/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 164 KB, 356x302, coins.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/cfp/ - Coin Flip Problem Anonymous Mon Jul 4 08:02:07 2022 No.14624620 [Reply] [Original]

Can /sci/ do probability?

Let [math]C=\{c_1, c_2\}[/math] be a set of coins and let [math]f(c): C\rightarrow\{H, T\}[/math] be a flip function mapping elements from the coins set to head [math]H[/math] or tails [math]T[/math]. What's the probability [math]P(\forall x\in C\, f(x) = H) = ?[/math]

>inb4 /biz/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 08:07:40 2022 No.14624630 >flip function Wat. I don't understand your notation but I'd say 1/3 without thinking too much about it

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 08:07:56 2022 No.14624631 >>14624620 1/3?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 08:09:06 2022 No.14624637 >and at least one of them landed heads Am I having a stroke what does this mean?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 08:09:13 2022 No.14624638 >>14624630 A function that flips coins.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 09:01:05 2022 No.14624734 >>14624620 50/50 either you read Landau or you didnt

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 09:12:47 2022 No.14624746 Both of the coins could still be tails. Just not at the same time. So the answer is 1/3

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 09:19:03 2022 No.14624759 >>14624620 50% it's either both coins landed heads or didn't.

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:24:24 2022 No.14624901

>>14624620
Depends on the probability that "at least one is heads" given one coin is heads and the other is tails. We need to know exactly what that information means. If we would be told "at least one is heads" every time there is a head then the answer is 1/3. If we would be told "at least one is heads" only when a specific coin is heads then the answer is 1/2.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:34:05 2022 No.14624914 >>14624620 1/4 is the answer to the problem written in your post. Your pic shows a different problem which has the answer 1/3 instead. Assuming of course that all coins are fair and independant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:37:40 2022 No.14624919 >>14624914 >Your pic shows a different problem which has the answer 1/3 instead. Proof?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:39:17 2022 No.14624924 >>14624620 According to your pic they both landed tails. Contradiction

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 11:53:13 2022 No.14624940
File: 52 KB, 739x666, 98a47d9931fc9e38.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14624901
The thing is that both of the coins have two possible positions. One being heads and the other one being tails or the other way around. That satisfies the given information. Then thirdly they could both be heads.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 12:26:57 2022 No.14624988 >>14624940 That's trivial and doesn't respond to anything I said. "At least one of them landed heads" is ambiguous. It could refer only to a specific coin or to the state of both coins. Which one it refers to changes the answer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 19:52:14 2022 No.14625890 >>14624620 p(C1=H) ^ p(C2=H) = 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 20:21:49 2022 No.14625933 >>14624988 in english, "at least one" never refers to a specific coin.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 21:10:33 2022 No.14626024 >>14624620 You other nerds over complicate shit. There is four sides total since each coin has two sides and two sides with heads. 2/4 or 1/2.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 21:25:22 2022 No.14626051 >>14624620 https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/991060/flip-two-coins-if-at-least-one-is-heads-what-is-the-probability-of-both-being 1/3

Anonymous Mon Jul 4 21:31:17 2022 No.14626061

>>14626024
Total space for 2 coins is
Hh
Ht
Th
Tt

There are 4 states. You can discount the tt because at least 1 is heads. There's 3 choices left.

The ambiguity is whether or not the ht and th result are distinct. If not, it becomes 1/2.

/sci is supposed to be arguing if 2 coins are flipped at the same time or if 1 coin is flipped twice.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 22:17:37 2022 No.14626150 >>14626061 were. two coins were flipped. is the whole board esl pajeets now or do they just gravitate into word problem threads out of masochism

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 22:21:29 2022 No.14626159 >>14626150 I have 1 coin. I flip it and record the result. I flip it again and record the result. 2 coins were flipped.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 23:39:56 2022 No.14626339 >>14626061 >The ambiguity is whether or not the ht and th result are distinct. No it's not. Back to middle school retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 23:51:51 2022 No.14626368 >>14626159 yes, both flips happen before the question even begins

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 4 23:56:31 2022 No.14626379 >>14624620 why is your A upside down, and why is your E the euro? This is sci not biz

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 00:07:43 2022 No.14626404 >>14625933 Sure it does. If I only look at one of the coins and I see it's heads, then I can say "at least one is heads." This is accurate, since I don't know about the other coin, and it refers to a specific coin.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 00:10:03 2022 No.14626408 >>14626051 Wrong, second answer is correct.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 00:15:53 2022 No.14626418 >>14626061 You are suffering from the freshman misconception that simply listing states gives you the probability.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 00:16:24 2022 No.14626419 >>14626404 no, your example refers to both coins. you aren’t saying "at least one of one specific coin"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 00:17:58 2022 No.14626423 File: 452 KB, 1280x1600, lefiftyfityface.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14624620

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 00:18:33 2022 No.14626425 >>14626150 It literally doesn't matter whether it occurrs in the past or hypothetically in the future.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 00:20:11 2022 No.14626428 >>14626425 no shit

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 00:29:21 2022 No.14626447

>>14626419
You're not getting it. Obviously it refers to the coin in the pair of coins and not some other coin. But "one is heads" refers to a specific coin, since that's the only coin I know about. If I looked at both then I could have seen either as heads or both aa heads. So "at least one is heads" in that case would not be information about a specific coin.

In the first case, the probability "at least one is heads" given only one is heads is 1/2 since that's the probability you're looking at that coin. In the second case, the probability is 1 since you see both coins. The answer to OP's problem specs on this probability. It's 1/2 in the first case and 1/3 in the second.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 00:30:30 2022 No.14626452 >>14626428 Then your comment has zero relevance.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 00:31:50 2022 No.14626454

>>14624620
I don't know shit about maths but this is pretty simple isn't it. The wording is a bit unclear especially for us non-English people, but we have 2 ways to understand it.

1. "Two coines were flipped, but only cases where at least one of the coins lands heads are counted. What's the probability of getting 2 heads".

Of 2 coins we have 4 possible outcomes with 1/4 odds for each: heads-heads, tails-heads, heads-tails, and tails-tails. Since per the explanation above we do not even consider tails-tails scenario, that leaves us with 3 potential results, each with a 1/3 chance. As such, the odds of getting heads-heads is 1/3.

2. "We have 2 coins, one is always heads, only the other is flipped. What's the probability of getting 2 heads."

1/2.

I'm not a fan of seeming "maths problems" that basically just revolve around an unclear description. Then people assume the other person doesn't know the problem, when they merely understood it differently.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 00:36:08 2022 No.14626464 >>14626447 bullshit. in english, "at least x" only applies to a group of more than x. you say "at least 1 of 3 coins"; you say "at least 2 of 3 coins"; you don't say "at least 3 of 3 coins" or "at least 1 of 1 coin"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 00:49:30 2022 No.14626496 >>14626454 no english reading of the question gives your #2

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 00:54:18 2022 No.14626503

>>14626464
>bullshit. in english, "at least x" only applies to a group of more than x.
Again you're not getting it. That it "applies" to two coins is not in question. The single coin being referred to is part of a pair and the other coin is unknown. No one is claiming "at least one is heads" means there is only one coin, just that it refers to information about a specific coin in the pair.

It's perfectly normal for me to say "at least one is heads" if I've only seen one coin in the pair. Do you agree or disagree?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 01:19:15 2022 No.14626549 >>14626418 Literally all probability is counting. In any case, the explanation is the crux of the problem.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 01:22:37 2022 No.14626553

>>14626549
Not counting, measuring. The amount of states is arbitrary, since you can order them multiple ways. And not every state is going to have equal probability. Case in point:

HH
TH
TT

is a perfectly acceptable way to list the states, as long as you recognize that TH is twice as likely as HH.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 01:25:50 2022 No.14626555 >>14626553 I agree, and I also explicitly stated that TH may or may not be weighted. So what is your point?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 01:34:48 2022 No.14626570 >>14626555 My point is that just because you listed states doesn't mean you determined their probability. It doesn't matter whether you consider TH and HT distinct states. The answer is the same regardless because the probabilities are what matter.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 01:40:13 2022 No.14626581

>>14626570
The answer definitely isn't the same if they are distinct vs. not distinct. The probability changes depending on the number of states. While it's true you can weight the states like you did, that's just a shorthand notation for counting states.

Literally all probability is measuring outcome vs. possibility and that is done by counting.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 01:51:52 2022 No.14626612

>>14626581
>The answer definitely isn't the same if they are distinct vs. not distinct.
Sure it is.

HH 1/4
TH 1/4
HT 1/4
TT 1/4

HH 1/4
TH 1/2
TT 1/4

>that's just a shorthand notation for counting states.
No, the number of states is arbitrary, what matters is their probability, which is a measure, not a count. What "count" does an event with probability 1/e represent?

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 01:59:02 2022 No.14626626

>>14626612
I dont know if you're purposely being dense but in the case they are indistinguishable, you have:

Hh
Ht
Tt

And that's it. There's only 3 possibilities not 4, and there would be no weight. This is well known and applied everywhere in math and stem.

I have e^2 states and am looking for e successes. Up to a constant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 02:06:38 2022 No.14626635 >>14624914 this

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 02:08:01 2022 No.14626638 >>14624620 Anon, next time it would be best not put a different but similar question in the pic. Because some people are answering that one instead of the one in your post

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 03:43:45 2022 No.14626765

>>14626626
>And that's it. There's only 3 possibilities not 4, and there would be no weight.
Wow, you're dumb. So what is the chance of getting one head and one tail when you flip two coins? Because according to your argument, it changes between 1/2 and 1/3 depending on your arbitrary choice of how you list states.

>I have e^2 states
How do you have a non-integer amount of states? Are you trolling or actually this retarded?

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 04:07:06 2022 No.14626789

>>14626765
>according to your argument, it changes between 1/2 and 1/3.

Yes, that's exactly the issue. The description of the system is ambiguous leading to multiple different interpretation s of valid states, which affect the probability.

>non-integer number of states
What is the secretary problem?

Show me the probability of anything that uses no counting argument. I'll wait.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 04:40:27 2022 No.14626827

>>14626789
>Yes, that's exactly the issue
Yes, the issue is that you don't understand probability. The probability of a pair landing on one head and one tail is always 1/2. Try it yourself if you don't believe me.

>The description of the system is ambiguous
No, there is nothing ambiguous about two coins being flipped. For fucks sake.

>What is the secretary problem?
A problem with an integer amount of states, like all others. Thanks for proving my point.

>Show me the probability of anything that uses no counting argument
Literally all of them, if done properly by constructing a probability space. You are summing probabilities, not counting states.

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

Just stop posting, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 05:12:44 2022 No.14626867

>>14626827
>probability of a pair landing ht is 1/2
I agree, but that's not necessarily what is going on in op picrel. There is ambiguity on 2 coins being flipped in this specific situation and has already been explained multiple times by other people.

e can be represented as a sum of integers, that's why the probability in the secretary problem optimal choice goes as 1/e. There's no restriction on finite sets in probability.

The link you gave is literally counting states to outcomes. It is stated explicitly in the article. I dont know why you're even bothering to argue.

I hope in the future you can revisit your misguided opinions on this subject. Best of luck.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 05:48:18 2022 No.14626910

>>14626867
>I agree, but that's not necessarily what is going on in op picrel
I didn't say it was. Your argument claims the result of simply flipping two coins is ambiguous. That's retarded. OP's problem is ambiguous because the information "at least one is heads" could refer to a specific coin or not. Not because it involves flipping two coins.

>e can be represented as a sum of integers
It literally cannot. The sum of integers is an integer.

>The link you gave is literally counting states to outcomes.
In a basic example where each dice roll is equally probable, so counting outcomes and dividing by 6. You read but didn't understand. An example is not a universal. The probability of events can be any number, so there is no counting, just summing probabilities.

You probably realize your mistakes by now, since you desperately tried to move the goalposts from what we're talking about to OP's problem, and grasped at straws by referencing an example.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 05:50:13 2022 No.14626914 >>14626867 >I agree Then why did you claim it could be 1/3?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 08:26:09 2022 No.14627090 >>14626061 You flip two coins. What is the probability that both of them landed heads?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 10:46:41 2022 No.14627302 >>14624620 It's 1/2. The ones who say 1/3 are pajeets and zhangs who have no logical thinking capability and memorize everyshit they see.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 11:01:11 2022 No.14627336 >>14627302 >It's 1/2 Proof?

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 11:13:43 2022 No.14627363
File: 219 KB, 483x470, 2344.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14624620
4 possible outcomes overall. Of those, only 3 are under consideration. Of those, only 1 is two heads. 1/3. If you disagree with this in any way, shape or form, you do not belong on a science board, even a low-quality one like this.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 11:37:32 2022 No.14627440

>>14627363
>4 possible outcomes overall. Of those, only 3 are under consideration. Of those, only 1 is two heads. 1/3
Doesn't follow. You never detailed the outcomes and proved three are equally likely given "at least one is heads." In fact, "at least one is heads" is ambiguous since it could refer to information about a specific coin or to information about the combined state of both coins. For example, if your friend only looked at one coin and saw it's heads, and told you "at least one coin is heads," then the possible outcomes go from 4 to 2:

HH
HT

So the answer would then be 1/2

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 11:40:28 2022 No.14627447

>>14627440
>proved three are equally likely
Uh huh. Maybe I should first prove arithmetic for you, too.

> In fact, "at least one is heads" is ambiguous since it could refer to information about a specific coin or to information about the combined state of both coins
Low IQ, schizo word salad. "At least one is heads" means the outcomes under consideration are ones where one or two coins landed heads. Now hang yourself. The worst part is that you're not even trolling.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 11:48:49 2022 No.14627464

>>14627447
>Maybe I should first prove arithmetic for you, too.
No, I just need you to prove your claim. Should be very easy for a smart guy like you.

>Low IQ, schizo word salad.
So you think it's impossible for your friend to only look at one coin, see it's heads, and twll you "at least one coin is heads?" Because that's what you claim is "word salad."

>"At least one is heads" means the outcomes under consideration are ones where one or two coins landed heads.
Right, and one coin being known to be heads while the other is unknown and has a 1/2 chance to be heads satisfies that definition. You're not actually arguing against what I said.

Also, I like how you purposefully ignored my example using the same argument you did about number of outcomes. You know I'm correct.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 11:52:53 2022 No.14627472

>>14626503
no, i get your mistake. and you can also say the same thing if you flipped a pink coin with your own dick. it doesn't change the fact that "at least one is heads" only refers to both coins. it says nothing about a specific coin, nothing about what color the coin is, and nothing about your dick.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 11:56:40 2022 No.14627482 >>14627440 >if your friend only looked at one coin and saw it's heads, and told you "at least one coin is heads," then the probability is 1/2 for your friend, 1/3 for you, and your friend clearly didn't express himself accurately

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 11:59:28 2022 No.14627489

>>14627472
>no, i get your mistake
Then you should be able to prove I'm wrong.

>it doesn't change the fact that "at least one is heads" only refers to both coins
Then you believe it's impossible for your friend to only look at one coin, see it's heads, and twll you "at least one coin is heads?" Maybe it's because you have no friends. Just change "friend" to anyone else and you'll see I'm right. Although you already know I'm right since you failed to make an argument again.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:01:37 2022 No.14627491 >>14627464 >I just need you to prove your claim. That if you flip two fair coins, every outcome is as likely as any other? Anyway, take your meds and stop posting. You're hilariously low IQ, even for this board.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:01:44 2022 No.14627492

>>14627482
>then the probability is 1/2 for your friend, 1/3 for you
Wrong. You can try it yourself with a friend. 1/2 of the time your friend tells you "at least one is heads" after looking at a coin, you will see both are heads, not 1/3. You're why casinos stay in business.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:04:27 2022 No.14627499

>>14627491
>That if you flip two fair coins, every outcome is as likely as any other?
No, that "at least one is heads" means only three of those outcomes are now equally likely. In my example, the four possible outcomes start off equally likely as well and then get reduced to two instead of three. Learn how to read.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:06:22 2022 No.14627505 >>14624620 impossible to know because the flip function isnt defined

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:11:02 2022 No.14627517 >>14627489 prove what wrong? your ambiguity doesn't follow from any english reading.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:12:54 2022 No.14627523 >>14627499 If all four outcomes are equally likely, then three of them are also equally likely. Take your meds and stop posting.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:18:43 2022 No.14627533

>>14627517
>your ambiguity doesn't follow from any english reading.
It does I even gave you an example of its correct usage. You're repeated failure to address this shows that you know you're wrong but you're ego won't let you admit this to others so you keep posting impotent denials. Grow up and admit you were wrong.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:20:40 2022 No.14627538

>>14627523
>If all four outcomes are equally likely, then three of them are also equally likely
Doesn't follow. As my example shows, it can be reduced to two or three depending on the procedure used, which clarifies what "at least one is heads" actually means. Use your words like a big boy and make an argument instead of repeating your baseless claim over and over. I know you can do it if you try.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:23:13 2022 No.14627546 >>14627533 and i explained why your example doesn’t change anything. no one cares what else you may or may not have secretly seen or done

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:24:05 2022 No.14627548

>>14627523
Wow, you're dumb. After the information "at least one is heads" is given to you, not all for outcomes are equally likely, since two tails cannot have occurred. One of the other outcomes may also have not occurred, depending on the procedure used to determine "at least one is heads" (specifically the outcome where the coin your friend looked at was tails and the other is heads.).

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:26:36 2022 No.14627558

>>14627546
>and i explained why your example doesn’t change anything.
Where? You just repeated your claim over and over, which my example disproves.

>no one cares what else you may or may not have secretly seen or done
Who is "you?" I'm talking about what the information "at least one is heads" means, which depends on the procedure used to determine "at least one is heads," which changes the answer. You're saying it doesn't matter even though I already proved it does. You have no argument.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:27:43 2022 No.14627563 >>14627538 >>14627548 This is what an IQ of 95 + mental illness + autism looks like. If all four outcomes are equally likely, then three of them are also equally likely. Call me back when your little mind is able to process this fact.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:32:33 2022 No.14627573 >>14627558 there is no "procedure" involved in any english reading of the question. there's a statement about two coins; nothing else.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:47:55 2022 No.14627616 Idk I m not good at maths but I think binomial probability law should help with this as x a number of successes of the event H

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 12:52:21 2022 No.14627625

>>14627558
The way you've obtained the information and what was actually meant by it is not part of the problem. Just the information itself. And there is no way you can argue that TH doesn't satisfy the condition "at least one is heads" without hallucinating an imaginary scenario.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:01:20 2022 No.14627655 >>14627563 >If all four outcomes are equally likely, then three of them are also equally likely All for outcomes are not equally likely after receiving the information that "at least one coin is heads," my retarded friend.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:03:53 2022 No.14627662

>>14627655
I guess you're not just stupid. I guess you are outright psychotic. Well, why don't you flip some coins and see if any outcomes happen less or more frequently when you exclude some of them. Post results after 1000 trials. Don't come back until you're done.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:04:04 2022 No.14627663 >>14627573 >there is no "procedure" involved in any english reading of the question. There is no procedure mentioned, that's why it's ambiguous. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:11:23 2022 No.14627683

Let's simplify the problem by making H a red ball and T a blue ball

We have 4 balls 2 reds and 2 blues
So getting we grab 2 balls simultaneously the universe the is 4C2 =6
If we get balls same color (2reds or 2blue)= (2C2+2C2)/(4C2)=1/3
And 2 reds only ( H,H) = 2C2/4C2=1/6

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:12:43 2022 No.14627691 File: 318 KB, 860x736, 35324.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14627683 >t.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:13:39 2022 No.14627693 >>14624620 People who say 1/2 assume one of the coins to be fixed, thereby denying the third possibility that only the other coin landed on heads. It's 1/3.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:14:35 2022 No.14627697 >>14627538 >If all four outcomes are equally likely, then three of them are also equally likely >Doesn't follow. I unironically feel bad for you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:14:59 2022 No.14627698 >>14627693 People who say 1/2 have no coherent thought process, and you should stop trying to interpret their neurons misfiring as something that can somehow make sense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:23:45 2022 No.14627718 >>14627698 They do, it's just faulty

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:25:10 2022 No.14627721 >>14627718 They don't. No matter how you try to frame it, 1/2 makes no sense without explicitly altering the problem.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:28:06 2022 No.14627734 >>14627663 there is no "procedure" and there isn't the slightest ambiguity

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:28:15 2022 No.14627735

>>14627625
>The way you've obtained the information and what was actually meant by it is not part of the problem.
Right, that's why it's ambiguous and you're assumption is incorrect. Thanks for finally admitting I'm right.

>And there is no way you can argue that TH doesn't satisfy the condition "at least one is heads" without hallucinating an imaginary scenario.
There is no way you can argue either way without more information, my retarded friend. That was my point from the beginning.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:30:18 2022 No.14627741 >>14627721 See >>14627693

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:31:41 2022 No.14627747 >>14627741 I saw and it's meaningless schizobabble, which demonstrates my point about lack of higher brain functions and no coherent thought process.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:46:45 2022 No.14627798

>>14627662
>Well, why don't you flip some coins and see if any outcomes happen less or more frequently when you exclude some of them.
Of course they will. If only one coin is observed and it's heads then 1/2 the time both will be heads. If both coins are observed and at least one is heads, then 1/3 of the time both will be heads. I don't need to do the experiment because I already understand probability theory far better than you.

P(HH|at least one is heads) = (1/4)(1)/((1/4)(1)+(1/4)P(at least one is heads|TH)+(1/4)P(at least one is heads|HT))

Now in the procedure where only the left coin is looked at, P(at least one is heads|TH) = 0 and P(at least one is heads|HT = 1, so the answer is 1/2. But in the procedure where both are looked at, both are 1 and the answer is 1/3

If basic math is too hard for you then do the experiment yourself: https://www.random.org/coins/

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:47:04 2022 No.14627800 >>14627747 You didn't

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 13:53:41 2022 No.14627821 >>14627798 I said do a thousand flips, faggot. I did not tell you to shart out more psychotic drivel. Do a thousand flips and come back when you're done.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 14:04:34 2022 No.14627842

>>14627800
"Assume one of the coins to be fixed" is schizobabble. The closest you can get is to assume that where the problem says "at least one of them landed heads" it means "this one specific coin landed heads" which isn't a plausible interpretation. Anything else is your psychotic episode.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 14:07:23 2022 No.14627851 >>14627734 >there is no "procedure" Without a specified procedure there is no way to objectively interpret "at least one is heads." How did you determine this doesn't refer to a specific coin which is heads?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 14:08:03 2022 No.14627853 File: 67 KB, 645x729, 53243322.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >How did you determine this doesn't refer to a specific coin which is heads? Imagine reading stuff like this and still opposing forced eugenics.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 14:14:10 2022 No.14627859

>>14627821
>I said do a thousand flips
No need, I lready proved I'm right. You're the only one who doesn't understand basic probability theory and needs to do an experiment like a little schoolboy. Or you could just show me where my argument is wrong. But you won't, because you know you have nothing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 14:15:10 2022 No.14627862 >>14627842 >The closest you can get is to assume that where the problem says "at least one of them landed heads" it means "this one specific coin landed heads" which isn't a plausible interpretation. It's a very plausible interpretation. See >>14627440

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 14:15:38 2022 No.14627864 >>14627859 >No need Yes need. Thousand flips or fuck off, groid. Show work.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 14:18:02 2022 No.14627872 >>14627862 What the pic says: >either one coin or the other landed heads What your psychosis says: >an unspecified but specific coin landed heads Meds ASAP. Eugenics should be mandatory. Your parents don't have rights.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 14:19:58 2022 No.14627881 >>14627862 What the pic says: >if at least one coind landed heads What your psychosis says: >if an unspecified but specific coin landed heads Meds ASAP. Eugenics should be mandatory. Your parents don't have rights.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 14:23:04 2022 No.14627890 >>14627853 Not an argument. Thanks for admitting the problem is ambiguous.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 14:24:17 2022 No.14627895 >>14627890 Thanks for admitting that failing to abort autistic/low IQ babies is highly immoral.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 14:25:10 2022 No.14627900 >>14627864 >Yes need Wrong. See >>14627798 Your turn. We both know you have nothing.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 14:27:14 2022 No.14627907

>>14627872
>What your psychosis says:
>>an unspecified but specific coin landed heads
Nope, it's ambiguous. I don't interpret it in any particular way, because there's no information that allows us to do so. You're the only one arbitrarily interpreting it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 14:28:15 2022 No.14627911 >>14627895 See >>14627890

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 14:39:13 2022 No.14627949 >>14627907 >it's ambiguous Thanks for reiterating the case for eugenics. Low-functioning autism is not valid or acceptable.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 15:38:07 2022 No.14628080 >>14627851 in english, "at least one is heads" says nothing about a specific coin. it only refers to both coins. there is no "determining" involved

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 15:53:50 2022 No.14628117 >>14627949 Not an argument. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 15:55:38 2022 No.14628124 >>14628080 >in english, "at least one is heads" says nothing about a specific coin. It can in certain circumstances. See >>14627440 It's ambiguous.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 15:57:41 2022 No.14628128 >>14628117 Not an argument. Thanks for admitting the necessity of mandatory eugenics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 15:58:17 2022 No.14628131 >>14628124 no, it never can. "at least one" never refers to one. not ever.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:16:52 2022 No.14628171 >>14628128 >Not an argument. There was no argument to respond to, just puerile insults. When you're done with your tantrum you can join the adult table and respond to >>14627440

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:17:52 2022 No.14628172 >>14628131 >no, it never can. Not an argument. I already proved it can.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:19:25 2022 No.14628179 >>14624988 >at least one of them "Them" is pmural and refers to both coins

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:24:02 2022 No.14628191 >>14624988 >at least one of them "Them" is plural and refers to both coins, not specific coin

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:24:07 2022 No.14628192 >>14628172 describing your mistake isn’t a proof

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:39:53 2022 No.14628233 >>14627523 If you consider the coins as distinct, then yes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:45:43 2022 No.14628248 >>14624620 0% It either isn't or it really fucking isn't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:45:48 2022 No.14628249 >>14628191 >"Them" is plural and refers to both coins, not specific coin Non sequitur. I'm not saying them doesn't refer to the pair. I'm saying "One of them" could refer to a specific one in the pair.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:46:50 2022 No.14628256 >>14628192 What mistake?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:49:11 2022 No.14628262 >>14628256 your mistake in reading english correctly

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:50:13 2022 No.14628264 >>14628249 not him, but "at least one" never refers to one specific coin. this is your reading mistake

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:53:11 2022 No.14628277 >>14628233 Coins are always distinct, he's just confusing the prior probability distribution with the posterior probability distribution.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:54:39 2022 No.14628282 >>14628262 Why can't you just explain your claim? It's because you know you're wrong. Every time you make a substances post you admit it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:55:41 2022 No.14628285 >>14628264 >not him, but "at least one" never refers to one specific coin Wrong. See >>14627440

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:56:44 2022 No.14628289 >>14628282 what claim are you talking about and what does your last sentence mean here?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 16:57:44 2022 No.14628294 >>14628285 pointing out your own mistake over and over again won't make it go away

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 17:00:19 2022 No.14628299 >>14628289 >what claim are you talking about Do you have short term amnesia? You just claimed I made a mistake but refuse to explain where it is. >what does your last sentence mean here? It means you confirm you have no argument every time you post.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 17:01:19 2022 No.14628302 >>14628294 >pointing out your own mistake You haven't shown a single mistake nor can you. Every future post will utterly fail to do so. This is too easy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 17:02:46 2022 No.14628306 >>14628299 i already told you: "at least one" never refers to a group of one. your post has nothing to do with the question

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 17:03:48 2022 No.14628310 >>14628302 see >>14628306

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 17:13:16 2022 No.14628332

>>14628306
>i already told you: "at least one" never refers to a group of one.
I already proved this wrong with the example here: >>14627440

You have no response, you just repeat your baseless claim that my example already disproved. Explain why my example cannot occur.

>your post has nothing to do with the question
It demonstrates the question is ambiguous.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 17:19:35 2022 No.14628343 >>14628310 See >>14628332 Thanks for confirming my prediction is accurate so far.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 17:25:18 2022 No.14628357

>>14628332
all your post demonstrates is a mistake in reading english. of course your example can occur. that doesn't make it relevant to the question. it's also possible "your friend" (this is the language from your own post) knows the coins have two heads. in that case as well it's correct to say "at least one came up heads" so the answer is ambiguously also 1. but it's not, because that's not how reading english works.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 17:26:19 2022 No.14628361 >>14628343 see >>14628343

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 17:43:13 2022 No.14628409

(proof for image too lazy to read text)

Let H1 be "coin 1 lands heads" and H2 "coin 2 lands heads", T1 "coin 1 lands tails" and T2 "coin 2 lands tails".

We have four possible combinations :
T1T2
T1H2
H1T2
H1H2

It is obvious that P(H2) = 0,5 and we can deduce that P(H1 inter H2) = 0,25 (assuming that the order in which the coins are flipped matters, if not then T1H2 and H1T2 are the same and P(H1 inter H2) = 1/3 = 0,33)

Thus we have P(H2 | H1) = P(H2 inter H1)/P(H2) = 0,25/0,5 = 0,5

if coins are flipped at the same (and the order doesn't matter) time then
P(H2 | H1) = 0,33/0,5 = 0,66

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 17:45:33 2022 No.14628415 >>14624620 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 17:46:50 2022 No.14628417

>>14628357
>all your post demonstrates is a mistake in reading english
Where is the mistake? Prove it. You won't, because you have nothing.

>of course your example can occur
Great, then you admit "at least one" can refer to a specific coin and the question is ambiguous. Thanks for finally admitting you were wrong.

>it's also possible "your friend" (this is the language from your own post) knows the coins have two heads.
Yes, if he looked at both coins, not just one. You mean your friend would only tell you "at least one is heads" when both are heads? That seems silly.

>but it's not, because that's not how reading english works.
Irrelevant. The example I gave is how English works.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 17:48:44 2022 No.14628420 >>14628409 Order of flipping or simultaneous flipping has absolutely no relevance.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 17:52:01 2022 No.14628430 >>14628420 how so?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 18:05:59 2022 No.14628467 >>14628430 The prior probability of two heads is 0.25 regardless of how you flip them. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. How does their order affect probability?

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 18:12:03 2022 No.14628476

>>14628467
Yeah nevermind i was thinking that if T1H2 and H1T2 would be essentially the same event and thus have P() = 1/3 but since its actually a merger of both it's actually P() = 1/2 and then P(H1 inter H2) does remain 0,25. The only correct answer is indeed 0,5 then. Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 18:30:52 2022 No.14628512 >>14628476 >The only correct answer is indeed 0,5 then. Not true. "At least one is heads" could refer to a specific coin, which would mean only one of T1H2 and H1T2 was possible. Then the answer would be 1/3.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 18:45:01 2022 No.14628539

>>14626061
>/sci is supposed to be arguing if 2 coins are flipped at the same time or if 1 coin is flipped twice.
That information is irrelevant. The outcome space still consists of two coin flips regardless of whether the same coin is flipped twice or two coins are flipped at the same time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 18:54:35 2022 No.14628558 >>14627735 Both TH and HT satisfy the condition "at least one of them is heads".

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 19:45:26 2022 No.14628692

>>14628558
>Both TH and HT satisfy the condition "at least one of them is heads".
They satisfy one interpretation wherein no particular coin is being referred to, but not the other interpretation where a specific coin is being referred to. If it refers to the left coin for example then TH does not satisfy it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 20:01:17 2022 No.14628726 >>14628692 there is no "other interpretation". you're hallucinating.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 20:21:10 2022 No.14628769

>>14628512
I just realised the proof I gave in >>14628409
actually answers the question "if the first coin you flip lands heads then what is the probability that the second one will also be heads". Let me try a better proof :
Let A be "at least one of the coins is heads" and B "both coins are heads". The possibilities are the following :
HH
TT
HT
TH
Thus we have P(A) = 3/4 and P(B) = 1/4.
Then P(B|A) = P(B inter A)/P(A) But if both are heads (B) then at least one of them is heads (A) so P(B inter A) = P(B) Thus
P(B)/P(A) = 0,25/0,75 = 1/3

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 20:33:45 2022 No.14628791 >>14628417 no, "at least one" can never refer to a specific coin. repeating your mistake over and over again won't change how english works. i'm sorry this is so hard for you :(

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 20:36:17 2022 No.14628795 >>14628692 not him, but you'll never learn how to read english correctly if you keep making the same mistake again and again without reflection.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 20:40:05 2022 No.14628805 >>14628726 >there is no "other interpretation". I already gave you the other interpretation. You're in denial.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 20:41:50 2022 No.14628806 >>14628805 not him either, but your misinterpretation of how english works isn't a correct reading of english.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 20:42:44 2022 No.14628808 >>14628791 >no, "at least one" can never refer to a specific coin. You already admitted it can, since you said the example I gave can occur. Make up your mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 20:43:46 2022 No.14628812 >>14628795 What mistake?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 20:44:47 2022 No.14628820 >>14628806 What misinterpretation?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 20:45:56 2022 No.14628825 >>14628808 no, you incorrectly read that, too. this is your main roadblock here. you don't read english correctly

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 20:46:56 2022 No.14628826 >>14628812 >>14628820 see >>14628357

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 20:50:09 2022 No.14628835

>>14628825
>no, you incorrectly read that, too.
How did I read it incorrectly? I gave you an example of a situation in which the information "at least one is heads" refers to a specific coin. You admitted that can occur. So far no one has been able to explain why this cannot occur. Let me know when you're done with your tantrum and want to join the discussion again.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 5 20:51:10 2022 No.14628837 >>14628826 No mistakes or misinterpretations shown. See >>14628417

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 21:02:05 2022 No.14628861

>>14628837
your first sentence in that post is empty rhetoric and your second sentence proves you don't read english correctly. your third sentence comes close to self-realization but your fourth sentence fails to capture it and simply repeats your ongoing mistake in reading english again.

Anonymous Tue Jul 5 22:10:55 2022 No.14629032

>>14628861
>your first sentence in that post is empty rhetoric
It's a question asking for the thing you claimed to have already shown, which for some reason you can't answer.

>your second sentence proves you don't read english correctly
How so?

>repeats your ongoing mistake in reading english again.
What mistake? Hello? Is anyone in there? Can't you back up anything you say? Apparently not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 00:02:12 2022 No.14629321 >>14629032 what's funny is that if you applied yourself to learn how english works, instead of trying to reinvent and defend your own personal language, then this question would make much more sense to you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 00:36:26 2022 No.14629392 I used the method of exhaustion to see how an actor who only guessed heads and an actor who only guessed tails would compare in this scenario, and the actor who only guessed tails was right about twice as often. Therefore, it's heads 1/3 of the time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 00:43:12 2022 No.14629410 >>14629321 Another failure to back up any of your claims. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 00:44:13 2022 No.14629414 >>14629392 Depends on your interpretation of "at least one is heads."

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 01:10:49 2022 No.14629461

>>14629414
I did two flips and if both were tails, then I cast it out. If at least one was heads, I tallied up the number of times that one observed the second one as heads vs. how many times one observed the second one as tails. Over 100,000 iterations, we throw away ~25,000 and have ~25,000 correct guesses for second being heads and ~50,000 correct guesses for the second being tails.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 01:48:05 2022 No.14629516

>>14629461
>I did two flips and if both were tails, then I cast it out.
Right, that's one interpretation. Now just look at one of the coins. If it's tails then start over. If it's heads then you know "at least one is heads." Half the time that occurs, both will be heads.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 04:44:09 2022 No.14629780

I wish when threads like this were made on /sci/, the first reply would just give the obvious answer which is 1/3 and then nobody would reply anymore because the answer is obvious and there's nothing left to discuss. But i guess /sci/ is so retarded that even if i created a thread asking what 1+1 equals to it would manage to get 100 replies of people arguing about it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 11:05:26 2022 No.14630263 >>14629780 The obvious answer is incorrect because the question is ambiguous.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 12:16:06 2022 No.14630359

>>14629410
what's also funny is that your incorrect reading of english is pervasive. no one who could read english correctly would think the last comment agreed with you, yet you incorrectly read it that way. same thing as when you incorrectly read "at least one" as pertaining to a specific coin and decided to repeat your mistake over and over again

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 12:20:46 2022 No.14630366 >>14629780 1+1 can be anything though. What makes your assumptions better than the next person?

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 12:41:23 2022 No.14630396

>>14624620
Sidenote: You're using an idiosyncratic notion of "function".

A function maps maps the elements in its domain to some values in the codomain. In the best case, the result is effectively computable, meaning f(x) is represented as a particular value.
Passing the same value twice to a function give the same result twice.
There's no "flip function". At best there's programs which use random input, but that's not a function in the mathematical sense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 12:51:37 2022 No.14630406 >>14629516 >>14630263 repeating your mistake over and over won't change the english language in your favor, unfortunately

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 13:04:30 2022 No.14630425

>>14630359
>no one who could read english correctly would think the last comment agreed with you
Right, they would also have to read the rest of the thread and see your repeated refusal to substantiate your claims in order to determine that you're admitting I'm right. Context is important.

>same thing as when you incorrectly read "at least one" as pertaining to a specific coin and decided to repeat your mistake over and over again
I didn't read it that way, I said it's ambiguous and could be interpreted either way. I proved this by example and you agreed that example could occur. You're a liar.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 13:05:35 2022 No.14630427 >>14630406 >repeating your mistake What mistake?

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 13:08:03 2022 No.14630435
File: 30 KB, 614x614, 66435.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Imagine a "science" board where a thread about a middle school problem with a simple, well-established and 100% unambiguous solution is debated by 90 IQ schizoiphrenics day after day and garners hundreds of replies containing anything other than "1/3". /sci/ has become the undermedicated clinical retard board. Sad.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 13:12:46 2022 No.14630447

>>14629780
note that the primary reference for this english mistake is an article published in 1982 by two psychologists, neither of whom is a native english speaker, in Cognition—"a journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind." it's an interesting thought experiment if you treat it right, but has nothing to do with the correct english reading of the question which gives a single unambiguous answer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 13:22:48 2022 No.14630467 >>14630425 temper, temper. you won't change the way reading english works no matter how often or aggressively you repeat the same mistake

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 13:54:46 2022 No.14630532 >>14630435 >IT'S OBVIOUSLY 1/3 BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I THINK AND I SAID SO REEEEEEEEEEEEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox It's ambiguous. Get over it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 14:06:21 2022 No.14630570 >>14630467 No need to change it, you already admitted I'm right.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 14:09:56 2022 No.14630580

>>14630447
I flip two coins. I look at one and see it's heads and tell you "at least one is heads." You then incorrectly state there's a 1/3 chance both are heads because you believe they is only one way to correctly interpret that information. You're wrong. It's that simple.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 15:24:11 2022 No.14630749 >>14630580 >>14630570 no matter how many times you explain the same mistake, it will still be a mistake

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 15:26:24 2022 No.14630762 >>14630532 amusingly, the post you replied to debunks your reply.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 15:30:09 2022 No.14630777 >>14624620 Everyone is wrong. We can't answer the question because we don't know if the function choosing is equiprobable. QED fags

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 15:35:06 2022 No.14630797 >>14630777 i think most people ignored the garbage latex and just read the image lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 16:51:45 2022 No.14630985 >>14630749 What mistake? I proved I'm right and you have no counterargument. You're pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 16:58:25 2022 No.14630998 >>14630762 How?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 17:14:35 2022 No.14631030 >>14630998 to be clear, this post >>14630532 argues to an authority that is completely devalued by the context in this post >>14630447

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 17:18:43 2022 No.14631037 >>14631030 >this post >>14630532 (You) # argues to an authority No it doesnt.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 17:31:06 2022 No.14631062

>>14631037
yes, it does. that the primary reference for your english mistake is a thought experiment... in a journal devoted to thought experiments... by two psychologists... who aren't native english speakers... acutally discredits your mistake much more than it supports your mistake

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 17:44:22 2022 No.14631104 >>14624620 The result is 1/2*1/2 = 1/8 anyone who says otherwise is a fag

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 17:52:50 2022 No.14631136

>>14631062
>yes, it does. that the primary reference for your english mistake is a thought experiment
The thought experiment's validity has nothing to do with who is giving it. I already gave you a thought experiment that you agreed was valid. You have no argument and can't even explain what "mistake" you think I made. You lost. Get over it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 17:56:55 2022 No.14631146 File: 2.49 MB, 400x272, Maffs.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:01:14 2022 No.14631156

>>14627440
Problem: 2 trains are leaving 2 stations in opposite directions travelling towards one another on the same track. Train A travels at 60 km/h and train B travels at 40 km/h. They are separated by 100 km of track. How much time passes before they collide?

Answer: The trains never collide because the question doesn't specify that it isn't the middle of the cold war and a nuclear warhead wasn't detonated between the trains by accident completely vaporising both trains and preventing them from ever meeting. The problem is ambiguous.

Nobody cares about made-up irrelevant scenarios. The question states "at least one of the coins". It doesn't say "left coin", it doesn't say "first coin". If your friend says "at least one of the coins is heads" when he looks at one coin being heads but doesn't say anything when that coin isn't heads (since he doesn't know about the other one), he is being intentionally misleading even if "technically" correct. But the question doesn't state that only the state of one of the coins is checked or anything.
You are like that one autistic kid in primary/middle school class who feels extremely smug about being a pedantic asshole and nobody likes him because of that because even though what he is saying isn't wrong, it's also useless because socially adept people already know what the question meant and know that there's no reason to assume hidden information not revealed to the reader. It's not a detective novel, it's a math problem.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:08:01 2022 No.14631167 >>14630532 I don't know why you're talking to me. I thought I was pretty clear on the fact that I consider you a low IQ schizophrenic. You are in no position to say anything that I will take seriously.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:13:57 2022 No.14631176

>>14631156
>Answer: The trains never collide because the question doesn't specify that it isn't the middle of the cold war and a nuclear warhead wasn't detonated between the trains by accident completely vaporising both trains and preventing them from ever meeting.
Nothing in the problem can be interpreted to indicate that that occurred. "At least one is heads" on the other hand can be interpreted either to be a statement about a specific coin or not about a specific coin. So far you have utterly failed to refute this.

>Nobody cares about made-up irrelevant scenarios.
Right, we only care about scenarios relevant to the interpretation of information explicitly given in the problem.

>It doesn't say "left coin", it doesn't say "first coin"
It doesn't need to. Read my example again. The answer is 1/2 without describing the coin.

>he is being intentionally misleading
No, he is being perfectly accurate. One could argue it's more misleading to see the state of both coins but only give you partial information about them.

>If your friend says "at least one of the coins is heads" when he looks at one coin being heads but doesn't say anything when that coin isn't heads
So if your friend sees both coins are tails and says nothing he's being misleading? So your interpretation is wrong? I disagree but if you want to argue the question is nonsensical, go ahead.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:15:01 2022 No.14631178 >>14631167 Cry more, you got BTFO. It's proven to be ambiguous.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:17:28 2022 No.14631183

>>14631176
>>If your friend says "at least one of the coins is heads" when he looks at one coin being heads but doesn't say anything when that coin isn't heads
>So if your friend sees both coins are tails and says nothing he's being misleading? So your interpretation is wrong? I disagree but if you want to argue the question is nonsensical, go ahead.
I think you are just pretending to not be able to read to bait people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:18:34 2022 No.14631187 >>14624620 scenario 1: TT scenario 2: HH scenario 3: HT scenario 4: TH 3/4 of the scenarios involve at least 1 heads. its 3/4 these problems are so easy if you aren't a fucking midwit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:19:55 2022 No.14631191 >>14631187 oh sorry meant without scenario 1 which makes it 2/3

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:20:56 2022 No.14631195 >>14631191 1/3*

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:25:12 2022 No.14631203

>>14626612
>>14626626
its always 4 states. you can't flip the same coin twice at the same time so either you are flipping two coins (separated by space) or the same twice (separated by time)
thus HT and TH will always physically be separated and must be considered as such
retards

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:25:56 2022 No.14631206

>>14631183
I think that whenever you get BTFO and have no response you just whine about how your opponent "can't read." If not saying anything when the coin doesn't land on heads is misleading then so is doing the same when both don't land on heads. That's your interpretation of the problem.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:25:58 2022 No.14631207 >>14631178 I know you are desperate for my approval and appreciation of your so-called "thought process", but I still consider you to be a dumb animal. You should be banned simply on account of your low IQ.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:26:08 2022 No.14631209 >>14631187 >>14631191 >>14631195 Midwit detected. Also, that's only 1 interpretation. What if the person flipping the coins ignores all tails and only flips the 2nd coin when the first is heads? In that case it is clearly 1/2 instead of 1/3.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:27:21 2022 No.14631210 let X ~ Bin(2, 1/2) be the # of heads P(X=2 \| X>=1) = P(X=2) / P(X>=1) = (1/4) / (1-1/4) = 1/3

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:27:47 2022 No.14631212
File: 76 KB, 300x255, 532524.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Midwit detected.
>Also, that's only 1 interpretation. What if the person flipping the coins ignores all tails and only flips the 2nd coin when the first is heads? In that case it is clearly 1/2 instead of 1/3.
Imagine having your "intellectualism" limited to sharting out hot takes on kindergarten probability problems.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:28:16 2022 No.14631213
File: 56 KB, 600x800, 1644906327823.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

insufficient information, this is a semantics question not a probability one. the answer changes depending on how you interpret the question. its still an interesting question but don't act like this is about probability

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:29:12 2022 No.14631215 File: 577 KB, 1280x720, nQA37GT.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >insufficient information, this is a semantics question Imagine reading this and still rejecting mandatory eugenics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:32:43 2022 No.14631224 >>14631136 your thought experiment misreads the question and your appeal to authority misreads the authority. it doesn't matter how many times you explain your mistake, it will always be a mistake

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:33:20 2022 No.14631227

>>14631209
sure but imagine adding information to the problem that is not there. it says two coins were flipped.
your scenario would have to be worded:
>a coin was flipped and landed heads. if the/another coin was flipped (again), what is P that it landed heads

>>14631213

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:33:30 2022 No.14631228 >>14631187 If at "least one is heads" could refer to a specific coin, in which case only 2 of those scenarios could have occurred, leading to an answer of 1/2.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:35:11 2022 No.14631232 >>14631228 >"either one coin or the other coin or both" could refer to a specific coin Should this "person" really have human rights?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:35:59 2022 No.14631237 >>14631212 Imagine being so new to /sci that you haven't seen this bait thread hundreds of times and think they are hot takes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:36:02 2022 No.14631238 >>14631203 >its always 4 states The number of states is arbitrary. There is no issue with constructing your probability space as 2 heads 1/4 1 head 1/2 0 heads 1/4

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:37:18 2022 No.14631240 >>14631237 Imagine being so new to /sci/ that you shart out these insecure newfag posts trying to harass other posters for no reason. gb2r

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:37:31 2022 No.14631242

>>14631207
>I know you are desperate for my approval
I already have your approval. You gave it when you repeatedly failed to refute anything I said. Everything else is just a show to preserve your fragile ego. You're the only one who cares what others think.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:37:55 2022 No.14631245 >>14631238 How do you assign the probability without knowing the full state space?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:39:31 2022 No.14631248 >>14631242 >I already have your approval. No, but I guess you at least have the honesty to admit you are desperate for it. Sorry, you can't have it because you are an animal with a genetically low IQ.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:39:47 2022 No.14631250 >>14631242 I wouldn't know. You tell me, since you started it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:40:20 2022 No.14631251

>>14631238
you can do weighted states but then you must factor the weight. but your ability to construct the weighted space came from the concept of
HH 1/4
HT 1/4
TH 1/4
TT 1/4

>>14631228
you could theoretically argue that the head-coin sampled is twice as likely to occur from the HH scenario, and therefore is 1/2
but that is for a far different reason than everyone else saying 1/2
I don't think it works here though with the language of "at least one was"
if it say "one was selected at random and was found to be heads" then this scenario could be a possibility

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:41:49 2022 No.14631258

>>14631224
>your thought experiment misreads the question
How so? It produces exactly the information the question gives. I predict you'll never answer this, just throw another tantrum.

>your appeal to authority
What appeal to authority? Quote it.

>it doesn't matter how many times you explain your mistake
There's no mistake to explain. You can't even describe it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:46:11 2022 No.14631270 >>14631232 >>"either one coin or the other coin or both" could refer to a specific coin Who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:47:53 2022 No.14631274 >>14631270 Directly quoting your post. It's what you said but you're a dumb and undermedicated animal so you think you said something else.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:53:29 2022 No.14631282 >>14631258 your appeal to authority in this post >>14630532 replying to a different poster

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:57:31 2022 No.14631299 >>14631245 That is the full state space. How you describe the states is irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:58:06 2022 No.14631302 >>14631213 no, it's sufficient. we have information that refers to a group of two coins and no information that would allow us to unevenly distribute that information between those coins. this is how reading english works

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 18:59:28 2022 No.14631307

>>14631248
>No
Yes. Again you utterly failed to refute anything I said. You know I'm right.

>but I guess you at least have the honesty to admit you are desperate for it.
How can I be desperate for what I already have? You're the only one who cares about what others think, side you keep posting nothing of substance.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:04:30 2022 No.14631326

>>14631251
>you can do weighted states
LOL, those "weights" are called probabilities and are necessary parts of a probability space. Without them, you aren't calculating anything, just handwaving.

>but your ability to construct the weighted space came from the concept of
No.

>you could theoretically argue that the head-coin sampled is twice as likely to occur from the HH scenario, and therefore is 1/2
This is gibberish.

>I don't think it works here though with the language of "at least one was"
It does. Flip two coins. Look at one of them. If it's heads then you know "at least one is heads."

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:06:19 2022 No.14631328 >>14631274 >Directly quoting your post No, none of my posts say that. And in fact yours is the only post that says that. Why are you lying?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:06:49 2022 No.14631330 >>14631326 not him, but your last line simply repeats the same simple reading mistake you've been repeating all thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:09:26 2022 No.14631333 >>14631282 There's no appeal to authority there. Do you even know what that means?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:12:31 2022 No.14631339 >>14631302 >no information that would allow us to unevenly distribute that information between those coins It's symmetric, so it doesn't matter which coin is being referred to, the answer is 1/2 either way.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:12:59 2022 No.14631341 >>14631328 >one of my posts say that. This one does: >>14631228 Take as many of your pills as you need until you understand what you wrote.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:14:12 2022 No.14631344 >>14631330 >not him, but your last line simply repeats the same simple reading mistake What reading mistake? It's an accurate conclusion from seeing one coin.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:14:38 2022 No.14631347 >>14631333 the entire post is nothing but a rhetorically empty greentext, an appeal to the authority of a wikipedia link, and a coda of empty rhetoric

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:15:21 2022 No.14631349 Meaningless language game that only serves to show the absurdity of Laplace's definition of probability

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:16:24 2022 No.14631352 >>14631341 >This one does: >>>14631228 (You) # No, it says "at least one is heads could refer to a specific coin." You wrote "either one coin or the other coin or both could refer to a specific coin." ESL?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:17:53 2022 No.14631354 >>14631339 we have no information that allows us to read the information we have about a group of two coins as a reference to one of those coins

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:19:08 2022 No.14631360 >>14631344 that's not how reading english works.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:19:26 2022 No.14631361

>>14631347
>the entire post is nothing but a rhetorically empty greentext
Exactly, the post is replying to is rhetorically empty whining. Congratulations, you read correctly.

>an appeal to the authority of a wikipedia link
How is it an appeal to authority? You don't even know what that means.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:20:27 2022 No.14631366 >>14631360 It is. You haven't told me what's wrong with it, but will you ever.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:24:27 2022 No.14631377

>>14631354
Information about one coin is information about the group, since that coin is in the group. We have no information that tells us whether the statement refers to a specific coin or not. It depends on the procedure used to determine that statement, which is unknown. Any excuse you can give for why the statement did not come from viewing one coin can equally be applied to it not coming from viewing but coins.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:25:34 2022 No.14631381

>>14631361
>>14631366
>>14631377
in a normal reading of english we don't involve ourselves with unessential missing paratext: how the words came to be written, to what extent an implied narrator completely and faithfully describes what he knows, variant outcomes that might arise from variant prehistories—this is how psychoanalysis and literary criticism work but it's not how the simple transmission of information by written english works.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:32:53 2022 No.14631393

>>14631381
>in a normal reading of english we don't involve ourselves with unessential missing paratext:
Non sequitur. There is essential information missing from the question in order to interpret "at least one is heads," not unessential paratext. It's impossible to determine whether this refers to a specific coin or not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:41:21 2022 No.14631423 >>14631393 it's completely unessential. we have information about a group of two coins and no information that a member of that group was or should be specified. that's enough to give a single, unambiguous answer.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:47:52 2022 No.14631452

>>14631423
>it's completely unessential.
Incorrect. It determines the answer to the problem.

>we have information about a group of two coins
Information about one coin is information about the group, since that coin is in the group. We have no information that tells us whether the statement refers to a specific coin or not.

>no information that a member of that group was or should be specified
And no information that a member of the group was not specified. "At least one is heads" is ambiguous. It could refer to one being heads and the other being unknown, or it could refer to the number of heads being known and greater than 0. This is not about adding extra information to the problem, it's deciphering what is given by the problem. It can't be done without more information.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 19:55:45 2022 No.14631480 >>14631452 >no information that a member of the group was not specified "no information about not" is a very good description of your mistake. it's not how reading english works.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:06:26 2022 No.14631500

>>14631480
>"no information about not"
That's not what I said. I said we have no information that a member of the group was not specified. But interpretations require indignation not given, it's symmetric. There is no reason to prefer one interpretation over the other, otherwise you would have stated it by now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:47:02 2022 No.14631610 Why not go the whole hog and claim its ambigious because the probabilities of heads and tails aren't explicitly mentioned? In the context of a probability question it is unambigious even if some of the information is implicit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 20:53:27 2022 No.14631622 >>14631299 If order matters, then it's not irrelevant. But how do you come up with weights to assign in general?

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 21:45:07 2022 No.14631753

>>14631610
Because coins are generally fair. But you did get me thinking, what if you could have been told "at least one is tails" instead?

HH 1/4 aloh
HT 1/8 aloh 1/8 alot
TH 1/8 aloh 1/8 alot
TT 1/4 alot

This is if you have information about both coins and aloh and alot are random for one head and one tail. Answer is 1/2.

HH 1/4 aloh
HT 1/4 aloh
TH 1/4 alot
TT 1/4 alot

This is if you have information only about one coin. Answer is also 1/2.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 22:02:28 2022 No.14631790
File: 3.89 MB, 278x249, 1644380003364.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14624620
It's not even ambiguous. For the two possible scenarios of the paradox(Boy Girl Paradox, Coin Flip Paradox, etc) either order matters or not. If order matters, let * indicate which of the two coins, first or second, is being referred to as the possible states are listed:

H* and H
H and H*
H* and T
T and H*

thus 2:2, 50% chance or getting either T or H on the other one

And if order Does NOT matter, then the list is:

HT
HH

still 50%

Amazing how many people were led to believe otherwise. May you all get fucked in life until you learn to figure the most basic of paradoxes. Love

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 22:07:04 2022 No.14631805 >>14624620 We can't know whether the coin that landed heads was the first or second flip. It's unknowable. Therefore, it's a coin flip (50-50) as to whether both coins landed heads.

Anonymous Wed Jul 6 22:25:56 2022 No.14631850

Let A= H and let B = H or T. You are flipping one coin here. If you flip both at the same time, you cant know which is which if both are heads, but if you flip one after another, you will know which is A or B if you flip heads first call that one A since you will always have a head, or if you flip tails first call that on B since B can be H or

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 6 23:17:22 2022 No.14631978 >>14631790 Order has nothing to do with the boy girl paradox. Your post is complete nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 7 07:13:51 2022 No.14632861 File: 19 KB, 250x317, KainswordL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14624620 But suppose you throw a coin enough times... suppose one day, it lands on its edge.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 7 12:41:32 2022 No.14633480 >>14631500 >no information that a member of the group was not specified yes, that's the exact quote i quoted. reading english doesn't work that way and it won't no matter how many times you repeat the same mistake.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 7 12:51:17 2022 No.14633493 >>14631978 the "paradox" doesn't apply to a normal reading of english. it's a thought experiment about what would happen if words weren't allowed to exist without a narrator.

Anonymous Thu Jul 7 17:23:54 2022 No.14634030

>>14633480
>yes, that's the exact quote i quoted.
No, you put some nonsensical nonsentence in quotes which I never said. Both interpretations require infornation not given, it's symmetric. There is no reason to prefer one interpretation over the other, otherwise you would have stated it by now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 7 17:25:59 2022 No.14634042 >>14633493 >the "paradox" doesn't apply to a normal reading of english. The paradox applies to the question as written in normal English. Both interpretations are normal English. Get over it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 7 17:35:16 2022 No.14634069 >>14634030 >>14634042 yes, both "interpretations" of the thought experiment require information about an unessential missing narrator. reading english doesn't, no matter how often you repeat your mistake

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 7 17:41:01 2022 No.14634080 >>14634069 >yes, both "interpretations" of the thought experiment require information about an unessential missing narrator. Thanks for admitting it's ambiguous. /thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 7 17:45:46 2022 No.14634099 >>14634080 and thank you for admitting you've been arguing about psychoanalysis rather than reading english. glad we could work it out

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 7 17:52:55 2022 No.14634115 >>14634099 >psychoanalysis No idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about interpretations of "at least one is heads" as written in plain English.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 7 17:58:38 2022 No.14634133 >>14634115 no, you're talking about interpretations of an unessential missing narrator who—in your thought experiment—communicated those words. this isn't how "plain english" works.

Anonymous Thu Jul 7 18:07:48 2022 No.14634171

>>14634133
>no, you're talking about interpretations of an unessential missing narrator
No, you're making shit up again. I'm talking about interpretations of "at least one is heads." There is no narrator and the thought experiments are just examples to show how different information could produce the same sentence. You haven't done a single thing to show only your interpretation is normal English and I've shown you both are. You lost.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 7 18:09:26 2022 No.14634176 >>14634171 repeating your mistake over and over again won't change how reading english works.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 7 18:13:45 2022 No.14634195 >>14634176 You haven't been able to show I've made a single mistake. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 7 18:18:51 2022 No.14634211 >>14634176 >>14634195 These posters are both bots r-right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 7 18:29:20 2022 No.14634235 >>14634195 try saying what you mean without repeating the same mistake you've been repeating all thread. you'll find you can't

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 7 18:36:18 2022 No.14634253 >>14634235 I haven't made any mistakes. If you're having trouble reading plain English that's your problem.

Anonymous Thu Jul 7 18:48:04 2022 No.14634275

>>14634253
here's another beautiful example of your english mistake. it's all theme and variation on this:
>>14634171
>how different information could produce the same sentence
this is how psychoanalysis and literary criticism works. it's not how reading english works. when we read english, we don't care how the sentences were produced and whether the same sentence could have been produced by different pieces of unessential missing information, unless the sentences themselves tell us how they were produced. when we read english, the sentences simply are what they are

Anonymous Thu Jul 7 19:36:51 2022 No.14634363

>>14634275
>this is how psychoanalysis and literary criticism works.
No, it's just how examples work. At least one is heads could refer to a specific coin in the pair known to be heads, or it could refer not to a specific coin but to their combined state. So far you have done nothing to refute this, just whined and made vague accusations of a "mistake."

>we don't care how the sentences were produced
I don't care how the sentence was produced, it's ambiguous. Those are just examples to show how different information leads to the same ambiguous sentence.

Anonymous Fri Jul 8 13:10:28 2022 No.14636286

>>14634363
so try saying what's "ambiguous" about the sentence without repeating new or old variations of the same mistake you've been repeating all thread, viz.
>no information that a member of the group was not specified
>how different information could produce the same sentence
etc.
you'll find you can't

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 8 14:16:35 2022 No.14636372 >>14636286 >so try saying what's "ambiguous" about the sentence without repeating new or old variations of the same mistake There's no mistake, so just read my post again if you want it repeated without a mistake.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 8 17:51:37 2022 No.14636855 >>14636372 >examples to show how different information leads you repeat the same mistake in every post. there's no "different information" involved in reading english correctly, the words simply are what they are

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 8 17:59:36 2022 No.14636879 >>14624620 You realize that the problem mentioned in the image doesn't correspond to your mathematical implementation of the problem? The condition of having at least a fixed number of H is not mentioned. t. Mathlet tried to sound rigorous

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 8 18:01:20 2022 No.14636883 >>14626423 Yes lol, and it shows exactly how probabilities work. Now you are lacking an information so your probability dropped.

Anonymous Fri Jul 8 19:06:28 2022 No.14636990

>>14636855
>you repeat the same mistake in every post.
What mistake? You repeat the same vague claim in every post but have done nothing to explain or back it up. Pathetic.

>there's no "different information" involved in reading english correctly
There's no information because the sentence is ambiguous. There's information in the examples I gave that are unambiguous.

Anonymous Fri Jul 8 19:16:40 2022 No.14637010

>>14636990
so try to say why you think the sentence is ambiguous without making your reading mistake again. i highlighted the mistake in your previous post: there's no such thing as "different information leads to" in a normal reading of english. there's also no such thing as "no information that X didn't happen" in a normal reading of english. we read the words that are there, not the words that aren't there.

Anonymous Fri Jul 8 19:35:22 2022 No.14637037

>>14637010
>so try to say why you think the sentence is ambiguous without making your reading mistake again.
There's no mistake, so just read my post again if you want it repeated without a mistake.

>i highlighted the mistake in your previous post: there's no such thing as "different information leads to" in a normal reading of english.
I already provided examples of exactly that occurring in normal English. Two examples of different information about the coins leads to the same sentence "at least one is heads." So your "mistake" doesn't exist. You just made it up.

>there's also no such thing as "no information that X didn't happen" in a normal reading of english.
Then there's no such thing as "no information that a single coin wasn't observed" in the normal reading of OP's problem. Where is that information? Please point it out for me if your assertion is correct.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 8 19:40:43 2022 No.14637043 >>14637037 >Two examples of different information >no information that a single coin wasn't observed you just repeated, almost word for word, the same two variants of your mistake i highlighted in the post you replied to.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 8 20:46:40 2022 No.14637164 >>14637043 How are they mistakes? You can't tell me. You're pathetic.

Anonymous Fri Jul 8 20:49:40 2022 No.14637169

>>14637043
>>Two examples of different information
I gave you the examples. They exist. You have no argument.

>>no information that a single coin wasn't observed
So what information is there that a single coin wasn't observed? You're avoiding the question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 00:01:10 2022 No.14637564 >>14637169 there's no information that a single coin wasn't observed. far from avoiding it, this is one of the two variants of your mistake i've been highlighting for the past few posts

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 00:11:01 2022 No.14637590 >>14637169 this could also be helpful: where in the question do you think the examples you gave "exist"?

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 01:04:22 2022 No.14637699

>>14637564
>there's no information that a single coin wasn't observed.
You just said there's no such thing as "no information that X didn't happen." Make up your mind.

>this is one of the two variants of your mistake i've been highlighting for the past few posts
How is it a mistake? You haven't highlighted anything. But thanks for admitting the examples I gave are real and not a "mistake."

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 01:05:23 2022 No.14637703 >>14637590 >this could also be helpful: where in the question do you think the examples you gave "exist"? They don't, that's why it's ambiguous. Moron.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 01:14:45 2022 No.14637718 File: 59 KB, 745x738, nice.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14626051 One of the best things I've ever seen on this site.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 01:24:26 2022 No.14637737

>>14637699
yes, there's no such thing as "no information that X didn't happen" in a normal reading of english. "no information that a single coin wasn't observed" is an example of this mistake, which you keep repeating. try to describe the ambiguity you see in a way that doesn't repeat this mistake. you'll find you can't

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 01:27:23 2022 No.14637745 >>14637718 the first sentence describes how not to read english correctly. i've read better satire here

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 01:27:58 2022 No.14637746

>>14637737
>yes, there's no such thing as "no information that X didn't happen" in a normal reading of english.
Then you should be able to answer the question you keep avoiding. What information is there that a single coin wasn't observed?

>"no information that a single coin wasn't observed" is an example of this mistake
There's no mistake and you know it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 01:31:44 2022 No.14637753 >>14637746 i keep telling you, no such information exists in the question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 03:20:44 2022 No.14637913 >>14637753 Yes, because the question is ambiguous. Thanks for admitting I'm right. And thanks for admitting you were wrong when you said there's no such thing as "no information that X didn't happen"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 13:02:07 2022 No.14638731 >>14637913 and thank you for yet another example of you not reading english correctly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 13:29:13 2022 No.14638780 >>14638731 Another vague non-argument. Thanks for admitting the question is ambiguous.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 13:34:23 2022 No.14638794 >>14638780 and thank you for admitting you can't read english correctly

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 13:44:35 2022 No.14638818 >>14638794 Where did I admit that? You haven't shown a single example of indirect reading.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 13:46:03 2022 No.14638822 >>14638818 you admit it in every post, e.g. >Thanks for admitting the question is ambiguous

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 13:50:02 2022 No.14638831 >>14638822 Then you should be able to explain the error. You've failed every time, and you just abandoned your only attempts after contradicting yourself and admitting I'm right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 13:51:09 2022 No.14638835 >>14638831 here's another great example of you admitting you can't read english correctly: >You've failed every time, and you just abandoned your only attempts after contradicting yourself and admitting I'm right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 13:52:29 2022 No.14638839 >>14638835 Not an explanation. Try again.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 13:56:47 2022 No.14638851

>>14638839
first try to say why you think the sentence is ambiguous without making your reading mistake again. here are two variations of your mistake i've highlighted to help you avoid repeating them
>different information leads to the same
>no information that X didn't happen

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 17:09:20 2022 No.14639258

>>14638851
>first try to say why you think the sentence is ambiguous without making your reading mistake again
There's no mistake, so just read my post again if you want it repeated without a mistake.

>>different information leads to the same
How is this a mistake? I have you examples to show this and so far you haven't said anything against them.

>no information that X didn't happen
You already agreed this wasn't a mistake

>there's no information that a single coin wasn't observed.
>no such information exists in the question.

e Sat Jul 9 17:21:55 2022 No.14639282

>>14628415
>>14630532
That is not relevant to OP. The boy or girl paradox is due to semantic ambiguity about selection criteria. OP's post is clearly about a set of coins and a flip function, meaning there is only one selection criteria (flipping the coin abstractly).

As there is no selection ambiguity (the same method is applied), it is not ambiguous. You seem to have parroted this by rote without realizing what the actual problem was.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 17:46:48 2022 No.14639318 >>14639258 the examples you gave don't exist in the question and, no, i've never told you that your mistake isn't a mistake—indeed i keep highlighting it as a mistake to help you avoid repeating it.

e Sat Jul 9 17:49:30 2022 No.14639323

>>14639318
Just so the incorrect idea does not spread, please read the wiki page for his posted "boy or girl" problem as well. The issue is not the specific phrase "at least one", the issue is WHEN that phrase leads to method ambiguity in selection criteria. In this case, the method is "flip a coin". There is no ambiguity there.

So whether or not he made a mistake in reading regarding the coins, he would be wrong regarding the concept.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 17:49:38 2022 No.14639324 >>14639282 the "paradox" only applies to thought experiments about unessential missing paratext, not to a normal reading of english

e Sat Jul 9 17:50:40 2022 No.14639325

>>14639324
>the "paradox" only applies to thought experiments about unessential missing paratext, not to a normal reading of english
It is far more narrow than that and I explained how. If and only if there is ambiguity as to the method of selection. That is the specific constraint of the missing context. I do not know why you wrote that, given I explained exactly what the problem is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 17:52:48 2022 No.14639327 >>14639325 it's not narrow, it's a mistake

>>	e Sat Jul 9 17:54:30 2022 No.14639331 >>14639327 >it's not narrow, it's a mistake Are you a bot or just choosing not to read?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 17:57:27 2022 No.14639341 >>14639331 read the thread before imagining you have something new to say—we've already discounted and ignored the "wiki page" per >>14630447

e Sat Jul 9 17:59:14 2022 No.14639343

>>14639341
>read the thread before imagining you have something new to say—we've already discounted and ignored the "wiki page" per >>14630447
Are you a bot, or just choosing not to read? The sole ambiguity or possibility for missing context stems from, as explained, whether more than one method of selection can exist. That is not the case here. I read the thread. I get the distinct impression you are reading nothing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 18:02:18 2022 No.14639346 >>14639343 thank you so much for your novel idea that grass is green, the thread is complete now and you can leave

e Sat Jul 9 18:05:09 2022 No.14639351

>>14639346
Listen jackass, you did not have to shove both feet in your mouth by demonstrating you are as utterly clueless as the other idiot. Just because you're right in that he's wrong does not mean you've been right for good reasons. I was willing to overlook this, but you chose to act even more retarded instead.

No, "we" did not discount the wiki page. In fact not only did it get brought up following your cited post, but the person replying to you keeps stating the same thing from the same mistaken basis. It is clear neither you, nor he, actually read or understood what the problem actually was on the page. I clearly outlined the problem, "when more than one selection method is possible", and explained how that is not the case here. Your "explanations" of "why he is wrong" have been vacuous from the start, as equally stupid as his asserting the boy-girl problem applies when it doesn't.

Both of you fuck right off, because you're both lemmings arguing about which crayon tastes better.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 18:06:02 2022 No.14639353 >>14639351 sure thing, e

>>	e Sat Jul 9 18:15:24 2022 No.14639374 >>14639353 The only sure thing is human stupidity. Yours, in this case, specifically. Lurk more.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 18:23:48 2022 No.14639394 >>14639374 i've changed my mind and i value your expertise. please also show me how to lurk more.

e Sat Jul 9 18:27:23 2022 No.14639402

>>14639394
>please also show me how to lurk more.
You can start by only posting when you actually know what you're talking about. You know, like I do. Step 0 would be "actually trying to learn things so you know what you're talking about". You know, like reading the wiki article posted and finding the actual problem rather than shitting out nonsense.

So you going to keep throwing this tantrum, or shall I keep spanking you for acting like an upset toddler?

>>	e Sat Jul 9 18:28:25 2022 No.14639404 >>14639402 >keep Sigh. Stop*

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 19:04:18 2022 No.14639463 >>14639402 >>14639404 you're still posting. i was hoping you'd show me how to lurk more

>>	e Sat Jul 9 19:07:10 2022 No.14639472 >>14639463 >you're still posting. i was hoping you'd show me how to lurk more Your penchant for illiteracy continues unabated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 19:12:09 2022 No.14639483 >>14639472 still not lurking

>>	e Sat Jul 9 19:14:04 2022 No.14639489 >>14639483 >still not lurking Correct. You should start doing that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 19:15:26 2022 No.14639493 >>14639489 i'm trying to learn by watching you

>>	e Sat Jul 9 19:16:26 2022 No.14639494 >>14639493 >i'm trying to learn by watching you If you were you'd fuck up a lot less often. Hence why you need to lurk more.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 19:19:40 2022 No.14639505 >>14639494 you're still not lurking

>>	e Sat Jul 9 19:21:44 2022 No.14639509 >>14639505 >you're still not lurking You're still not done throwing a tantrum. Shall we continue to point out the obvious?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 19:28:00 2022 No.14639526 >>14639509 was the other guy your english teacher?

>>	e Sat Jul 9 19:33:37 2022 No.14639549 >>14639526 >was the other guy your english teacher? If he were, I'd still be right and you'd still be throwing a tantrum over it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 19:36:12 2022 No.14639555 >>14639549 fascinating

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:31:10 2022 No.14639862

>>14639282
>The boy or girl paradox is due to semantic ambiguity about selection criteria. OP's post is clearly about a set of coins and a flip function, meaning there is only one selection criteria (flipping the coin abstractly).
OP's post is gibberish. I'm answering the question in his image.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:35:04 2022 No.14639873

>>14639318
>the examples you gave don't exist in the question
Yes, that's why it's ambiguous. Thanks for agreeing with me again.

>i've never told you that your mistake isn't a mistake
You agreed with the "mistake:"

>there's no information that a single coin wasn't observed.
>no such information exists in the question.

So not only can you not explain how anything I said is a mistake, you can't even apply this criticism consistently. There's nothing behind your claims, just impotent rage.

>>	e Sat Jul 9 21:39:03 2022 No.14639876 >>14639862 >OP's post is gibberish. Pretty clearly asking the odds it'll both be heads if you flip them. There's no ambiguity if you already know one of the results, either, as the method is the same: You flip the second one.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:45:51 2022 No.14639890

>>14639323
>The issue is not the specific phrase "at least one", the issue is WHEN that phrase leads to method ambiguity in selection criteria.
Did you even read the wiki page you're telling others to read? The issue is not how the children were born or how the coins were flipped. The issue is how the information "at least one is X" was generated. In other words, the interpretation of "at least one is X."

"Flip a coin" is not a method of obtaining that information. You flip coins regardless of whether you look at both or look at only one. There is no relevant difference between the boy girl problem and the coin problem.

e Sat Jul 9 21:50:02 2022 No.14639902

>>14639890
>Did you even read the wiki page you're telling others to read?
Boy you have some big balls. Why yes, I did. You clearly did not.
"Grinstead and Snell argue that the question is ambiguous in much the same way Gardner did.[11] They leave it to the reader to decide whether the procedure, that yields 1/3 as the answer, is reasonable for the problem as stated above."

Can people stop trying to "correct" me and accuse me of not reading things... when they don't read. It isn't like you're going to get away with doing so when I can just copy-paste it because I actually DO read.

>he issue is how the information "at least one is X" was generated. In other words, the interpretation of "at least one is X."

That is not the issue. The issue is the ambiguity introduced by having the potential for more than one procedure (method, selection criteria). The procedure here is "flip coin". There is no ambiguity. The boy-or-girl paradox does not apply.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:51:04 2022 No.14639905 >>14639873 >there's no information that a single coin wasn't observed. >no such information exists in the question. yes, we don't read words that aren't there, only words that are. this highlights your mistake

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:53:35 2022 No.14639913 >>14639902 >decide whether the procedure this isn't how reading english works

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:54:51 2022 No.14639920 >>14639876 >Pretty clearly asking the odds it'll both be heads if you flip them. Pretty clearly gibberish. But if your interpretation is correct it's a trivial problem and your response to my post is incorrect since I'm not even talking about it.

e Sat Jul 9 21:56:45 2022 No.14639928

>>14639920
>Pretty clearly gibberish.
Not if you can read really basic maths it isn't. Do you perhaps have the Tex rendering script disabled, resulting in the raw code being displayed?
>But if your interpretation is correct it's a trivial problem and your response to my post is incorrect since I'm not even talking about it.
Yes, it is a trivial problem, and that was my whole point the entire time. This shitfest is the result of not understanding the OP and how it does not pertain to the boy-or-girl paradox.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:58:08 2022 No.14639930

>>14639902
>"Grinstead and Snell argue that the question is ambiguous in much the same way Gardner did.[11] They leave it to the reader to decide whether the procedure, that yields 1/3 as the answer, is reasonable for the problem as stated above."
The ambiguity is over how to interpret "at least one is X." Same as the coin problem.

>The issue is the ambiguity introduced by having the potential for more than one procedure (method, selection criteria). The procedure here is "flip coin".
Procedure where? OP's gibberish? That's not a procedure, not even a function, and not even what was being discussed when you butted in to the conversation. Just stop posting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 21:59:13 2022 No.14639936 >>14639905 >yes Then you agree that I made no mistake. Good.

e Sat Jul 9 22:00:12 2022 No.14639938

>>14639930
>The ambiguity is over how to interpret "at least one is X." Same as the coin problem.
If it were, you have incorrectly cited the boy-or-girl paradox.
>>14639930
>Procedure where? OP's gibberish? That's not a procedure
Definition, "Procedure", "2. a particular course or mode of action."
The particular course employed: Flipping the coin.

Yeesh.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:01:32 2022 No.14639942 >>14639936 let's read together and try to pinpoint where your reading keeps breaking down. "two coins were flipped" says we're considering two coins and that both of them have been flipped. do we agree so far?

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:01:34 2022 No.14639943

>>14639928
>Not if you can read really basic maths it isn't.
I can read really basic math. This is gibberish. You're confusing the two.

>Yes, it is a trivial problem, and that was my whole point the entire time.
Then your post is irrelevant to mine, which was not even about this trivial problem or OP's gibberish. Try reading next time before butting into a conversation you don't understand.

>>	e Sat Jul 9 22:02:30 2022 No.14639948 >>14639943 >Then your post is irrelevant to mine, which was not even about this trivial problem or OP's gibberish. No, it is, because OP nor your posting has nothing to do with the boy-or-girl paradox. Hence the point.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:07:51 2022 No.14639963

>>14639938
>If it were, you have incorrectly cited the boy-or-girl paradox.
How so?

>The particular course employed: Flipping the coin.
No, it's just gibberish based on a "flip function" that isn't even a function. The only mention of flipping coins is in the OP's image and that is ambiguous due to the phrase "at least one of them landed heads." Now how did you confuse the former with the latter when the conversation was clearly referencing the latter and never made any reference to OP's gibberish?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:08:51 2022 No.14639967 >>14639942 Yes.

e Sat Jul 9 22:09:10 2022 No.14639969

>>14639963
>The only mention of flipping coins is in the OP's image and that is ambiguous due to the phrase "at least one of them landed heads."
Which is not ambiguous because it has only one procedure.
>How so?
See above.
Again quoting the article you clearly do not read,
>>Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?
>>This question is identical to question one, except that instead of specifying that the older child is a boy, it is specified that at least one of them is a boy. In response to reader criticism of the question posed in 1959, Gardner said that no answer is possible without information that was not provided. Specifically, that two different procedures for determining that "at least one is a boy" could lead to the exact same wording of the problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:10:38 2022 No.14639975 >>14639948 >No, it is, because OP nor your posting has nothing to do with the boy-or-girl paradox. You're delusional. Please explain the relevant difference between the problem in OP's image and the boy girl problem.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:11:26 2022 No.14639977

>>14639967
let's also use your preferred language from >>14634363 to make things easier to talk about the ambiguity you see:
>specific coin
>combined state
"at least one of them landed heads" says we're considering "them"—plural, combined state of both flipped coins—and that when we consider "them"—plural, combined state of both flipped coins—that "at least one"—one or both—"of them"—of the two coins we're considering in plural, the combined state of both flipped coins—"landed heads." none of the words we're reading tell us to consider the combined state of both flipped coins in any other context. do we still agree up to this point?

>>	e Sat Jul 9 22:11:52 2022 No.14639978 >>14639975 >Please explain the relevant difference between the problem in OP's image and the boy girl problem. There is only one procedure. Boy-or-girl paradox arises due to ambiguity in procedure. >>14639969

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:14:46 2022 No.14639984

>>14639969
>Which is not ambiguous because it has only one procedure.
You're still very confused and never understood the Wikipedia article. The question doesn't state the procedure for determining that "at least one landed heads." Here are two procedures that lead to two different answers:

1. Two coins are flipped. I count the number of heads and it's greater than 0. I tell you "at least one landed heads"

2. Two coins are flipped and I only look at one of them. It landed on heads. I tell you "at least one is heads."

Same exact problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:16:40 2022 No.14639989 >>14639978 >>14639984 neither of you read english correctly but one of you clearly understands the thought experiment and the other clearly doesn't.

e Sat Jul 9 22:19:08 2022 No.14639997

>>14639984
>You're still very confused and never understood the Wikipedia article.
This kind of thing is my job. I assure you, bad things would happen if I could not do it correctly, and did not understand statistics.
>The question doesn't state the procedure for determining that "at least one landed heads."
>>14624620
>be a flip function
Yes it does.
>Here are two procedures that lead to two different answers:
>1. Two coins are flipped. I count the number of heads and it's greater than 0. I tell you "at least one landed heads"
>2. Two coins are flipped and I only look at one of them. It landed on heads. I tell you "at least one is heads."
You already flipped them. There is no ambiguity. What you tell me is irrelevant, because the procedure was the same in both cases. You're either trolling or devolving to schizophasia.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:22:53 2022 No.14640008

>>14639977
Incorrect. A specific coin in the pair would still be "one of them." So your focus on "them" shows nothing.

As I already showed, it's completely natural and accurate to say "at least one of them landed heads" after only seeing one of the coins, and this is a completely natural interpretation of that statement. You have no argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:24:31 2022 No.14640013 >>14639978 >There is only one procedure. Please tell me the procedure then. inb4 "flip two coins" No, that's no more a complete procedure for the problem than "birth two children." You're very confused.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:25:35 2022 No.14640015 >>14639989 Your opinion is worthless, you already lost.

e Sat Jul 9 22:29:23 2022 No.14640022

>>14640013
>No, that's no more a complete procedure for the problem than "birth two children." You're very confused.
The question is about the odds both are heads. If the question for "birth two children" were "what are the odds both are male" it would be the same. (if odds were strictly 50/50 as with the abstract fair coin).
Quoting the article, "Specifically, that two different procedures for determining that "at least one is a boy" could lead to the exact same wording of the problem."

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:29:51 2022 No.14640023

>>14639997
>This kind of thing is my job. I assure you, bad things would happen if I could not do it correctly, and did not understand statistics.
You can't do it correctly and didn't understand statistics.

>be a flip function.
That's not in the OP's image and not sufficient to answer the question. Try again.

>You already flipped them.
OK? No one said anything to the contrary. You're losing your grip.

>There is no ambiguity.
Then please tell me, which of the two procedures that I gave represents the problem.

>What you tell me is irrelevant, because the procedure was the same in both cases.
No, they're not the same. In the first procedure, the chance that both are heads is 1/3. In the second it's 1/2.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:30:53 2022 No.14640025 >>14640008 >after only seeing one of the coins no one is seeing anything. this is the same mistake in reading english you've been repeating over and over again. we read the words that are there, not the words that aren't there

>>	e Sat Jul 9 22:31:08 2022 No.14640026 >>14640023 >You can't do it correctly and didn't understand statistics. Prove it. Everything else is just admitting you have nothing. I expect a rigorous mathematical demonstration. You know how to use the math function here, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:31:17 2022 No.14640027 >>14640022 >The question is about the odds both are heads. The question is the odds both are heads given "at least one landed heads."

e Sat Jul 9 22:32:24 2022 No.14640030

>>14640027
>The question is the odds both are heads given "at least one landed heads."
...Which changes nothing because there is not an ambiguity of a different procedure.
>>Specifically, that two different procedures for determining that "at least one is a boy" could lead to the exact same wording of the problem. But they lead to different correct answers:
>>From all families with two children, at least one of whom is a boy, a family is chosen at random. This would yield the answer of 1/3.
>>From all families with two children, one child is selected at random, and the sex of that child is specified to be a boy. This would yield an answer of 1/2.[3][4]

Having more than one procedure is what made the problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:33:26 2022 No.14640033 >>14640015 >Your opinion same mistake again: opinions have nothing to do with reading english correctly

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:33:41 2022 No.14640034

>>14640025
>no one is seeing anything.
In the example they are. You understand what an example is, right?

>we read the words that are there, not the words that aren't there
Exactly, that's why the question is ambiguous. There is not enough information to allow you to interpret "at least one is heads." I'm glad we can agree.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:35:45 2022 No.14640035 >>14640034 your examples don't exist in a normal reading of english, only in a psychological thought experiment.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:44:06 2022 No.14640051

>>14640026
>Prove it.
I already did. The two procedures I gave give different answers and there is no way to tell which represents the problem. What part do you disagree with?

>I expect a rigorous mathematical demonstration.
It's trivial.

P(HH|at least one is heads) = P(HH) P(at least one is heads|HH) / P(at least one is heads)

P(HH) = P(HT) = P(TH) = P(TT) = 0.5^2
P(at least one is heads|HH) = 1 in both procedures
P(at least one is heads|HT) = 1 in both procedures (let the first coin be the one looked at in procedure 2)
P(at least one is heads|TH) = 1 in procedure 1 and 0 in procedure 2
P(at least one is heads|TT) = 0

P(HH|at least one is heads) = (0.5^2)(1)/((0.5^2)(1)+(0.5^2)(1)+(0.5^2)P(at least one is heads|TH)+(0.5^2)(0)) = 1/3 and 1/2

e Sat Jul 9 22:46:01 2022 No.14640054

>>14640051
>The two procedures I gave give different answers and there is no way to tell which represents the problem.
I do not get what you do not get here: You flip both coins. You are not asked "What is the odds knowing one coin". Your subsequent demonstration, while trivial, is completely irrelevant to OP or anything else. You're adding procedures, as I said, when the procedure is not what OP was talking about. Leading to an irrelevant link to something that does not apply.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:57:41 2022 No.14640080

>>14640030
>...Which changes nothing because there is not an ambiguity of a different procedure.
I already gave you different procedures. You're delusional. It's exactly the same problem.

>>From all families with two children, at least one of whom is a boy, a family is chosen at random. This would yield the answer of 1/3.
This is the same as flipping two coins and looking at both.

>>>From all families with two children, one child is selected at random, and the sex of that child is specified to be a boy.
This is the same as flipping two coins and looking at only one.

You completely failed to understand the problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 22:58:53 2022 No.14640084 >>14640033 Right, that's why your posts are worthless, they are just irrelevant opinions you can't even defend.

e Sat Jul 9 23:00:24 2022 No.14640090

>>14640080
>You completely failed to understand the problem.
Changing what the problem is to suit your fancy isn't cleverness. It's just dishonesty. I'm bored with you. OP did not ask "if at least one was heads" as I said at the start. You're either unable to read, or unwilling.

Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:03:41 2022 No.14640098

>>14640054
you don't even understand the wikipedia article you keep copy-pasting fragments from.
>You flip both coins
this isn't the "procedure" in the thought experiment any more than "husband fucks the wife to make the children" is the "procedure" in what you quoted here >>14640030

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 9 23:05:43 2022 No.14640106 >>14640084 we don't read english by having opinions and imagining examples and you repeating the same mistake over and over again won't change how reading english works.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 01:52:29 2022 No.14640383 >>14640035 >your examples don't exist in a normal reading of english What about them is not normal English?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 01:55:49 2022 No.14640389 >>14640054 If you don't get my explanation then you don't understand the boy girl problem either. How the information "at least one landed heads" was obtained determines the answer.

Anonymous Sun Jul 10 01:58:58 2022 No.14640396

>>14640090
>Changing what the problem is to suit your fancy isn't cleverness.
I didn't change the problem, it's ambiguous. Is showing different procedures affects the answer to the boy girl problem "changing the problem?" How do you not get this?

>OP did not ask "if at least one was heads" as I said at the start.
I don't care what OP's gibberish said. You butted into a conversation you didn't understand and now you've shown you don't even understand what you claimed to understand.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 02:00:33 2022 No.14640399 >>14640106 >we don't read english by having opinions and imagining examples Exactly, that's why the question is ambiguous. Thanks for agreeing with me again. >you repeating the same mistake You haven't shown a single mistake. You're pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 06:39:00 2022 No.14640848 {\aleph}_{0}

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 10 06:40:41 2022 No.14640851 [math]{\aleph}_{0}[/math]

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]