Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHilarious. Here I thought you were actually going to show us all something related to odds and statistics, and all the while you were just intent on being a jackass.
Because stochastic processes exist and operate independently of how we choose to examine their outcomes.
Let us consider a simple, concrete example: rolling a standard theoretical 6-sided die, defined to be an object that yields a number 1 through 6, each with probability 1/6.
Now, suppose we construct the following wager: If the die rolls a ...[text shortened]... with respect to actually determining the likelihood that the God of interest actually exists).
Six-sided die is not part of the equation. The Christian God is not part of the equation. Rolling with multiple outcomes is not part of the equation. Say! I have a grand idea: what's say you go back, get some basic education relative to probabilites and then come back when you think you have something productive to contribute.
And get a hair cut while you're at it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are an idiot.
Hilarious. Here I thought you were actually going to show us all something related to odds and statistics, and all the while you were just intent on being a jackass.
Six-sided die is not part of the equation. The Christian God is not part of the equation. Rolling with multiple outcomes is not part of the equation. Say! I have a grand idea: what's s ...[text shortened]... u think you have something productive to contribute.
And get a hair cut while you're at it.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI understand more about probability than you'll ever understand about anything. There was nothing "jackass" about my posts to RWillis. Put in the effort to understand them and you might learn something.
Damn. If I wasn't so freakin' thick-skinned, I'd report your donkey to the moderators. Thank the non-God for my alligator-like epidermis.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIs this your new technique, Freaky? When someone posts something that opposes your viewpoint,
Hilarious. Here I thought you were actually going to show us all something related to odds and statistics, and all the while you were just intent on being a jackass.
Six-sided die is not part of the equation. The Christian God is not part of the equation. Rolling with multiple outcomes is not part of the equation. Say! I have a grand idea: what's s ...[text shortened]... u think you have something productive to contribute.
And get a hair cut while you're at it.
you simply belittle it (and the poster) rather than challenge its content?
Shameful.
Nemesio
Originally posted by rooktakesqueenCan you show me the post by a Christian that actually uses those
basically when all is said and done the christians are saying god has given us free will yet we must worship him at the same time. this is kinda a strange free will to have, if god needs to be worshipped why give us free will? this is like me letting my son play in the road and then blaming him when he almost gets hit by a car! also, why does god need ...[text shortened]... orship this belief... on that note, isn't an evil persons idea of heaven really hell anyway?
words?
Kelly
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI've read a little bit about the 'Monty Hall Problem'. Very interesting. But I must admit that I'm having a little difficulty grasping why one's chance improves with switching doors. Does the host automatically show you a 'goat' door regardless of your first stated choice? Should one always switch doors in that instance?
I understand more about probability than you'll ever understand about anything. There was nothing "jackass" about my posts to RWillis. Put in the effort to understand them and you might learn something.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI understand more about probability than you'll ever understand about anything.
I understand more about probability than you'll ever understand about anything. There was nothing "jackass" about my posts to RWillis. Put in the effort to understand them and you might learn something.
Exaggeration becomes you: you really should try work it into all of your conversations. Without taking anything away from your purported field of knowledge, an assertion by anyone along these lines is rejected by the laws of probability. An expert would have recognized that basic fact.
Try playing the ball where it lays and apply your expertise to the parameters given. See what that yields.
EDIT: Your command is such that it took you FIVE edits to post a few sentences of information?!? What are the odds that you might not have the grasp you claim?
Originally posted by NemesioEnough from the peanut gallery. The good doctor (as is typical for the nay-sayers in these here parts) tried taking the conversation away from its focus. I pointed that out--- you even quoted where I pointed that out. That 'pointing out' would, under any normal conditions, constitute a challenge of the content. Belittling (?) was thrown in for free.
Is this your new technique, Freaky? When someone posts something that opposes your viewpoint,
you simply belittle it (and the poster) rather than challenge its content?
Shameful.
Nemesio
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettYes! That's the salient feature of the process governing the outcomes.
Does the host automatically show you a 'goat' door regardless of your first stated choice?
In short, your first guess will be wrong with probability 2/3. That means the prize lies behind one of other two doors with probability 2/3. Eliminate one of those other two doors (an instance of arbitrarily repartitioning the outcomes as I was describing before) and the underlying process (the fact that the prize hasn't moved, and is still not your first guess 2/3 of the time) hasn't changed. If your first guess is wrong 2/3 of the time, you can't simply improve that to 1/2 by arbitrarily repartitioning the outcomes into two possibilities, anymore than you can reduce the probability of some God existing by positing the existence of additional Gods, or anymore than you can say that God exists with probability 1/2 because he either does or doesn't. All three examples are incorrect due to the very same fallacy.
I have to be away for a couple days. I'll check back on this then to see if you have any unresolved issues, and to see if Freaky remains an idiot.
Originally posted by NemesioSurely, this is still preferable to the catastrophic alternative of admitting he is wrong, confused, or both.
Is this your new technique, Freaky? When someone posts something that opposes your viewpoint,
you simply belittle it (and the poster) rather than challenge its content?
Shameful.
Nemesio
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBrilliant! Another masterstroke of expertise... and you showed vast improvements over your previous post. This one only required three edits. You're doing so much better now. While you're away, why not figure out the per centage of improvement that three edits verses five edits in two posts represents.
Yes! That's the salient feature of the process governing the outcomes.
In short, your first guess will be wrong with probability 2/3. That means the prize lies behind one of other two doors with probability 2/3. Eliminate one of those other two doors (an instance of arbitrarily repartitioning the outcomes as I was describing before) and the u ...[text shortened]... this then to see if you have any unresolved issues, and to see if Freaky remains an idiot.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIs this your new technique, Freaky? When someone posts something that opposes your viewpoint,
Brilliant! Another masterstroke of expertise... and you showed vast improvements over your previous post. This one only required three edits. You're doing so much better now. While you're away, why not figure out the per centage of improvement that three edits verses five edits in two posts represents.
you simply belittle it (and the poster) rather than challenge its content?
Shameful.
Nemesio