Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

13 (46.4%)

No

15 (53.6%)

Total Members Voted: 21

[blueturtle1134]

Fine-grain the beach, guys?

How on earth are you always the first and only person to respond to my stuff?

[Glass]

*shrug*

Anyway, reasoning is that I have far more trust that a negative response from the Plains will be true than that a positive response from it will be. In addition, we got a positive response from the Beach+Swamp when combing the Plains, and got a negative from the Swamp. So, Beach seems like maybe the right place.

Anyone care to argue otherwise? Honestly, I'd like to get some other opinions.

[blueturtle1134]

Anyway, reasoning is that I have far more trust that a negative response from the Plains will be true than that a positive response from it will be.

From a mathematical standpoint:

It's one-in-four that the Grasslands has the rebels. If they do, it's five-in-six that you find them and if they don't, it's four-in-six that you think you have them. A bit of fractional multiplication reveals that, out of 24:

5 you find them
6 you don't find them
12 you think you have them but you don't
1 you think you don't have them but you do

Thus a positive result has a 5/12 chance of being correct, while a negative has a 6/7. This corresponds to the logic that "if they were there, we'd have found them" because of the high Sensitivity.

[Glass]

If they're there, yes. But it's a 5/17 chance (not 5/12, because it's 5 times it's right and 12 times it's wrong, which is 5 to 12 odds but 5/17 chances), and we also got a negative response, which is a 6/7 chance. I trust it more.
I mean, if we think we saw something, there's a less than one third chance we actually did. If we don't see anything, it's very likely that we really truly didn't.

So yes, if they were there, we'd have found them. But it's basically impossible to say that they are there, because almost any situation will lead to us "spotting them".

[blueturtle1134]

If they're there, yes. But it's a 5/17 chance (not 5/12, because it's 5 times it's right and 12 times it's wrong, which is 5 to 12 odds but 5/17 chances), and we also got a negative response, which is a 6/7 chance. I trust it more.
I mean, if we think we saw something, there's a less than one third chance we actually did. If we don't see anything, it's very likely that we really truly didn't.

So yes, if they were there, we'd have found them. But it's basically impossible to say that they are there, because almost any situation will lead to us "spotting them".

...ok, now I'm just confused.

Almost any situation will lead us to think we saw them. Thus, if we got a negative response, it would be a good indication that they were really not there.

But we got a positive result, which really doesn't say anything.


On another note, IS ANYONE ELSE GOING TO VOTE???

[Glass]

But remember, we also got a negative on sightings while they were adjacent. Which means we got a negative from the Mountains (the most probable case from it, so who cares) and from the Plains (very unlikely), so I trust that negative result.

[blueturtle1134]

But remember, we also got a negative on sightings while they were adjacent. Which means we got a negative from the Mountains (the most probable case from it, so who cares) and from the Plains (very unlikely), so I trust that negative result.

I knew I would regret not clearing this up...

Sightings on adjacent are thought of as "tracking them through this one". So the high-sensitivity low-selectivity of the plains is applied to both the Mountains and the Swamp. The values of the adjacent things themselves aren't taken into account.

Plus, you're talking about the Swamp results. We can't really conclude anything from the Plains results, so they don't help us interpret the Swamp results.

[Glass]

Oh. So basically, we just know that according to the swamp, there's nothing in it, the mountains, or the plains, and according to the plains, there's stuff in it, the swamp, and the beach. All using its formulas, so all of them basically equally useless.

Let's go and do a normal search of the beach, then.

[blueturtle1134]

Oh. So basically, we just know that according to the swamp, there's nothing in it, the mountains, or the plains, and according to the plains, there's stuff in it, the swamp, and the beach. All using its formulas, so all of them basically equally useless.

Let's go and do a normal search of the beach, then.

Yes, that's spot on. We're asking each area it's opinion on what's in it.

And we will search the beach unless anyone else has anything to say about it?

[Paxiecrunchle]

I say swamp!

[blueturtle1134]

I say swamp!

Scan the swamp, or fine-grain the swamp?

[Paxiecrunchle]

I say swamp!

Scan the swamp, or fine-grain the swamp?

Scan the beach, fine grain the swamp.

[blueturtle1134]

I say swamp!

Scan the swamp, or fine-grain the swamp?

Scan the beach, fine grain the swamp.

Well, one comes before the other.


BEACH scanned.
SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY DETECTED in BEACH
NO SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY adjacent to BEACH
Day 3 has elapsed.

Spoiler: Past results (click to show/hide)

Day 1: GRASSLANDS --> Yes and yes
Day 2: SWAMP --> No and no
Day 3: BEACH --> Yes and no

[Glass]

Fine-grain the beach.

(It's luck, Blue. I just finished watching Forrest Gump.)

[blueturtle1134]

Fine-grain the beach.

(It's luck, Blue. I just finished watching Forrest Gump.)

I SWEAR

HOW DID I GET ONE PLAYER THAT JUST INSTANTLY RESPONDS TO ANYTHING I SAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY!!!!


Go help crack Newscience.