Crazy probability

This thread is inspired by a probability discussion in the eclipses thread.
I was watching this YouTube video YouTube about the cost of a Tesla.
If you fast forward to 5:22 he adds up a whole lot of practically random figures, subtracts a whole lot of other figures and the result is 77,777.
So, what is the probability of such a nice looking number?
Well, if we naively say the chance of a 7 in each place, is one in 10, then its 10x10x10x10x10 or one chance in 10,000

So, did he deliberately fudge the figures to make such a nice number or is it pure chance, or did God do it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
This thread is inspired by a probability discussion in the eclipses thread.
I was watching this YouTube video [youtube]HQqXuw0Bb34[/youtube] about the cost of a Tesla.
If you fast forward to 5:22 he adds up a whole lot of practically random figures, subtracts a whole lot of other figures and the result is 77,777.
So, what is the probability of such a n ...[text shortened]... eliberately fudge the figures to make such a nice number or is it pure chance, or did God do it?

If I remember the probability discussion, there is an equal 1 in 10,000 chance that the number would come out to 77,778.

My guess is he did not fudge the number. But they are all approximate values anyway that probably change daily, and depend on the quantity of items you purchase.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This thread is inspired by a probability discussion in the eclipses thread.
I was watching this YouTube video [youtube]HQqXuw0Bb34[/youtube] about the cost of a Tesla.
If you fast forward to 5:22 he adds up a whole lot of practically random figures, subtracts a whole lot of other figures and the result is 77,777.
So, what is the probability of such a n ...[text shortened]... eliberately fudge the figures to make such a nice number or is it pure chance, or did God do it?

The difference here is that even if the number resulted from an unlikely probability, it would not produce life. The consequences of probabilty matter.

Originally posted by chaney3
The difference here is that even if the number resulted from an unlikely probability, it would not produce life. The consequences of probabilty matter.

1. So are you saying his number is proof of God or not? You are not being clear.

2. I am fairly certain that in the eclipse thread you claimed probability was just a mathematical exercise with no real world consequences.

Originally posted by wildgrass
My guess is he did not fudge the number. But they are all approximate values anyway that probably change daily, and depend on the quantity of items you purchase.

And your point is?

Originally posted by twhitehead
1. So are you saying his number is proof of God or not? You are not being clear.

2. I am fairly certain that in the eclipse thread you claimed probability was just a mathematical exercise with no real world consequences.

No, I said that while science may prove probabilty in a case of "rolling of dice", those results are somewhat insignificant.

You cannot equate those results with origin of life.

Originally posted by chaney3
The difference here is that even if the number resulted from an unlikely probability, it would not produce life. The consequences of probabilty matter.

Just so you know, this thread really wasn't directed at you, it was more intended as food for thought for people that actually want to learn something.

You are just a liar who wants to prove a point but is too stupid to realise that he's shooting himself in the foot every time he opens his mouth.

Still waiting for that reference by the way.

Originally posted by chaney3
You cannot equate those results with origin of life.

I didn't. I don't even know why you brought up the origin of life at all. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Just so you know, this thread really wasn't directed at you, it was more intended as food for thought for people that actually want to learn something.

You are just a liar who wants to prove a point but is too stupid to realise that he's shooting himself in the foot every time he opens his mouth.

Still waiting for that reference by the way.

Fine, but probabilties can only be taken so far.

Lottery results don't equal life.

Jerk.

Originally posted by chaney3
Jerk.

The insults are uncalled for and against forum rules. Getting caught lying is not a good enough excuse. You don't like the fact that I point out your errors? Then don't come to the science forum where we point out logical errors and false claims.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The insults are uncalled for and against forum rules. Getting caught lying is not a good enough excuse. You don't like the fact that I point out your errors? Then don't come to the science forum where we point out logical errors and false claims.

You started it by insulting him, then you equate lying with errors, and now you probably don't like the fact that I've pointed out your errors.
And yet, here you are acting like the science forum is your own personal clubhouse... another error.

How do you manage to get in so many errors and false claims with so very few words?

Originally posted by lemon lime
You started it by insulting him,

No, I was just being honest.

then you equate lying with errors,
No, I did not.
I equated lying with lying.

and now you probably don't like the fact that I've pointed out your errors.
Except you haven't. An you too will probably run away in shame.

And yet, here you are acting like the science forum is your own personal clubhouse... another error.
Another error on your part, yes.

How do you manage to get in so many errors and false claims with so very few words?
I really don't know how you do it. My guess is all that fawning over Trump helped.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I was just being honest.

[b]then you equate lying with errors,
No, I did not.
I equated lying with lying.

and now you probably don't like the fact that I've pointed out your errors.
Except you haven't. An you too will probably run away in shame.

And yet, here you are acting like the science forum is your own personal clubho ...[text shortened]... w words?
I really don't know how you do it. My guess is all that fawning over Trump helped.[/b]

I see. So essentially you are saying...

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. Trump


typical riposte

Originally posted by lemon lime
I see. So essentially you are saying...

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. Trump


typical riposte

Hey, is that a list or a definitive sentence?

No no no no Trump.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I see. So essentially you are saying...

I see. So essentially you are saying...
"I won't admit that I was wrong."

You and chaney3 have something in common.

Just a tip though: he won't be thanking you if you drag up all his lies again.