|
On May 04 2005 10:30 SCFraser wrote:This is a community of pretttty big nerds. I mean smart people.  Anyway I just wanted to start a discussion on whos the cream of the crop here. Personally I'm not really sure... but ill throw out a couple of names Cyric Eri Bigballs Servolisk Casper seems like he might be smart, but its hard to tell when hes always being a prick  so on that note.. let the debate begin 
Dunno about Cyric Eri and Bigballs but Servolisk is a god damn moron
|
On May 04 2005 17:54 LogaiN wrote:
Uhm... as far as I remember.. Kasparov had an exceptional IQ.. (depends on where we draw the line of course). Wasnt it like 150 or something?
Not to be too pretentious but even if it's 150 that's not that exceptional. I'm well aware of the fact that 100 is "average" but my IQ is 150 and most of the people I know are in this range or above. (We only know this about each other because the stupidity of our academic situation requires us all to be tested and many like to gloat) and I and those I associate with are not exceptional in the way Kasparov is. Not by a mile.
Edit: The point is even though the number might not be totally arbitrary, it's definitely not as telling as some people make it out to be.
|
Norway28911 Posts
your_killer, you should definitely have stayed out.
but I'll break it down to you
if there are 100 doors and only one is the correct one, you have a 1% chance of picking the correct door out of all 100
you get this part, right?
now if you then remove 98 doors and one of the two remaining ones is correct, and the initial door you picked would only be correct 1% of the time, then the other door is obviously correct 99% of the time.
I actually didn't even make it that much easier to understand, frankly I don't see why you're having problems with it. I mean, the entire point with using 100 doors is that it should be easy to understand for anyone, unlike the original scenario with three doors, where I could understand why people would get it wrong.
|
On May 04 2005 18:01 Sp2Hydradized wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2005 17:54 LogaiN wrote:
Uhm... as far as I remember.. Kasparov had an exceptional IQ.. (depends on where we draw the line of course). Wasnt it like 150 or something? Not to be too pretentious but even if it's 150 that's not that exceptional. I'm well aware of the fact that 100 is "average" but my IQ is 150 and most of the people I know are in this range or above. (We only know this about each other because the stupidity of our academic situation requires us all to be tested and many like to gloat) and I and those I associate with are not exceptional in the way Kasparov is. Not by a mile.
Example of why this thread is so fucking retarded
|
On May 04 2005 17:54 LogaiN wrote:
Uhm... as far as I remember.. Kasparov had an exceptional IQ.. (depends on where we draw the line of course). Wasnt it like 150 or something?
Nothing exceptional about 150. Maybe you're thinking of Fischer who had 180, which is pretty exceptional.
I definitely agree with everyone that said Mensrea is the smartest TL poster.
There are two people that stand out in my mind as being extremely smart, and whose name I have not seen mentioned in this thread thus far. These two are Liquid`Oaral and nvnplatypus.
|
Geez the curtain problem again, it was solved and i proved it before so i wont take so much time to explaint it.
there are 100 curtains, 1 prize behind, you pick one, the host reveals other 98 curtains...
so theres your initial pick and other curtain, if you KEEP your initial curtain you have 1% chance of being right, if you change curtain you have 99% of getting the prize, its called chained probability.
Before you say NO thats not true, freaking think about it, if you still dont get it, think about it TWICE, and three times if its neccesary, if you still dont get it, you are an idiot and ill have to explaint it to you again 
i know i behave like an ass, being nice, serious and politically correct all the time is so fucking boring, thats just not me 
|
On May 04 2005 18:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
your_killer, you should definitely have stayed out.
but I'll break it down to you
if there are 100 doors and only one is the correct one, you have a 1% chance of picking the correct door out of all 100
you get this part, right?
now if you then remove 98 doors and one of the two remaining ones is correct, and the initial door you picked would only be correct 1% of the time, then the other door is obviously correct 99% of the time.
I actually didn't even make it that much easier to understand, frankly I don't see why you're having problems with it. I mean, the entire point with using 100 doors is that it should be easy to understand for anyone, unlike the original scenario with three doors, where I could understand why people would get it wrong.
i wasn't going to respond to any of them, but eh.
the main part wrong with that logic is this. "now if you then remove 98 doors and one of the two remaining ones is correct". if you remove a bunch of possibilities from the original pool, the probability does NOT stay the same. originally, with 100 doors, each one has a 1% chance of being correct. now when you remove 98 of them, how can you argue that the one you didnt pick remains at 1%, while yours is 99? its the same logic you're using.
'one of the two remaining ones is correct'. one in two is 50%. there is no reason why the other door would have a higher probability of being correct. the door you picked doesn't magically stay at 1% while the other door becomes 99%. if you believe thats true, the one you didn't pick could just as easily be 1%, and the one you picked could be 99%. your choice doesn't have a bearing on its chances. as i said, removing some of the possibilities from the pool CHANGES all of the probability completely.
|
On May 04 2005 18:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
your_killer, you should definitely have stayed out.
but I'll break it down to you
if there are 100 doors and only one is the correct one, you have a 1% chance of picking the correct door out of all 100
you get this part, right?
now if you then remove 98 doors and one of the two remaining ones is correct, and the initial door you picked would only be correct 1% of the time, then the other door is obviously correct 99% of the time.
I actually didn't even make it that much easier to understand, frankly I don't see why you're having problems with it. I mean, the entire point with using 100 doors is that it should be easy to understand for anyone, unlike the original scenario with three doors, where I could understand why people would get it wrong.
Hate to stir the pot, but assuming you've ruled out the other 98 doors, this is wrong... it's actually 50/50. If you were joking around, please disregard.
For anyone who doesn't understand why it's 50/50, consider what happens if I pick door #1 and Drone picks door #100, and then we open #2-99... now by your argument, we can both say the other's door is 99% likely. But the two doors are of course equivalent, so it's got to work out 50/50...
|
On May 04 2005 18:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
your_killer, you should definitely have stayed out.
but I'll break it down to you
if there are 100 doors and only one is the correct one, you have a 1% chance of picking the correct door out of all 100
you get this part, right?
now if you then remove 98 doors and one of the two remaining ones is correct, and the initial door you picked would only be correct 1% of the time, then the other door is obviously correct 99% of the time.
I actually didn't even make it that much easier to understand, frankly I don't see why you're having problems with it. I mean, the entire point with using 100 doors is that it should be easy to understand for anyone, unlike the original scenario with three doors, where I could understand why people would get it wrong.
http://www.jimloy.com/puzz/monty.htm
I finally got it.
the main part wrong with that logic is this. "now if you then remove 98 doors and one of the two remaining ones is correct". if you remove a bunch of possibilities from the original pool, the probability does NOT stay the same. originally, with 100 doors, each one has a 1% chance of being correct. now when you remove 98 of them, how can you argue that the one you didnt pick remains at 1%, while yours is 99? its the same logic you're using.
'one of the two remaining ones is correct'. one in two is 50%. there is no reason why the other door would have a higher probability of being correct. the door you picked doesn't magically stay at 1% while the other door becomes 99%. if you believe thats true, the one you didn't pick could just as easily be 1%, and the one you picked could be 99%. your choice doesn't have a bearing on its chanes. as i said, removing some of the possibilities from the pool CHANGES all of the probability completely.
Read above. You're wrong. Let me explain.
100 doors.
If you pick a door at random, the chances of that door being wrong is NINETY NINE PERCENT. You are almost certainly wrong.
98 doors are revealed.
Why should the odds of you picking the wrong door from before change (it was originally 99/100 wrong), now that all but 2 doors have been revealed? So we are still certain that the original pick is wrong. Thus, if you picked the other door, and you are certain that the door you have selected is wrong, wouldn't that other door now have a much greater probability (99%) of being right?
|
On May 04 2005 18:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
your_killer, you should definitely have stayed out.
but I'll break it down to you
if there are 100 doors and only one is the correct one, you have a 1% chance of picking the correct door out of all 100
you get this part, right?
now if you then remove 98 doors and one of the two remaining ones is correct, and the initial door you picked would only be correct 1% of the time, then the other door is obviously correct 99% of the time.
I actually didn't even make it that much easier to understand, frankly I don't see why you're having problems with it. I mean, the entire point with using 100 doors is that it should be easy to understand for anyone, unlike the original scenario with three doors, where I could understand why people would get it wrong.
i remember the original post only like 2 people agreed with me before i gave the 100 curtains example
|
Imagine this, I have a brilliant analogy for you. I show you a deck of cards, and I tell you to pick the ace of spades at random. You pick a card without looking. I then take one card out from the remaining deck and say that either my card or yours is the ace of spades. Are you telling me it's 50/50? Are you saying it is a 50% chance that you randomly picked the ace of spades from a 52 card deck?
Sorry for the bold, I have to make him see it.
|
On May 04 2005 18:12 ihatett wrote:
Imagine this, I have a brilliant analogy for you. I show you a deck of cards, and I tell you to pick the ace of spades at random. You pick a card without looking. I then take one card out from the remaining deck and say that either my card or yours is the ace of spades. Are you telling me it's 50/50? Are you saying it is a 50% chance that you randomly picked the ace of spades from a 52 card deck?
Sorry for the bold, I have to make him see it.
yes, your analogy is brilliant. it brilliantly proves my point. if i pick one card at random, and you pick one card, then tell me that either my card or yours is the ace of spades, YES it is a 50% chance, because the pool of possibilities has now been narrowed down to 2 possibilities, either my card is the ace of spades or yours.
|
Can someone cue me in on what the debate is on now?
|
Norway28911 Posts
please please please stop mentioning iq scores without mentioning what spread was used.
and hydradized, no person who actually believes that both him and most people he knows has an iq higher than/around 150 is even remotely close to that score.
going by the 124 spread, 150 is a very high score attained by less than 2%. that is, out of 50 people picked randomly, on average one person will have an iq higher than 148. going by the 115 and 116 spreads (most serious tests will be taken with this spread), both which are far more common than the 124 spread, 150 is significantly higher. in fact going by the 115 spread, 150 IS an outstanding score, while I don't have the charts available (although I have read them before), I believe we would be talking "one out of several thousand people" kind of outstanding.
|
On May 04 2005 18:17 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2005 18:12 ihatett wrote:
Imagine this, I have a brilliant analogy for you. I show you a deck of cards, and I tell you to pick the ace of spades at random. You pick a card without looking. I then take one card out from the remaining deck and say that either my card or yours is the ace of spades. Are you telling me it's 50/50? Are you saying it is a 50% chance that you randomly picked the ace of spades from a 52 card deck?
Sorry for the bold, I have to make him see it. yes, your analogy is brilliant. it brilliantly proves my point. if i pick one card at random, and you pick one card, then tell me that either my card or yours is the ace of spades, YES it is a 50% chance, because the pool of possibilities has now been narrowed down to 2 possibilities, either my card is the ace of spades or yours.
holy shit you're an idiot
At the time that you pick your card, what is the chance that you have picked the ace of spades? 1/52. In other words, 1 in 52 times you will pick the ace of spades.
Are you saying that after I eliminate 50 of the cards, the odds that you had picked the ace of spades goes up?
|
On May 04 2005 18:17 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Can someone cue me in on what the debate is on now?
One door out of 100 is a winner. You pick one at random, and then someone who knows which door is the winner eliminates all of the remaining 98 or the 99 remaining doors. This guy thinks you have a 50/50 chance of having the right door.
|
On May 04 2005 18:17 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2005 18:12 ihatett wrote:
Imagine this, I have a brilliant analogy for you. I show you a deck of cards, and I tell you to pick the ace of spades at random. You pick a card without looking. I then take one card out from the remaining deck and say that either my card or yours is the ace of spades. Are you telling me it's 50/50? Are you saying it is a 50% chance that you randomly picked the ace of spades from a 52 card deck?
Sorry for the bold, I have to make him see it. yes, your analogy is brilliant. it brilliantly proves my point. if i pick one card at random, and you pick one card, then tell me that either my card or yours is the ace of spades, YES it is a 50% chance, because the pool of possibilities has now been narrowed down to 2 possibilities, either my card is the ace of spades or yours.
GRRR, will you accept that you are wrong? Do you not understand that the scenario we are discussing has been tested, and that you have been proved wrong? iosdajfoaisdjf
|
On May 04 2005 18:19 ihatett wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2005 18:17 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:On May 04 2005 18:12 ihatett wrote:
Imagine this, I have a brilliant analogy for you. I show you a deck of cards, and I tell you to pick the ace of spades at random. You pick a card without looking. I then take one card out from the remaining deck and say that either my card or yours is the ace of spades. Are you telling me it's 50/50? Are you saying it is a 50% chance that you randomly picked the ace of spades from a 52 card deck?
Sorry for the bold, I have to make him see it. yes, your analogy is brilliant. it brilliantly proves my point. if i pick one card at random, and you pick one card, then tell me that either my card or yours is the ace of spades, YES it is a 50% chance, because the pool of possibilities has now been narrowed down to 2 possibilities, either my card is the ace of spades or yours. holy shit At the time that you pick your card, what is the chance that you have picked the ace of spades? 1/52. In other words, 1 in 52 times you will pick the ace of spades. Are you saying that after I eliminate 50 of the cards, the odds that you had picked the ace of spades goes up?
yes, at the time that i pick the card, there is a 1/52 chance that the card is the ace of spades. but after you eliminate the possibility of the other 50 cards being the ace of spades, by saying that either mines or yours IS the ace of spades, the other 50 cards are irrelevant to the probability.
|
I can't believe you.
You agree that 1 in 52 times you have the correct card. That means that 51/52 times the remaining card is still in the deck. So when someone who knows which card is the ace of spades eliminates all but one of the remaining cards and says that either his or yours is it, you should always change. Do you still not understand?
If not, imagine a deck with 60,000,000,000,000 cards, and only one ace of spades, and tell me it is a 50/50 chance you chose the right one at random.
|
Norway28911 Posts
what the fuck no. the odds of you having picked the right card initially does not for some weird as fuck reason suddenly rise just because the other wrong cards are removed.
seriously, try it out. get yourself a deck of cards. then select a card completely randomly (although this card is the card you "guess" is the ace of spades. afterwards remove the 50 cards that are not the ace of spades from the deck. the only scenario where the last card is not the ace of spades, is when the card you randomly picked is the ace of spades. which is 1/52 of the time. thus the other card is the ace of spades 51 out of 52 times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
