EPTWho is the smartest poster at TL.net? - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
labcoated
Canada392 Posts
| ||
|
Chris307
3095 Posts
| ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
On May 07 2005 03:17 Casper... wrote: and lewis is a monster he will avg 24/7/2 against the spurs 19/4/1 WHAT NOW BITCH | ||
|
FroST(TE)
United States909 Posts
| ||
Smurg
Canada3819 Posts
On May 08 2005 00:24 ihatett wrote: smurg, i think you are taking this a bit too far kind of like sticking your penis into a microwave expecing it to get bigger, but it falls off or something Well for a start: no. Analogies are meant to make sense...kind of like the cheese in "Cheese & Ham" or salt in the "Salt & Vinegar" or the bop in the "bop shoo op shoo op". I'm not taking anything too far, it wasn't my idea to start a fan club. I just support it...since it was founded, and it is in all respects about Smurg and Smurgenity. I am Smurg, so of course I uphold those fundamentals. Oh, and for those not quick enough to pick up sarcasm, I am joking. I don't believe I'm the smartest person/poster on the site. You cannot define someone as 'the smartest', as 'smartness' is intangible...a substance that exists within each human...(for the most part). Intelligence can be shown, but most people have moments of intelligence. Maybe some are older/wiser than others because they have experience in a certain area. For the record: I'm the smartest. | ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
On May 05 2005 08:22 SuNDAnce wrote: OMG next time get some basics of probability and then come back and argue. That is entirely wrong Drone, if you have 100 doors and 1 has the price but you dont know which one has it each one has 1/100(1%) of probabilities of having it, if you remove one, yet you still dont know which one has the price it doesnt change at all, say you draw a line between the one you separated and the other 99, the probability is the same, 1/100 for each one, it doesnt change, the 99% of probability comes if you intend to open every single door except the one you separated, so you are opening 99 doors out of 100(99/100->99%). Now imagine when you wake up there are 3 chances, that the day will be sunny, windy or that it will rain(and that it will remain like that for the rest of the day). Imagine that the moment you go out you see clouds, you have to discard sunny, because it can't be sunny when there are clouds, so you are left with windy and rainy, since you only have now 2 factors, you can only divide between those factors, you cant divide between 3 since it cant be sunny, so it will be 1/2(50%) for each factor that you are taking into consideration, 50% for rainy and 50% for windy. In summary the moment you woke up sunny had 1/3(33%) chances of being, just the same as windy or rainy, but when you see that it cannot be sunny(i.e you open 1 door and you see that that door doens't have the price) the possibilities of the other 2 increase equally. So if you have 100 doors and you separate 1, sure you are left with 99 in one side and with 1 in the other, but since you dont know which one has the price, each one has still 1/100 of probabilities, since you are taking 1 from the 100 available doors, if you open 1 and you see that it doesn't have the price, then you remove it and you have 99 doors left, which one holds the price, so each one has a 1/99 probabilities of having it, if you remove 2, of the remaining 98 each one will have 1/98, when you open 98, you have 2 doors, one of them has the price so the probability is 1/2, sorry for my english i hope i made it clear, i think there was a guy called Bayes that talked about probability and proved the same stuff im saying, though with a different example. | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On May 09 2005 16:19 BCloud wrote: That is entirely wrong Drone, if you have 100 doors and 1 has the price but you dont know which one has it each one has 1/100(1%) of probabilities of having it, if you remove one, yet you still dont know which one has the price it doesnt change at all, say you draw a line between the one you separated and the other 99, the probability is the same, 1/100 for each one, it doesnt change, the 99% of probability comes if you intend to open every single door except the one you separated, so you are opening 99 doors out of 100(99/100->99%). Now imagine when you wake up there are 3 chances, that the day will be sunny, windy or that it will rain(and that it will remain like that for the rest of the day). Imagine that the moment you go out you see clouds, you have to discard sunny, because it can't be sunny when there are clouds, so you are left with windy and rainy, since you only have now 2 factors, you can only divide between those factors, you cant divide between 3 since it cant be sunny, so it will be 1/2(50%) for each factor that you are taking into consideration, 50% for rainy and 50% for windy. In summary the moment you woke up sunny had 1/3(33%) chances of being, just the same as windy or rainy, but when you see that it cannot be sunny(i.e you open 1 door and you see that that door doens't have the price) the possibilities of the other 2 increase equally. So if you have 100 doors and you separate 1, sure you are left with 99 in one side and with 1 in the other, but since you dont know which one has the price, each one has still 1/100 of probabilities, since you are taking 1 from the 100 available doors, if you open 1 and you see that it doesn't have the price, then you remove it and you have 99 doors left, which one holds the price, so each one has a 1/99 probabilities of having it, if you remove 2, of the remaining 98 each one will have 1/98, when you open 98, you have 2 doors, one of them has the price so the probability is 1/2, sorry for my english i hope i made it clear, i think there was a guy called Bayes that talked about probability and proved the same stuff im saying, though with a different example. omg dude you are one dumb fellow, you disgrace mexico. | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
| ||
|
ihatett
United States2289 Posts
Your weather anology is way off: In your example, the chances are narrowed down from the entire group. In the door analogy, the chances are narrowed down from the chances that you did not choose. The weather problem is fundamentally flawed because no matter what you originally chose, seing the sun out will narrow the field what what you chose and did not choose. edit: stop arguing against this, it has been proven so many times... just try my card test if you can't see logic | ||
|
teh leet newb
United States1999 Posts
On May 06 2005 15:54 camooT wrote: That really impresses me. Does he compose as well? Nope, Empyrean is 14  Don't tell him I posted this and don't show him this thread or else he'll probably get mad at me for telling... He's really modest about his piano skills. | ||
|
Smurg
Canada3819 Posts
On May 09 2005 16:52 ihatett wrote:edit: stop arguing against this, it has been proven so many times... just try my card test if you can't see logic If you want to see some logic. How's this for logic? *It is known that the universe is infinite. *Since the universe is infinite and we are part of Earth as a small speck of nothingness on a speck of nothingness compared to the universe in size, there are sure to be other worlds out there with life forms on them - even sentient beings. *We are sentient beings in our small sector of unfathomable littleness. *So there is an infinite possibility that there are other sentient beings in other parts of the universe. *Since they are capable of thought, some are likely to have hatred towards other lifeforms and the want to destroy them - we would be part of that as we fall into the category of targets of these xenophobes. *Since there is an infinite amount of space in the universe and it is constantly expanding, by the laws of logic, there would be an infinite amount of sentient beings who want to kill us. *Since the population of Earth is just over 6 billion, we can compare that said 6 billion to infinity. In which we find infinity is much, much, much larger and we pale in comparison to such size. *To sum it all up, there are an infinite amount of lifeforms who want to kill you ihatett. On May 09 2005 16:52 ihatett wrote: You might be retarted. Edit: Retarted? What? Retart...? Sounds like a breakfast snack. Mmm 'Crispy Wheat Retarts with Honey ©'. | ||
|
ihatett
United States2289 Posts
x______________________x | ||
|
1tym
Korea (South)2425 Posts
but u just fail to realise it because of the language barrier.. | ||
|
Chibi[OWNS]
United Kingdom10597 Posts
| ||
|
ihatett
United States2289 Posts
*We are sentient beings in our small sector of unfathomable littleness. *So there is an infinite possibility that there are other sentient beings in other parts of the universe. nope | ||
|
labcoated
Canada392 Posts
the poster who is the smartest the poster who posts the smartest i thought i had more ideas than that. fuck. 2 it is. | ||
|
lurendreieren
Norway59 Posts
And nothing is really known about the size of the universe, we can only speculate | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
For people still arguing about Monty Hall, I think Jamers had a post a loooong time ago which cleared this up. To paraphrase: The situation where Monty knows which doors are wrong and the situation where you RANDOMLY pick 98 wrong doors are totally different. In one case 99/100 is the right answer, and in the other it's 50/50. Therefore, you have to state what the actual situation is before you argue about it. Unfortunately, no one defined it before this whole problem sprung up again, and so different people are working from different initial conditions. People who flame other people for "being retarded" without realizing this need to realize it before we waste any more time. As an aside, one way to make sure there's only one right answer and that it's not a case of two people working from different assumptions is to PROVE the person's argument invalid rather than just calling them an idiot. If you can't find any holes in your argument or in theirs, and they still yield different answers, chances are they are working from different rules. | ||
|
Sp2Hydradized
United States60 Posts
Also, in order for there to be an infinite number of beings, there would need to be an infinite mass, which we do know is not the case. | ||
|
ihatett
United States2289 Posts
On May 10 2005 10:53 Clutch3 wrote: For people still arguing about Monty Hall, I think Jamers had a post a loooong time ago which cleared this up. To paraphrase: The situation where Monty knows which doors are wrong and the situation where you RANDOMLY pick 98 wrong doors are totally different. In one case 99/100 is the right answer, and in the other it's 50/50. Therefore, you have to state what the actual situation is before you argue about it. Unfortunately, no one defined it before this whole problem sprung up again, and so different people are working from different initial conditions. People who flame other people for "being retarded" without realizing this need to realize it before we waste any more time. As an aside, one way to make sure there's only one right answer and that it's not a case of two people working from different assumptions is to PROVE the person's argument invalid rather than just calling them an idiot. If you can't find any holes in your argument or in theirs, and they still yield different answers, chances are they are working from different rules. You must have missed the second part of my post. | ||
| ||
