/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9744912
unironically, in some versions of quantum this is accurate

>>9744912
Probability Theory: you either get it or you don't.
Those outcomes are not equally likely.

>>9744932
>implying true randomness exists in the universe

>>9744912
What is the probability of something being a probability of 50/50?

>>9744954
100% are you a retard?

>>9744912
And you obviously don't get it.
Buy a lottery ticket.
Either you win or you don't, right? 50/50
Buy two tickets with different numbers.
If one doesn't win (and it won't, half the time) the other one MUST be drawn.
Now that you're filthy rich you can hire a mathematician to teach you probability

>>9745054
if you buy 2 tickets and lose that means the next 2 you buy will win and so on

>>9744945
>It's a brainlet on /sci/ denying settled science episode

>>9744974

So how can probabilities then just be 50%?

>>9745082
>>9745061
>>9745060
What's the probability of 3 separate coins all being heads if I flipped them at the same time?

>>9745061
>the existence of randomness in the universe is settled science
You're fucking retarded

>>9744912
You completely miss what statistics is about, it is about using all the knowledge available to give probabilities of outcomes.

in the Monty Hall problem if you did NOT know about him opening a losing door every time then indeed the probability of you winning is 50% regardless of which door is chosen, but uing the knowledge that of the three doors he will open a losing door, you can then compute the probability to be that the probability is 2 times better if you switch doors.

>>9744912
>Isn't probabilities just 50%?
>Why did they have to over complicate it?
>You either get it or you dont.
I'm going for a walk.
I'll either get hit by lightning or I won't.
50-50

>>9745173
The burden of proof lies on the claim that there ARE hidden variables. Tits or GTFO, except in this case the tits are a valid hidden variable theory.

>>9744912
No, because they will always open a door with a goat. You don't actually learn anything when they do that, because there's two goats, so you knew one of the ones you didn't pick had a goat. By choosing to switch, you're effectively getting two doors instead of one. They're tricking you by showing the goat.

>>9745173
>>9745286
Could you two just acknowledge you're both framing your interpretation of scientific knowledge in a way that suits your own personal emotional needs rather than any objective truth?
I'm mean I know Monty Hall threads are meant for shitposting, but come on...

>>9745296
Bell's theorem.

Either, quantum processes are random in that the state of the system is "set" upon measurement (interaction)

OR

They are "random" in that the global hidden variables predetermine the result of every such measurement in an as-of-yet unpredictable manner

Until there is substantial evidence for the latter, compared to the current amount, which is zero, random processes are a fact.

>>9745314
I'm not trying to settle your 'tardish argument, just trying to say you're both being children.

>>9745322
The argument isn't tardish, it's just a hundred years old and pretty much settled everywhere but here.

>>9744912

>>9745156
50%
it either happens or it doesn't

>>9745323
You're still missing the point.
We're supposedly talking about the Monty Hall problem, a puzzle that would still work the same way in a deterministic universe.
You're banging a particular drum because it satisfies your own personal emotional needs, not because it's relevant to the subject at hand.

>>9745339
But it doesnt happen in several different ways, thus it's not just 2 outcomes you dumn nigger

>>9744912
The initial probability is that you've picked a goat or a car, which is a 50/50 chance, not a 1/3 chance.

>Switch
Pick goat. Switch. Win car.
Pick goat. Switch. Win car.
Pick car. Switch. Win goat.

>Don't switch
Pick goat. Don't switch. Win goat.
Pick goat. Don't switch. Win goat.
Pick car. Don't switch. Win car.

You do the math.

PROBABILITY ≠ CHANCE
CHANCE ≠ PROBABILITY

Woah... there is a 50% chance of every person on earth dying all at once, every microsecond. We are so lucky to have made it this far.

>>9744912
This might be the best illustration of the problem so far.

>>9747602
How exactly are they different?

>>9744945
>implying it has to

>>9745274
Technically, no. Statistical analysis is about learning information about a population of agents. It doesn't even have to be random.

You're right if you reword it as probability, however.

>>9745728

you change = 2/3 car

you stick = 2/3 goat

Let's say this is happening for a TV game show

After the player makes his original choice, the TV host opens a door. The player must now decide between the two remaining doors.
However, we know that the TV host will only open a door which doesn't have the car behind it. That's why it's more advantageous to switch to the other door

Let's say that there were 1000 doors. You pick one, then the TV host opens 998 of the remaining doors. There are now 2 doors remaining.

Which one is more likely to have the goat? The one you chose initially, one of the other 999 that the host deliberately avoided opening?
Obviously it makes sense to switch your guess in this scenario

>>9745590
did the 3 coins land head?
either yes or no
50/50

>>9744912
i fuck your sister raw
she has a 50% chance of getting pregnant
she either is or she isn't

>>9744912

But what is the probability that that black man steals the car?

>>9744912
>Implying the player doesn't want the goat

>>9745728
>Switch
Pick goat. Switch. Win car or goat.
Pick goat. Switch. Win car or goat.
Pick car. Switch. Win goat or goat.

>Don't switch
Pick goat. Don't switch. Win goat.
Pick goat. Don't switch. Win goat.
Pick car. Don't switch. Win cart.

You do the math.