't solve the problem is now undeniably incorrect, or the answer isn't provided by the alternatives presented.

>>11656634
>if you took the test twice
...and both are positive, then the probability is increases from 9% up to 91%
>>11655837

>>11656643
OP eternally BTFO!

>>11656634
>Each test has a 99% chance of being correct, the outcome doesn't change that.
if believe i found the issue between us. you treat tests like dice with their own intrinsic probability of landing on correct or wrong. "being correct" means to you "rolling a correct". i treat tests as informants. "being correct" means to me "bearing truth" which is an extrinsic property. i obtained the misunderstanding we can all give up the debate now.

>>11656642
That video doesn't apply because the wording is different. This question says "the test for it is 99% accurate". Meaning whatever the result (positive or negative) there's a 99% change that's correct.

The test in that video is "99% accurate for people who have the disease, and incorrectly identity those that don't have the disease". That's saying if it tests positive, there's a 99% chance you sick. Thats not the same, that's why Bayes theorem applies to the situation in the video but not OPs question. They're very slightly different.

>>11656700
>>11655414

>>11656663
>you treat tests
>tests
I'm treating this test based on how it's worded in the actual question.

>>11655449
Wouldn't it be 999 * 1 for false positive?

>>11656712
Not an argument

>>11656720
even as a semantic argument this is questionable. the question is asking about your own chance of being infected given two facts. testing positive using a 99% accurate test doesn't mean you necessarily have a 99% chance of being positive. i tried to show it by assuming this is true and then seeing what happens when you get tested twice and get two results. it leads to you having a 99% chance of being positive and a 99% chance of being negative. either you accept this, and find some way of explaining what this means, or you have to give up on something.

>>11655328
This makes the assumption that the true positive and true negative rates are the same

>>11656631
The autist has landed

>>11656634
sperg more

>>11656636
retardation, the post

>>11656638
చిన్న విషయాలు ఎల్లప్పుడూ ఆమెకు అలా చేశాయి

>>11656642
wrong you blithering idiot

>>11656890
your runes all remind me of ball sacks
apologies

>>11656643
ok sweetie

>>11656659
dumbass

>>11656663
autism

>>11656700
imbecile

>>11656498
>>11656503
>>11656506
>>11656508
>>11656517
>>11656522
>>11656527
>>11656532
>>11656536
>>11656538
>>11655329
>>11655341
>>11655382
>>11655412
>>11655414
>>11655421
>>11655428
>>11655434
>>11655442
>>11655447
>>11655449
>>11655454
>>11655455
>>11655476
>>11655480
>>11655476
>>11655484
>>11655511
>>11655484
>>11655484
>>11655511
>>11655522
>>11655528
>>11655553
>>11655564
>>11655581
>>11655582
>>11655582
>>11655586
all completely wrong retards

This is a SFW board. No fleshlights or other sex toys.

A lot of them just look plain northern/central European. Aren't a significant portion of them just descended from autistic Germans (by far the most autistic subgroup of the most autistic race, whites, and converting to some autistic 'pure, original' version of the Abrahamic faith seems like EXACTLY something German LARPers would dream up) who converted over the past few centuries? I honestly think half the Ashkenazim you see in Israel would just be considered white if not for the funny costumes or Jewish names/mannerisms. They tend to just look like beta whites, which is why the populations of places like Ireland look very Jewish.

>>11657036
Are you a bot or just in the wrong thread

>>11656911
I disagree 11655434 was right

>>11657066
I am a seagull. I leave huge piles of steaming seagull shit on shitty threads created by shitty people.

>>11657224
That's insulting for actual seagull. They are better than you.

>>11657239
Regardless, seagulls just cant help themselves. They shit everywhere. I am just guiding them in to target. Once they see my shit they will feel compelled to empty their bowels as well. A great pile of shit will form. A mountain of shit. A fitting testimony to the value of this thread and its creator.

healthy and correct reading: 0.999 * 0.99 = 0.98901
healthy and incorrect reading: 0.999 * 0.01 = 0.00999
sick and correct reading: 0.001 * 0.99 = 0.00099
sick and incorrect reading: 0.001 * 0.01 = 0.00001

healthy and incorrect reading + sick and correct reading = 0.01098

chance of sick and correct reading given that the test shows sick = 0.00099 / 0.01098 = 0.09016

>>11657355
wrong dumbass

>>11657400
here's a tip, calling someone wrong without saying what is wrong makes you look like an absolute mongrel

>>11657429
you are assuming that 99% accuracy means that only 99% of infected people will test positive. This is actually not the case. A test can have different "accuracies" for infected and noninfected people. In the real world, usually nearly 100% of infected people will correctly test positive.

also see this image >>11655341

>>11657429
wrong retard

>>11657642
>100000 people tested
>0.1% are sick = 100 people
>99.9% are healthy = 99900 people
>test accuracy 99%
>of the 100 sick, 99 will test as positive
>of the 100 sick, 1 will test as negative (FN)
>of the 99900 healthy, 999 will test as positive (FP)
>of the 99900 healthy, 98901 will test as negative
>99/(99+999)=99/1098=0.09016393443
>B. 9%

>>11657663
>of the 100 sick, 99 will test as positive
wrong. im not going to explain it again to you. I explained it once and linked to the image that demonstrates why you are wrong.

>>11655328
Truly amazing how stupid people really are.
D.

>>11657642
yeah that's what X% accuracy means, the separate accuracy for healthy and sick needs to be specified or the stated accuracy refers to both.

>>11657675
>99% accuracy doesn't mean 99% accuracy
yeah ok, if you say mr. genius

>>11657792
wrong, see >>11655341
accuracy is 99% in all cases but clearly the predictive power changes drastically.

>>11655937
nice formating retard. 9%s actually belive this lol dumb nigger

>>11655328
As others mentioned, the first stat doesn't matter. The answer is D. If there is a 99% chance that the test will be accurate and you test positive, then 99% chance that the positive test is correct and therefore you have COVID-19 and 1% you don't. Nothing is affecting that 99% number. You're all overthinking this shit to sound smart cus of MUH BAYES' THEOREM as if you think that matters. You don't need a Ph.D in Math to figure this shit out.

>>11657675
wrong retard

>>11658036
The autard has landed. Day of the Sperg when?

>>11658041
sperglord chimping out, maximum autism style

>>11658063
You copied that from the last thread.

>>11655329
.1% actually infected. Test arent consequential to actual infection. As I was going to St. Ives.

>>11658074
you blitering retard has landed

>>11656749
Not an argument

>>11658087
No wait. You cant do that. That's cheating. I was going to call you a "blithering idiot" and now you have gone and used the word "blithering". Even if you did fuck up and spell it wrong.

Look, we are going to have to reach some sort of agreement as to who can say what and when. Sort of like a Spergeneva Convention. Or else I will get the big guns out.

>>11658053
What bearing does the population rate have on someone's own individual test? If only 9% of people actually had the virus who tested positive like you guys claim, then what the fuck is the point of doing mass testing and tracking virus data? Give me a break.

>>11657681
Not an argument. Blithering spergtard

>>11658112
1% actually infected. Test arent consequential to actual infection. Even as a semantic argument this is questionable. the question is asking about your own chance of being infected given two facts. testing positive using a 99% accurate test doesn't mean you necessarily have a 99% chance of being positive. i tried to show it by assuming this is true and then seeing what happens when you get tested twice and get two results. it leads to you having a 99% chance of being positive and a 99% chance of being negative. either you accept this, and find some way of explaining what this means, or you have to give up on something.

>>11657675
>im not going to explain it again
lol sure ok sweetie

>>11658115
no u

>>11658154
ليس انت

>>11658161
ਨਹੀਂ ਤੁਸੀਂ

>>11658170
Alright, I did warn you. I wanted to play by the rules but you just couldn't be fair. I said I would get the big guns out. Now you are going to have to face one of them. Let this be a lesson to you.

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

>>11658193
Ok retard.

>>11658449
Ok homosexual.

>>11658472
Alright nonwhite.

>>11658484
Not a problem spastic

>>11658553
Whatever unclever.

>nobody knows Bayes Theorem
Is /sci/ the lowest IQ board on all of 4chan?

>>11658576
>Bayes Theorem
No you need a confusion matrix, Bayes theorem is irrelevant here.

>>11658567
envy more catholic

>>11658576
retard

>>11658587
wrong

>>11658595
Suck cock laughingstock.

>>11658604
stupid, the cuck

>>11658604
>I have lice in my pubes

>>11658587
This is the exact example used for bayes theorem when I did it at uni. Except it says COVID instead of disease.

>>11658615
>>11658609
Seethe

>>11658576
fruity faggot post

>>11658618
wingnut boy posts again

>>11658620
Cope

>>11658616
> I too have lice in my pubes

>>11658616
you went to a shit uni then. we did diagnostic tests in high school stats and we learned in high school that a single "accuracy" figure isn't enough to fully describe a diagnostic test, and that you need two figures to be able to solve this problem.

>>11658621
no u dingleberries

>>11658625
Yikes

>>11658602
Wrong.

>>11658616
Either you're misremembering or your university was shit.

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

>>11658623
1% actually infected. Test arent consequential to actual infection. Even as a semantic argument this is questionable. the question is asking about your own chance of being infected given two facts. testing positive using a 99% accurate test doesn't mean you necessarily have a 99% chance of being positive. i tried to show it by assuming this is true and then seeing what happens when you get tested twice and get two results. it leads to you having a 99% chance of being positive and a 99% chance of being negative. either you accept this, and find some way of explaining what this means, or you have to give up on something.

>>11658626
oh!

>>11658632
Cringe

>>11658627

1000 x 0.1% = one infected

1000 x 1% false pos = 10 false pos

1/11 = 9% Cool

Now what happens when it’s like real life and we have Switzerland at 9.7%, Sweden at 10, Madrid at 11%, NYC at 20, etc
100000 people tested
0.1% are sick = 100 people
99.9% are healthy = 99900 people
test accuracy 99%
of the 100 sick, 99 will test as positive
of the 100 sick, 1 will test as negative (FN)
of the 99900 healthy, 999 will test as positive (FP)
of the 99900 healthy, 98901 will test as negative

99/(99+999)=99/1098=0.09016393443
B. 9%

what kind of gay answer is indeterminant this is a goddamn statistical question of course you don't know the truth just perform more bayesian gambling on all the unknown variable
Answer is D and the fraction of the population infected doesn't matter since the test was done to you. You are expected to assume in this hypothetical situation that the accuracy of the test is correct.
If someone can't answer it just mean they are letting politic get in the way of logic.

In this case: As retarded musk can be, dropping his face&company in this question have no impact whatsoever on the answer, so OP is a /pol/tard

>>11658628
i'm not saying the answer isn't around 9%. I'm saying the answer actually can range from 0 to 1/11 (~9.09%). THe first thing anyone who took a stats course should be thinking when they see this problem is "i need another figure to solve this". without that other figure, you can only get a range.

>>11658623
>>11658627
Ok the example expands on it to specify that 99 percent of people who are sick test positive and 99 percent of the healthy people test negative.

This was for a medical science degree so raw maths wasn't a major focus.

>>11658633
OH! How bitchy!

>>11658640
Have sex

>>11658636
clearly that's not the right approach if the question comes with multiple choices and your answer is indeterminate.
of course you could just attack the premise of the question but that doesn't help anybody

>>11658635
>1000 x 1% false pos
False positive and false negatives together are 1% of the tests. That doesn't tell you the rate of false positives.

>>11658635
yikes, the seething brainlet is copy pasting gibberish again

>>11658642
better not ask you how, faggot.

>>11658645
>False positive and false negatives together are 1% of the tests. That doesn't tell you the rate of false positives.
No a test with 99% reliability is shorthand to mean 99% TP and 99% TN. If you ever studied epidemiology you would know this.

>>11658649
Dilate

>>11658647
wrong spergy
and?

>>11658651
then i will watch how your father does it

>>11658658
Have fun
Goodnight

>>11658650
wrong

>>11658650
"reliability" is not "accuracy". accuracy is a rigorously defined term, defined as (TP+TN)/N.

>>11658650
>No a test with 99% reliability is shorthand to mean 99% TP and 99% TN
"Reliability" is not a thing. Accuracy is though and doesn't allow you to calculate TP and TN with just the prevalence rate.

>>11658660
wet dreams

>>11658662
wrong again try harder

>>11658661
>>11658662
>>11658663
Then it's a shitty troll question with as much scientific value as pic related.

An epidemiologist will read it the same way I did. Armchair physicists like /sci/ are happy to play around in their pseudo-intellectual playground with no real-world application but some of us have actual jobs and aren't just neets.

>>11658663
they didnt teach you much in school.

>>11658672
no its a great question, you just aren't bright enough to understand it.

>>11658672
>Then it's a shitty troll question with as much scientific value as pic related.
Wow, it's almost like you're on 4channel.

>An epidemiologist will read it the same way I did.
Ha, no.

>>11658676
super massive autard

>>11658676
>work in a team with epidemiologists
>went through the same classes
Your "Ha, no." is funny but factually wrong.

>>11658685
Any epidemiologist would know what the accuracy of a diagnostic test means, unlike you.

>>11658685
wrong

>>11658687
Any epidemiologist would know that someone wrote the wrong thing because they're used to working with other people and not living in a basement cocoon.

>>11658687
also wrong

>>11658690
>>11658691
Wrong.

>>11658690
Any epidemiologist would know about seagulls. Seagulls like to shit. I'm a seagull. AMA.

>>11658693
right

I read all of those posts. NEVER STOP, you are gifted in subject analysis and mathmatical modeling. I have just started watching, and I'm loving everything I see. Educate the tards far beyond what they ever wanted, learning until it hurts is the cornerstone of intelligence building.

>>11658694
Why you always steal my chips for?
Do you prefer with or without tomato sauce?

>>11658708
>Why you always steal my chips for?
For my beached as bro
>Do you prefer with or without tomato sauce?
Prefer children's fingers desu

>>11655328
Define is 99% accurate

COVID-19 affects 0.1% of the population, n.

Unaffected = 0.999n
Affected = 0.001n

If n are tested

Indepenent Probability of false positive = Unaffected * Chance of inaccuracy = 0.999n * 0.01 = 0.00999n
Independent Probability of true positive = Affected * Chance of accuracy = 0.001n * 0.99 = 0.00099n

Probability of true positive = 0.00099n/(0.00099n + 0.00999n) ~= 9%.

>>11658576
It's always funny seeing someone waltz into a thread and take a crap without really reading anything in it

>>11655328
0%, COVID is a hoax

ffs I posted the answer in the second post and you dumb fucks still got it wrong

answer >>11655341

>>11659111
wrong
>>11659047
wrong
>>11658977
wrong
>>11658576
wrong

The test is 99% accurate. You test positive. That is all that matters here, its D and the autistic posters with their pages of calculations are just there for retards to think that must be smart and correct.

But its D

>>11655328
"accurate" is a weasel word. sage goes in all fields.

>>11659956
>pages of calculations
its literally 9 lines, half of which are just a system of two variable linear equations that middle schoolers can solve. >>11655341

>>11659946
>>11655414

>>11659956
Are you sure that % of people infected doesn't matter? Try what happens with different values

>>11660269
wrong

>>11659101
wrong

>>11659986
wrong again stupid

>>11660057
no its not retard

>>11655328
I'm going with X Æ A-12

>>11655328
D. 99%

can you guys use your logic for once

instead of citing math you dont even understand yourself but fully accept it as the truth no question

holy npc

>>11655328
Conceptually, it is a tricky question, but ok. The answer is 0.1%, because the detection of the virus does not change the state of health of the individual. You either have or do not have an infection of corona virus. Then, you either know it or you don't. Also, accuracy it's not the right term in this regard.

>>11661163

true positive rate + false negative rate + true negative rate + false positive rate = 1

Prevalence rate = true positive rate + false negative rate

Accuracy = true positive rate + true negative rate

Chance you are infected = true positive rate / (true positive rate+false positive rate)

>>11655341
>>11659946
wrong

>>11662004
severe autism

>>11662403
wrong

>>11661432
massive retardation

>>11661183
would be correct except its not. Dummy.

>>11661169
ሞኝነትህ አስገራሚ ነው

>>11661933
stupid ass

>>11655328
D. Is there something i'm missing?
> A test for it is 99% accurate
> You test positive.
> What is the chance you are actually infected?
Why does any info prior to this matter?

>>11662972
Wrong meathead.

>>11662972
You're in the same waiting room as a boatload of false positives, you can't know if you're one of them too

>>11663049
How is that supposed to be hard? Answer is D and the fraction of the population infected doesn't matter since the test was done to you. You are expected to assume in this hypothetical situation that the accuracy of the test is correct.
>If someone can't answer it just mean they are letting politic get in the way of logic.
In this case: As retarded musk can be, dropping his face&company in this question have no impact whatsoever on the answer, so OP is a /pol/tard

Open question to D fags: what if the numbers change a bit to make it more extreme? Let's say 8 people in the world, 1 per billion, are infected and the test has a 50% accuracy. You test positive. How worried are you?


I'm trying to make it obvious that you should NOT be worried, if you still can't see it you should try to brute force it with math

>>11663275
I'd go "ok I suppose I'm a false positive" rather than "oh shit I'm 1 in a billion". Rational?

>>11663275
unprecedented levels of stupidity

>>11663271
Accuracy is the rate of correct results, not the rate of correct positives among positive results.

>>11662839
right

why is it not 9% with bayes?

>>11663404
What is P(positive|infected)?

>>11655328
I know that this is basically the monty hall problem but I am too low IQ to solve it. I think its 9% but I have no basis for it other than "the least intuitive answer is right"

>>11663430
>every probability question is Monty Hall

>>11662852
Yeah, at least I read the question:
>What is the chance that you are ACTUALLY infected.
So no intersection of the two probabilities.
If the question were: Whas is the chance that you are positive and you test positive, then it would be a compound probability.

>>11659111
BASED

>>11663430
Let me help you anon
>a test is 99% accurate
>you test positive
What are the chances the test was accurate

>>11664200
In general the test is 99% accurate. For a positive test, the chance it's accurate is unknown, between 0 and 1/11.

>>11655328
B

Of 1,000,000 test subjects, 1,000 are actually infected, and 990 will test positive.
On the other hand 999,000 are not infected, of which 9990 will test positive.

So we get [math]p = \frac{990}{9990+990} = 0.090163934 \hat{\approx} 9.02\%[/math].

>>11664384
wrong. you can't infer that 99% accuracy means that 99% of infected people will test positive.

>>11664452
>>11655414

>>11664521
still seething. what has it been, a week now?

>>11664452
>you can't infer that 99% accuracy means that 99% of infected people will test positive.
It's the only number for accuracy has been given, so it's reasonable to assume that both types of error are supposed to be (relatively) equally likely, i.e. 1%.

>>11663281
thick as a brick

>>11663305
retard

>>11664545
why would you make such an assumption and give a possibly incorrect answer when instead you can easily show that either .1% or 9% can be the answer, and report that you need one more figure to identify which is the answer? if you are building a rocket that will carry humans and someone asks you a question with incomplete information, you don't just make assumptions and call it good enough.

>>11664452
immense stupidity

>>11664384
learn math

>>11664200
retardation in action

>>11663480
But they are. Every single last one. You would know this if your mother has stopped drinking.

>>11663997
stay dumb

>>11663404
Because its obviously not ya mongrel

>>11664531
read all of those posts. NEVER STOP, you are gifted in subject analysis and mathmatical modeling. I have just started watching, and I'm loving everything I see. Educate the tards far beyond what they ever wanted, learning until it hurts is the cornerstone of intelligence building.

>>11663408
10%

>>11664622
wrong

>>11664650
sorry, made a little rounding error. its actually 9.999...%

>>11664657
ਤੁਸੀਂ ਬਹੁਤ ਮੂਰਖ ਅਤੇ ਮੋਟੇ ਹੋ

>>11664531
>>11664578

>>11664194
wrong

>>11664692
ਤੁਸੀਂ ਬਹੁਤ ਮੂਰਖਤਾ ਹੈਰਾਨ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੀ ਹੈ

>>11664619
wrong

>>11664704
wrong

>>11664698
1% actually infected. Test arent consequential to actual infection. Even as a semantic argument this is questionable. the question is asking about your own chance of being infected given two facts. testing positive using a 99% accurate test doesn't mean you necessarily have a 99% chance of being positive. i tried to show it by assuming this is true and then seeing what happens when you get tested twice and get two results. it leads to you having a 99% chance of being positive and a 99% chance of being negative. either you accept this, and find some way of explaining what this means, or you have to give up on something.
Conceptually, it is a tricky question, but ok. The answer is 0.1%, because the detection of the virus does not change the state of health of the individual. You either have or do not have an infection of corona virus. Then, you either know it or you don't. Also, accuracy it's not the right term in this regard.
COVID-19 affects 0.1% of the population, n.

Unaffected = 0.999n
Affected = 0.001n

If n are tested

Indepenent Probability of false positive = Unaffected * Chance of inaccuracy = 0.999n * 0.01 = 0.00999n
Independent Probability of true positive = Affected * Chance of accuracy = 0.001n * 0.99 = 0.00099n

Probability of true positive = 0.00099n/(0.00099n + 0.00999n) ~= 9%.
clearly that's not the right approach if the question comes with multiple choices and your answer is indeterminate.
of course you could just attack the premise of the question but that doesn't help anybody
1000 x 0.1% = one infected

1000 x 1% false pos = 10 false pos

1/11 = 9% Cool

Now what happens when it’s like real life and we have Switzerland at 9.7%, Sweden at 10, Madrid at 11%, NYC at 20, etc
100000 people tested
0.1% are sick = 100 people
99.9% are healthy = 99900 people
test accuracy 99%
of the 100 sick, 99 will test as positive
of the 100 sick, 1 will test as negative (FN)
of the 99900 healthy, 999 will test as positive (FP)

>>11664705
100% of /sci/ can't solve this problem. Do you think elon musk is smart enough to solve it?
Autist soon to swoop in...

>>11664723
at this point i'm pretty sure you have a legitimate mental illness. have you ever been to a psychiatrist?

>>11655328
B is the closest

The semantics of 99% accurate are very vague. It's better to say something like the test is wrong 1% of the time or has a sensitivity and specificity of 99%

>>11664912
at this point i'm pretty sure you have a legitimate mental illness. have you ever been to a psychiatrist?

>>11664912
>>11663014

>>11664927
at this point i'm pretty sure you have a legitimate mental illness. have you ever been to a psychiatrist?

>>11664938
at this point i'm pretty sure you have a legitimate mental illness. have you ever been to a psychiatrist?

>>11664709
at this point i'm pretty sure you have a legitimate mental illness. have you ever been to a psychiatrist?

>>11655329
If n are tested
Indepenent Probability of false positive = Unaffected * Chance of inaccuracy = 0.999n * 0.01 = 0.00999n
Independent Probability of true positive = Affected * Chance of accuracy = 0.001n * 0.99 = 0.00099n
>Probability of true positive = 0.00099n/(0.00099n + 0.00999n) ~= 9%.
>clearly that's not the right approach if the question comes with multiple choices and your answer is indeterminate.
of course you could just attack the premise of the question but that doesn't help anybody
1000 x 0.1% = one infected

>>11656498
>>11656503
>>11656506
>>11656508
>>11656517
>>11656522
>>11656527
>>11656532
>>11656536
>>11656538
>>11655329
>>11655341
>>11655382
>>11655412
>>11655414
>>11655421
>>11655428
>>11655434
>>11655442
>>11655447
>>11655449
>>11655454
>>11655455
>>11655476
>>11655480
>>11655476
>>11655484
>>11655511
>>11655484
>>11655484
>>11655511
>>11655522
>>11655528
>>11655553
>>11655564
>>11655581
>>11655582
>>11655582
>>11655586

>>11664948
>>11664954
>>11664959
at this point you're pretty sure i have a legitimate mental illness. have i ever been to a psychiatrist?

wow, I really struck a nerve didn't I? Might want to dial your therapist m8, don't want you to hurt yourself during your mental breakdown.

>>11664993
at this point you're pretty sure i have a legitimate mental illness. have i ever been to a psychiatrist?

>>11664974
wow, I really struck a nerve didn't I? Might want to dial your therapist m8, don't want you to hurt yourself during your mental breakdown.

>>11664657
>at this point i'm pretty sure you have a legitimate mental illness. have you ever been to a psychiatrist?

>>11655341
>at this point you're pretty sure i have a legitimate mental illness. have i ever been to a psychiatrist?

>>11665051
wow, u really struck my nerve didn't u? i Might want to dial my therapist m8, don't want to hurt myself during my mental breakdown.

>>11665138
>wow, he really struck they nerve didn't me? u Might want to dial her therapist m8, don't want to hurt itself during their mental breakdown.

>>11664384
didn't mental breakdown hurt myself during
really struck u? to want dial my tis m8, don't want to my wow, u my nerve i Might

>>11664715
>Test arent consequential to actual infection.
They are consequential to probability of actual infection.

>i tried to show it by assuming this is true and then seeing what happens when you get tested twice and get two results. it leads to you having a 99% chance of being positive and a 99% chance of being negative.
This just proves you don't know basic math.

>>11655328
wow, dheweke pancen nyerang dheweke ora saraf? Sampeyan Mungkin pengin nelpon terapi m8 dheweke, ora pengin nglarani dhewe sajrone gangguan mental

>>11665199
vá, sló hann virkilega að þeir fóru ekki í taugarnar á mér? u Gæti hugsanlega hringt í meðferðaraðila hennar m8, vil ekki meiða sig við andlegt sundurliðun þeirra

Let Px = 1 and Py =2
(x_{1}^{2}-Ny_{1}^{2})(x_{2}^{2}-Ny_{2}^{2}) = (x_{1}x_{2}+Ny_{1}y_{2})^{2}
N(x_{1}y_{2}+x_{2}y_{1})^{2}
(u^{2}-dv^{2})^{2}=(\pm 2)^{2}}

to get

( u 2 + d v 2 ) 2 − d ( 2 u v ) 2 = 4. (u^{2}+dv^{2})^{2}-d(2uv)^{2}=4.}
(u^{2}+dv^{2})^{2}-d(2uv)^{2}=4.}

Since d v 2 = u 2 ∓ 2
dv^{2}=u^{2}\mp 2} dv^2 = u^2 \mp 2

it follows that

( u 2 ∓ 1 ) 2 − d ( u v ) 2 = 1
(u^{2}\mp 1)^{2}-d(uv)^{2}=1,}
(u^{2}\mp 1)^{2}-d(uv)^{2}=1,}

and so the fundamental solution is D. 99%. Simple enough unless you a brainlet.

>>11665242
пa дypи и типoт нa poг

>>11665249
your father dilates like an expert

>>11664967
>Indepenent Probability of false positive = Unaffected * Chance of inaccuracy
Incorrect. Look up what accuracy means in diagnostic testing.

>>11664938
>The semantics of 99% accurate are very vague.
It has a standard definition.

>>11665280
˙ƃuiʇsǝʇ ɔiʇsouƃɐip ui suɐǝɯ ʎɔɐɹnɔɔɐ ʇɐɥʍ dn ʞoo˥ ˙ʇɔǝɹɹoɔuI

>>11665284
.noitinifed dradnats a sah tI

I made a mistake in my calculations. It should have been this.

{'Ɩ={ᄅ}^(ʌn)p-{ᄅ}^(Ɩ dɯ\{ᄅ}^n)
{'Ɩ={ᄅ}^(ʌn)p-{ᄅ}^(Ɩ dɯ\{ᄅ}^n)
Ɩ = ᄅ ( ʌ n ) p − ᄅ ( Ɩ ∓ ᄅ n )

ʇɐɥʇ sʍolloɟ ʇi

ᄅ dɯ\ ᄅ^n = ᄅ^ʌp {ᄅ dɯ\{ᄅ}^n={ᄅ}^ʌp
ᄅ ∓ ᄅ n = ᄅ ʌ p ǝɔuiS

{˙ㄣ={ᄅ}^(ʌnᄅ)p-{ᄅ}^({ᄅ}^ʌp+{ᄅ}^n)
{˙ㄣ={ᄅ}^(ʌnᄅ)p-{ᄅ}^({ᄅ}^ʌp+{ᄅ}^n) ˙ㄣ = ᄅ ( ʌ n ᄅ ) p − ᄅ ( ᄅ ʌ p + ᄅ n )

ʇǝƃ oʇ

{{ᄅ}^(ᄅ ɯd\)={ᄅ}^({ᄅ}^ʌp-{ᄅ}^n)
{ᄅ}^({Ɩ}ʎ{ᄅ}x+{ᄅ}ʎ{Ɩ}x)N
{ᄅ}^({ᄅ}ʎ{Ɩ}ʎN+{ᄅ}x{Ɩ}x) = ({ᄅ}^{ᄅ}ʎN-{ᄅ}^{ᄅ}x)({ᄅ}^{Ɩ}ʎN-{ᄅ}^{Ɩ}x)
ᄅ= ʎԀ puɐ Ɩ = xԀ ʇǝ˥

>>11665280
'severe autism'
Honestly, what was I even expecting?

>>11665690
I am a seagull. AMA

Hey guys, it has come to my attention that there is some sperglord coming onto this thread every time its remade and posting shit.
Usually he just calls everyone a retard, stupid, autistic, regardless of how they answer the question. Sometimes he poses as OP and makes a point of acting especially retarded. Perfect camouflage, yes, this guy is master of disguise. Other times he just copies random parts of previous posts and spams those over the thread. Another favorite tactic is using google translate to post some gibberish in another language. Sometime he even posts shit upside down or back to front. Yeah, go figure..Probably has a lot of acne.

Obviously we are dealing with someone with way too much time on his hands. Probably binges on Netflix while keeping this thread open in another browser.

So look, please ignore this guy and stay on topic. This is a very interesting and perplexing problem OP has created. We can hone our minds by trying to figure out the correct answer. Its not as simple as you might think, so lets not get distracted by shitposters who...oh...hang on...yeah..look really sorry, I have definitely got to take a shit right now...OMG!...HERE IT COMES! FUUUUCKKKKK! Ohhh!. Oh God. That was a big sticky one. Fuck. God. What was I saying?

>>11666128
>>11665690

>>11666539
>>>11666128 (You)
>>>11665690
>>11666128 (You)
>>11665690
>>11666128 (You)
>>11665690

>>11666637
>>>11666539
>>>>11666128 (You) (You)
>>>>11665690
>>>11666128 (You) (You)
>>>11665690
>>>11666128 (You) (You)
>>>11665690
>>11666539
>>>11666128 (You) (You)
>>>11665690
>>11666128 (You) (You)
>>11665690
>>11666128 (You) (You)
>>11665690
>>11666539
>>>11666128 (You) (You)
>>>11665690
>>11666128 (You) (You)
>>11665690
>>11666128 (You) (You)
>>11665690

>>11666638
>>>11666637 (You)
>>>>11666539
>>>>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>>>>11665690
>>>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>>>11665690
>>>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>>>11665690
>>>11666539
>>>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>>>11665690
>>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>>11665690
>>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>>11665690
>>>11666539
>>>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>>>11665690
>>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>>11665690
>>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>>11665690
>>11666637 (You)
>>>11666539
>>>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>>>11665690
>>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>>11665690
>>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>>11665690
>>11666539
>>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>>11665690
>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>11665690
>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>11665690
>>11666539
>>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>>11665690
>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>11665690
>>11666128 (You) (You) (You)
>>11665690

>>11666637
>>11666638
>>11666640
>see, i'm not an autist, no ocd at all
LOL