Print

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

[MrRoboto75]

WHAT DOTH LIFE?!

LIFE IS PAIN I HATE-

[King Zultan]

Are we sure he didn't mean DORF LIFE?

[RoseHeart]

Is the probability of two six-sided dice a bell curve? It just looks like a pyramid. Would bigger dice produce one? Would any dice produce one?

[dragdeler]

a

[None]

You need more dice to get a bell curve, not bigger dice or shapelier dice (assuming equal weighting).

[WealthyRadish]

Is the probability of two six-sided dice a bell curve? It just looks like a pyramid. Would bigger dice produce one? Would any dice produce one?

Introducing more dice than two will increasingly resemble a normal distribution:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem

Introducing more sides will not normalize it, it will still be a triangular distribution (you can write all the possible outcomes by hand of two hypothetical "dice" of sizes 2, then 3, then 4, etc and draw the resulting distributions to see why this is intuitively).

[Scoops Novel]

What is Man actually made for? Where's the sweet spot?

[Frumple]

Man wasn't made, and the sweet spot is a moving target. Questions without actual answers.

[hector13]

Work, obviously. How else do we produce the goods and services that prop up the economy and, by extension, society?

The sweet spot is Choco Latte in Edinburgh. Best tablet.

Or, it is the point on the bat in which you can hit the ball the cleanest, furthest from the handle, imparting the most energy to said ball.

[RoseHeart]

How is this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Fallacy: a number is "due"
See also: Coupon collector's problem

This argument is, "In a random selection of numbers, since all numbers eventually appear, those that have not come up yet are 'due', and thus more likely to come up soon." This logic is only correct if applied to a system where numbers that come up are removed from the system, such as when playing cards are drawn and not returned to the deck. In this case, once a jack is removed from the deck, the next draw is less likely to be a jack and more likely to be some other card. However, if the jack is returned to the deck, and the deck is thoroughly reshuffled, a jack is as likely to be drawn as any other card. The same applies in any other process where objects are selected independently, and none are removed after each event, such as the roll of a die, a coin toss, or most lottery number selection schemes. Truly random processes such as these do not have memory, which makes it impossible for past outcomes to affect future outcomes. In fact, there is no finite number of trials that can guarantee a success.

And this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Fallacy: odds are never dynamic

In the beginning of a scenario, one might calculate the probability of a certain event. However, as soon as one gains more information about the scenario, one may need to re-calculate the probability accordingly.
In the Monty Hall problem, when the host reveals one door that contains a goat, this provides new information that needs to be factored into the calculation of probabilities.

For example, when being told that a woman has two children, one might be interested in knowing if either of them is a girl, and if yes, what is probability that the other child is also a girl. Considering the two events independently, one might expect that the probability that the other child is female is ½ (50%), but by building a probability space illustrating all possible outcomes, one would notice that the probability is actually only ⅓ (33%).

To be sure, the probability space does illustrate four ways of having these two children: boy-boy, girl-boy, boy-girl, and girl-girl. But once it is known that at least one of the children is female, this rules out the boy-boy scenario, leaving only three ways of having the two children: boy-girl, girl-boy, girl-girl. From this, it can be seen only ⅓ of these scenarios would have the other child also be a girl[24] (see Boy or girl paradox for more).

In general, by using a probability space, one is less likely to miss out on possible scenarios, or to neglect the importance of new information. This technique can be used to provide insights in other situations such as the Monty Hall problem, a game show scenario in which a car is hidden behind one of three doors, and two goats are hidden as booby prizes behind the others. Once the contestant has chosen a door, the host opens one of the remaining doors to reveal a goat, eliminating that door as an option. With only two doors left (one with the car, the other with another goat), the player must decide to either keep their decision, or to switch and select the other door. Intuitively, one might think the player is choosing between two doors with equal probability, and that the opportunity to choose another door makes no difference. However, an analysis of the probability spaces would reveal that the contestant has received new information, and that changing to the other door would increase their chances of winning.[24]

Not at odds. Doesn't the first say that it is always 50% a girl!?!?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

[hector13]

It explains it all in the spoilers you provided.

The first one is about what you do with the data after it appears, specifically whether or not it can appear later. The example of a deck of cards is used: if you draw a Jack and the take it out, it makes it less likely that a Jack will appear later (52 cards total, 4 jacks. If you draw the Jack, there are now 51 cards with 3 jacks left, reducing the chances from 4/52=1/13 to 3/51=1/17) but if you put it back in there’s no change in the odds of a Jack showing up.

The second one is around predicting outcomes. It doesn’t take into account genetics or anything. Basically the example they use is that the four possible outcomes of two children (boy-boy, boy-girl, girl-boy, girl girl) are influenced by the information you know, so if, as in their example, you know one of the two children is a girl, you know for suresies the boy-boy outcome is impossible, meaning there are only three outcomes left, meaning a 33% chance of the other child being a girl as girl-girl is only 1 possibility out of the remaining 3 outcomes.

The two fallacies don’t really have anything to do with the other.

[dragdeler]

Without having recourse to teleological arguments, what are our greatest skills?

Recordkeeping
Healing
Learning


In our review they'll write "so much wasted potential".

[TamerVirus]

What is Man actually made for?

A miserable pile of secrets!
Oh wait, that's not how the exchange goes...

[Scoops Novel]

Man wasn't made

Doesn't mean you aren't essentially made for something. Nobody's made for tennis, but people are pretty great at tennis...

[None]

People are pretty great at tennis as a byproduct of putting hours and hours and hours and hours of work into the sport and conditioning their bodies. Man's not made for that, man made oneself for that. Why? The joy of it, parental conditioning, social/monetary incentives, perhaps a need just to be better than someone else. Because it's there.

You're not going to find the truth of the world in aphorisms, and specifically in the context of meaning and purpose, it's unlikely you'll find an aphorical explanation for it, as philosophers have gnawed that particular ideological cud for decades.

Ooh, deja vu.