/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15350705]

The solution with this is that math is a shortcut. Ultimately, the percentage calculations mean nothing, there are only 2 outcomes, either you are correct or you arent, and if we had knowledge of all the factors, we could always make the correct decision.

The math merely provides a chance. ITs essentially meaningless. Your chance of winning the loterally is 0.0003%. That doesnt mean anything if you know all the factors.

A diceroll is random. Its not if you can calculate the throw, gravity, wind resistance, the material of the surface it lands on and what the dice is made of.

[Anonymous No.15350980]

>it either happens or doesn't

[Anonymous No.15351014]

>>15350980
> Hidden variables
Quantum mechanics enters the room

[Jealous No.15351025]

A one-in-two guess is better than a one-in-three guess. Sometimes the host of the show might pull the switcheroo on you before he opens the door though.

[Anonymous No.15351245]

game theory is almost a con. it makes sense but it pretends it says something too important and hard to grasp.

the most I read about it them more I'm like "yeah I knew that since I was 5 so what".

[Anonymous No.15351248]

game theory is almost a con. it makes sense but it pretends it says something too important and hard to grasp.

the more I read about it the more I'm like "yeah I knew that since I was 5 so what".

[Anonymous No.15351251]

>>15350705
>loterally
What's a loterally?

[Anonymous No.15351283]

>>15351025
>pull the switcheroo on you before he opens the door
that's a different problem, it changes to a common 1/2.

[Anonymous No.15351287]

>>15351283
nevermind, I misunderstood what you mean, it only keeps it as a regular 1/3

[Anonymous No.15351289]

it's an interesting problem. it exposes how people can't grasp probability at the level of comparing small differences between probability.

op is at a different level of moron though.

[Anonymous No.15351306]

>>15351289
A genius is often considered a madman or fool by the people of his age, so I thank you for the compliment

[Anonymous No.15351318]

>either you're correct or you aren't
True, except the probability of either is not 50%

[Anonymous No.15351452]

>>15351289
OP is talking about something different dude, you are the midwit.

[Anonymous No.15351540]

>>15350705
Are you saying that probability is just a tool designed to model situations with incomplete information?
Wow, what a revelation!

[Anonymous No.15351794]

>>15350705
>Your chance of winning the loterally is 0.0003%. That doesnt mean anything if you know all the factors.
It means that people who understand probability don't play the lottery

[Anonymous No.15351835]

>>/sci/image/_Yfsujk_ipZMbRBRisE3rA

[Anonymous No.15351853]

>>15351540
And people take it too far. They estimate 73% of success for a business.
The fact that they have to rely on probability means there factors outside of their control they do not fully understand. Really all it means is "were reasonably confident"

It doesnt really mean anything. The entire field of probability is basically a giant meme if you think about it except in games where there are many chances.

Like theres a 0.5% chance of blindness in your population and youre deciding how much of the public budget needs to go towards helping blind folk

[Anonymous No.15352087]

>>15351853
> The fact that they have to rely on probability means there factors outside of their control they do not fully understand.
Well of course, no one knowns the exact state of the whole universe at some given point in time.

> Really all it means is "were reasonably confident"
It could mean different things, English is weird like that.
I think the most reasonable interpretation is that out of all the businesses that they looked at, 73% of the businesses succeeded (however they defined success) and they are assuming that the trend will continue.
They are not saying that for each business the universe will roll a dice to see if it succeeds or not.
They're saying that out all the future business, they expect around 73% of them to succeed and make no claim whatsoever as to which businesses specifically will fail or succeed.

> It doesnt really mean anything. The entire field of probability is basically a giant meme.
I disagree.
Even if the outcome of some events could theoretically be calculated exactly, we might not have the practical means to do so (or doing so might just be too expensive).
For example with the dice role, sure, assuming that there aren't any inherently random physical events, you could calculate the exact force and angle you need to get the result you want in a given specific situation. But how are you going to get the exact mass distribution of the dice? How are you going to get the temperature/pressure of the air? How are you going to know the distance from you hand to the floor? How are you going to know the wind speed? How are you going to apply that exact force?
Accepting the uniform distribution as a model for a dice role is incredibly useful and conforms with our empirical observations.
Data collection and computation aren't free. If a model is accurate enough for the amount of effort it saves, it's a useful and meaningful model imo.
But yes, like all of math, people should remember that it's just a model.

[Anonymous No.15352614]

>>15351853
>Like theres a 0.5% chance of blindness in your population and youre deciding how much of the public budget needs to go towards helping blind folk
What's this supposed to mean? Obviously some budget needs to go towards helping them.

[Anonymous No.15352627]

>>15352087
>But yes, like all of math, people should remember that it's just a model.

[Anonymous No.15352650]

>>15351306
Of all the people considered idiots, most are actually idiots, not geniuses. You think you're special, but you're coming to 4channel for validation; that should tell you that you're not doing great.

[Anonymous No.15352771]

>>15352650
Pot calling the kettle black.

[Anonymous No.15353384]

>>15352650
Why would that imply im not doing great? Anonymous discussion is the only way to (theoretically) have less bias
If I discuss something in person theres the issue of face

[Anonymous No.15353796]

>>15353384
>Anonymous discussion is the only way to (theoretically) have less bias
Yes, that's the theory. How have the past two decades of practice looked? Be honest here.

[Anonymous No.15355058]

>>15351025
In this case, It's a 2/3 guess, being better than a 1/3 guess.

[Anonymous No.15355182]

>>15350705
The Monty Hall problem is a joke. THE CHANCE IS 50% EITHER WAY.
You can test this yourself with any statistical software, pic related is my result

[Anonymous No.15355375]

>>15355182
Your software is a midwit.

[Anonymous No.15355409]

>>15355182
I called your software a midwit, but I was wrong. I found it online. Turns out you're the midwit because you didn't run it enough times.

[Anonymous No.15355414]

>>15353384
>discussion
That's kinda the point. If you had achieved anything in your life you wouldn't be 'discussing' with people on 4chan. You'd be busy with work, rolling in money, or some shit. By merely implying that discussion matters you're already showing naivete and lack of workplace experience; way to out yourself as a kid. But keep reveling in other people calling you an idiot; you are so kewl and different hehe XD.

[Anonymous No.15355477]

>>15351853
If there's 0.5% chance of blindness that can be used to estimate the PROPORTION of blindness in a population or the MEAN number blind, which can be used to make effective decisions because extreme precidion won't change much (not much difference in decisions between 1459 people and 1470 people, so approximation is safe and efficient)

[Anonymous No.15355646]

>>15355182
Here's a very simple mathematica simulation. Next time increase your sample size. I used 1 million, which is overkill.

[Anonymous No.15357848]

>>15350705
reddit spacing

[Anonymous No.15358011]

>>15357848
Not a thing. Go be a newfag somewhere else.