4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThen revise my example accordingly, with any particular precise definition of a deck that you wish.
Your card example is flawed. Not all decks of cards have 52 cards and not all have the same type of cards. Therefore, you must be given this information, which does not follow "deductively from the definition of a deck of cards".
EDIT: What would be the probability of picking a 7 from this deck of cards? http://www.unclesgames.com/product_info.php/products_id/1744
I was denoting the standard deck of 13 ranks in 4 suits. You are as notionally confused as everybody else if you think a denotation constitutes information.
Nobody except people waiting to die in nursing homes even plays pinochle, but my example works just as well with a pinochle deck as with a standard deck, you old fart. You just get some different numbers.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribbleshttp://www.grandprixtournaments.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=46
Then revise my example accordingly, with any particular precise definition of a deck that you wish.
I was denoting the standard deck of 13 ranks in 4 suits. You are as notionally confused as everybody else if you think a denotation constitutes information.
Nobody except people waiting to die in nursing homes even plays pinochle, but my examp ...[text shortened]... ith a pinochle deck as with a standard deck, you old fart. You just get some different numbers.
Vegas next month:
http://www.gpvegas.com/
Originally posted by Restless SoulNo, it doesn't.
Well, it does 😛
It revolves around a point, well inside its own circumference but not quite in the center. that point will be slightly dependant on the position of the earth but is also dependant on the positions of the other masses in the solar system.
Remember that the sun comprises around 98% of the mass of the solar system. The other 2% is fairly evenly spread out in gas, dust, asteroids, comets and planets.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by twhiteheadCommon sense dictates that a creator is more likely responsible for the creation of the universe than mere happenstance.
We had a whole thread on this previously. Basically if absolutely no information is available about the two possible outcomes then the odds are 50/50. As soon as some information becomes available then the odds change significantly, for example if one possible out come is that a random entity exists and the other outcome is that it doesn't then we can imm ...[text shortened]... ds from your perspective and both would be based on assumptions that are effectively arbitrary.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesnot just old farts. also germans from wisconsin like pinochle and sheep's head and other games with funny set-ups and rules.
Then revise my example accordingly, with any particular precise definition of a deck that you wish.
I was denoting the standard deck of 13 ranks in 4 suits. You are as notionally confused as everybody else if you think a denotation constitutes information.
Nobody except people waiting to die in nursing homes even plays pinochle, but my examp ...[text shortened]... ith a pinochle deck as with a standard deck, you old fart. You just get some different numbers.
i'm a german from wisconsin.
4 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZNo. Personal experience is evidence. For example, if you lived back in that time you would probably believe that the earth was flat. From our vantage point it appears as thought the earth is somewhat flat. Although this evidence is somewhat of an illusion it is evidence nonetheless. Notice that there has never been anyone who says the earth is in the shape of a triangle. Why would they?
No it's not. If everyone believed that the Earth was flat that wouldn't be evidence that it is. Appeal to the masses is a logical fallacy for a reason.
Another example would be if I were out in the desert and saw a mirage that looked like a source of water. The illusion might be enough to convince me that it is truly a source of water and begin to seek it out. Then again, what if the illusion is real and it is a life sustaining place. If so, it would have been foolish of me to simply ignore by saying it was nothing more than an illusion and pass it up entirely.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenCommon sense would indicate that as there is a complete lack of evidence for the existance of God it is foolish to believe in God anymore than one believes in fairies or goblins.
Common sense dictates that a creator is more likely responsible for the creation of the universe than mere happenstance.
Originally posted by whodeyI don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. The fact that people thought the earth was flat WAS evidence that the earth was flat?!
No. Personal experience is evidence. For example, if you lived back in that time you would probably believe that the earth was flat. From our vantage point it appears as thought the earth is somewhat flat. Although this evidence is somewhat of an illusion it is evidence nonetheless. Notice that there has never been anyone who says the earth is in the sha ...[text shortened]... h of me to simply ignore by saying it was nothing more than an illusion and pass it up entirely.
Originally posted by XanthosNZwhat? fairy's DO exist! I think you just killed tinkerbell...good job
Common sense would indicate that as there is a complete lack of evidence for the existance of God it is foolish to believe in God anymore than one believes in fairies or goblins.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou assume the outcome to be 50/50. It doesn't mean that it IS 50/50.
I am not wrong. It is possible that you don't understand what I am saying though.
My claim is that given a situation with two possible outcomes and no further information about the situation then the probability of one outcome taking place is .5
I am a mathematician and I know that the above statement is true. If you don't believe me I can go into more ...[text shortened]... omes so even if the probability of something occurring is 0.000000001 then it may still occur.