/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12271422
I solved it. But no one agrees with me.

>>12271422
Can you prove that, it cannot be solved?

>>12271422
It is 2/3, write a code or just make few experiments

>>12271642
>the next ball you take from a box
>A BOX
It's 2/5, but your answer makes sense with your misinterpretation.

>>12271667
The probability to take a golden ball as first pull is 1/2. The probability to take 2 golden balls as first and second is 1/3. So by bayes, it is 2/3. How do you get 2/5?

>>12271667
Wrong. It’s 1/3 not 2/5

>>12271422
>if a random event actually isn't random, but we know the outcome of the event, what are the chances of X (while still acting that the event was random)

A poster in another thread created pic related for whenever this fucking question pops up. /thread

>>12271422
2/3

>>12271803
>>12271772
Right answer. To a different question. Read the OP again

>>12271772
Sorry, shit photo. Heres a better pic

2/5.
you picked a gold ball, now there are 2 gold balls remaining out of 5 total balls, hence 2/5 chance of picking one again.

>>12271422
>the next ball from a box
>a box
Motherfucker

>>12271867
Sorry I only fuck fathers

>>12271422

If you say 1/2, you are just a smoothbrain
If you say 2/3, you misread the problem
If you say 2/5, you are actively retarded
If you say 4/9, you are correct

>>12271422
Yeah I remember when Killworth, Young and Selfridge proved it to be indipendent of ZFC a couple of years ago in their celebrated KYS theorem.

>>12271422
The answer to how this problem is usually stated is 2/3. The answer to how it’s stated in OP’s image is either 2/5 or 1/3 depending on whether you interpret the “a box” in the last sentence as “any box” or “another box”.

>>12273073
>The answer to how it’s stated in OP’s image is either 2/5 or 1/3 depending on whether you interpret the “a box” in the last sentence as “any box” or “another box”.
It's 4/9, neither 2/5 or 1/3 are correct.

>>12271860
>>12272070
retards its 3/7. not even worth explaining why to you subhumans.

>>12273096
Kill youself

>>12271812
>To a different question
which would be....

>>12273087
How does one obtain 4/9 though?

>>12273105
In the end it says “a box” instead of “the same box”. You got trulzed

>>12273087
How does one get 4/9 though?

>>12273115
*yawn* well that's boring

>>12271422
4/9

>>12273122

Given that the first ball taken was gold, it was either taken from the double-gold box (2/3 probability), or the gold-silver box (1/3 probability).

For the two cases:

>first gold pulled from double-gold box (2/3 chance for this case):
Probability of 1/3 to select double-gold box, with a probability of 1 to select another gold from it. (already took one gold, and the remaining ball must be gold)
Probability of 1/3 to select gold-silver box, with a probability of 1/2 to select another gold from it.
Probability of 1/3 to select double-silver box, with a probability of 0 to select another gold from it.

Thus, for the case where the first gold was taken from the double-gold box, the probability of pulling a second gold is:
(1/3)*(1) + (1/3)*(1/2) + (1/3)*(0) = 1/2

>first gold pulled from gold-silver box (1/3 chance for this case):
Probability of 1/3 to select double-gold box, with a probability of 1 to select another gold from it.
Probability of 1/3 to select gold-silver box, with a probability of 0 to select another gold from it. (the only gold has already been taken, leaving only the silver)
Probability of 1/3 to select double-silver box, with a probability of 0 to select another gold from it.

Thus, for the case where the first gold was taken from the double-gold box, the probability of pulling a second gold is:
(1/3)*(1) + (1/3)*(0) + (1/3)*(0) = 1/3

>total probability to select a second gold, given that the first ball taken was gold
(2/3)*(1/2) + (1/3)*(1/3) = (1/3) + (1/9) = (3/9) + (1/9) = 4/9

>>12271422
The answer is literally 2/5 you dumb asses. It's not that hard. In the beginning the chance is 3/6 and then you remove one gold so it becomes 2/5

>>12273162
Retard

>>12273164
The irony, I'm literally right

>>12273122
There are three equally likely ways you could have chosen a gold ball. There are three boxes in each scenario to choose from again, meaning 9 total boxes. Three of those boxes must lead to a gold ball and two of them lead to a half chance of choosing the gold ball.

(3+2(1/2))/9 = 4/9

>>12273166
You're literally wrong. Once the number of balls in each box become unequal, there is not an equal chance of getting each ball.

>>12273179
That's complete bullshit, idiot.

>>12273185
It's not, you retarded mongoloid. If there are two balls in two boxes and one ball in one box, then the chance of getting the single ball is 1/3, while the chance of getting a particular ball from the other boxes is 1/6.

>>12273195
I didn't realize you were un autistique pur mathematician. In the real world (applied mathematics) it's 2/5, but yes in your shitty autist model world you are correct because the introduction of a 'box' magically affects the balls but in the real world its infinitely connected and I'm actually right. eternally coping autist peanut brain, good for you

>>12273210

>>12273225
Dumb motherfucker. You realize that you can add infinitely many complications to make the problem more realistic which would eventually lead to the probability being 0. In the real fucking world you go for the fucking target and don't worry about do i select a fucking box with my right hand or left hand and then do i go for the right ball or left ball while sucking my left tooth or right tooth. you just go for the fuckin ball and they all have a 1/6 chance of being picked dumb butt numbnut

>>12273229
>You realize that you can add infinitely many complications to make the problem more realistic which would eventually lead to the probability being 0.
I haven't added any complications, mongoloid. I simply didn't ignore the basic information given, like you did. Get over it. The only being autistic here is you.

>>12273237
retard i admitted that in your autistic pure math realm youre right because he added the 'box' layer of reality. but in the real world non duality includes all dualities so if we're picking a ball we focus on the ball nobody would introduce the box that doesnt make any fucking sense autistic cunt so in the real world ur a shit noggin

>>12273268
How the fuck are you going to pick a ball you can't see from separate containers, huh retard? In the real world you have to choose a box first in order to take a ball, and you don't know which boxes have which balls in them.

>>12273268
Boxes are so unrealistic, I know. Pure science fiction fantasy.

>>12273276
no idiot, that dichotomy only exists in the math problem moron, in the actual world one would only select the duality of 'balls' and then pick one. to introduce the idea of boxes is very wicked, you might as well introduce the amount of molecules you pass through and like i said earlier whether u use your right hand or suck dick while doing it. god damn youre a brainlet

>>12273276
Leave him be. He is the sole person to believe that 2/5 is the real answer.
Many trials of demonstration have not turned him to the truth.
This anon is lost.

>>12273294
You must be trolling or mentally ill if you think putting some balls in boxes is unrealistic. Test it yourself if you want.

>>12273305
2/5 is in fact the real world answer. but the answer is different for the autistic pure math world. still struggling to understand the difference, peanut brain?

>>12272070
>>12273087
>>12273152
>>12273147
>>12273174
This is correct.
2/3 is also correct the second pick has to be from the same box.

Its 50% because they've already removed the silver box by claiming you've drawn a golden ball. From here on out, you have a 50% chance of taking either the golden one or the silver one

>>12273316
damn you're thickheaded. it is unrealistic to introduce the boxes in the math problem. in reality you wouldnt care about a box you wouldnt think of it because ur targeting a fucking ball so theres no reason to introduce the box duality. if you do that you might aswell introduce every other variable, and again, then you arrive at an infinitely small chance of anything happening. which makes perfect sense because 'something happening' is a duality and reality is entirely non dualistic so literally nothing is happening moron arent you aware of this? take an introductory course into philosophy dumb faggot autist brain

>>12273320
>2/5 is in fact the real world answer.
Then prove it by putting balls in boxes and measuring it for yourself.

>>12271667
>>12271860
>>12273162
>>12273166
>>12273185
>>12273210
>>12273229
>>12273268
>>12273320
Tell me anon, have you successfully completed probability course that is at least of undergrad level?
Yes or No?

>>12273333
Have you successfully been enlightened faggot. or have you been brainwashed by (((their))) mathematics

>>12273331
>it is unrealistic to introduce the boxes in the math problem.
How so?

>in reality you wouldnt care about a box
I don't see what "caring" has to do with anything. If there are balls in boxes then reality will not "care" about what you falsely think is unrealistic.

Are you mentally ill or trolling?

>>12273337
god damn you are stupid nigger

>>12273337
>he thinks there is such a thing as standalone boxes

OP changed "the box" to "a box".
What an epic troll!

>>12273353
I still managed to solve it though, the answer in the REAL world, is 2/5

>>12273294
You dumb fucking faggot, they are IN boxes. You're the one going on about the "real world".

Say you've got three boxes; you can't see into them, and you don't know which box contains what.
One box has three balls in it. One box has two balls. One box has one.

How are you going to select those balls without first selecting a box? If all the balls have equal probability (1/6 to grab a specific ball), does that mean you're somehow forced to reach for the box that only has one ball less often, only 1/6 of the time, DESPITE you not knowing which box is the one with only one ball?

What about the box with three balls? Will you magically just happen to select that box half the time, despite it being identical to all other boxes?

You absolute retard.

>>12273357
You want a medal or something

>>12273358
No retard, you don't have three boxes. You just have 6 balls that you cant see. That's how you approach it in the REAL world, not the retarded autistic realm. Schooled you, again.

>>12273342
OK, I'll choose for you: mentally ill.

>>12273380
You believe in mental illness?

>>12273375
You fucking peanut-brained FAGGOT. I just told you, in this new problem, THAT YOU HAVE THREE BOXES.

There are three boxes, each with a number of balls in them.

Just like how, in the OP problem, you have THREE BOXES, each with balls INSIDE OF THEM.

Choke and die on your own spittle, downie.

>>12273392
Exactly dumb faggot. In the autist realm you have 3 boxes, but it makes no sense to introduce 3 boxes, because in the real world all you would be considering (or would NEED to consider) are 6 balls that you cant see. Thats why its a retarded autist move to introduce 3 boxes and the REAL world answer is 2/5 because in the REAL world you dont introduce 3 fucking retarded BOXES

>>12273392
And what do you have inside those boxes?
Yes that's right: balls. 6 of them.
So cut the middle man will ya. Reason with balls, boxes are superfluous.

>>12273336
oh so this is what it's about.
You don't really do science.
You're just another NEET pol schizo brainlet
There is no need for me to continue.

>Impressive if bait, impressively retarded if not

Here, in memory of our discussions:

You ARE exploiting an imaginary loophole.

You don't need to pick a ball from a box.
Just let your hand flow with the dao and the balls will come flocking to you like bees to a cherry tree.

You can't escape the box.
You might understand someday.
We are the balls and epiphany simply comes to pick one of us at random.

You can't escape the box.
The box is not real.
I am the box.

>>12273399
Then you're considering an entirely different, entirely separate problem, you retarded faggot.
The boxes aren't being introduced, they were always there, you MONGOLOID.

>>12273403
Exactly, this guy gets it. If you introduce boxes you might aswell introduce the room that the boxes are in. What is the chance that its in one room and not another or in what country or what planet and so on. you can literally ADD INFINITELY MANY FUCKING LAYERS OF REALITY THAT LEAD TO NON DUALITY but the point of a math problem is to investigate a dualistic perspective of reality, and in that scenario it makes no sense to complicate the problem with BOXES

>>12273392
Are you seriously implying that the balls can't exist without boxes?

>>12273411
And you think I'm not aware of this? I'm merely stating that the REAL world answer is 2/5. The autistic world answer is indeed different.

>>12271422
Did you seriously need to make a new thread for a problem that's already being discussed ad nauseum in another thread and is still on the front page?

>>12246941

>>12273422
no, and that's entirely irrelevant to the question at hand, you fucking cockmongler. neck yourself.

>>12273424
THE REAL WORLD ANSWER IS 4/9, BECAUSE IN THE REAL WORLD YOU SIMPLY CANNOT CHOOSE A BALL WITHOUT FIRST CHOOSING A BOX.

Holy SHIT.

It becomes fundamentally NECESSARY to choose a first box before choosing a ball, if you're to transfer all the conditions of the problem to a real experiment.

>>12273431
LOL idiot the point is that a REAL WORLD PROBLEM SPAWNS A MATH PROBLEM NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND FAGGOT. THEREFORE IT IS IN THE HANDS OF THE FUCKING PROBLEM SOLVER WHETHER OR NOT TO INTRODUCE BOXES AND GUESS WHAT... YOU DONT INTRODUCE SUPERFLUOUS BOXES DUMB FAGGOT

>>12273431
let him be.
anon just proved to be an uneducated schizo /pol/ brainlet
May you direct your wrath to the weights you will lift in the temple of iron
Godspeed

>>12273431
>balls are irrelevant to the question at hand, only the boxes matter!
Did a ball fucked your mom or something?

4/9
everybody shut the fuck up
this thread needs to die

>>12273437
I think he was baiting because i schooled his ass. In the real world you just wouldnt introduce boxes and thats the end of it. real world answer: 2/5. Autist answer: no one cares

>>12273433
I AM GOING TO BREAK YOU IN HALF, TWIST YOU INTO A PRETZEL, AND SHOVE YOUR RUINED, CRIPPLED BODY INTO A BOX.
HOW ABOUT THAT, HUH? THAT ENOUGH BOXES FOR YOU?
THERE'LL BE A 2/5 CHANCE OF YOU BEING ABLE TO USE YOUR LIMP FUCKING DICK TO PISS AFTER I'M DONE WITH YOU.

>>12273435
Thank you, anon; I am going to go pick heavy things up and put them down again.

OP here god I love this thread
Keep posting anti-box man!

>>12273444

>>12273447
anti-box man here. I am between 6'4 and 6'5 and am a frequent gym goer. I can easily fuck you up in a fist fight and if I really lose it i will just bite your jugular and rip it up so you bleed to death. dumbass. I can certainly outlift you

>>12273435
/pol/ is always right.
About politics.
Not about math. Or science. Or the schizophrenic ramblings that are /pol/ threads on Einstein

>>12273447
>>12273456
Good thread

>>12271422
it's 75%

>>12271422
3/7

>>12273456
No, you won't, because anyone as retarded as you doesn't have the neural capacity to life their arm, let alone breathe. You're probably intubated, and a handler is typing all of this for you.

>>12273456
yes, you seem to be really strong, carrying all this stupidity with you

>>12273472
We'll see when I become the richest man on the planet and start the greatest dynasty known to mankind.

>>12271422
Domain 3 boxes. 1/3

>>12273472
as I said, a schizo

uneducated subhuman

>>12273470
I've always been the biggest and most intelligent kid in class. From age 4 to adulthood

>>12273478
Would you say your mom considers you a big boy?

>>12273496
kek

>>12273474
>>12273478
schizophrenic

>>12273496
of course, im a fucking beast. i always had a group of beta males to dominate and be my personal slaves in return for me providing protection

>>12273508
Tell me anon, have you successfully completed probability course that is at least of undergrad level?
Yes or No?

>>12273513
Maybe if you ask nicely I'll tell you. Instead of demanding I tell you. Faggot

>>12273506
Another delusional idiot who thinks I have delusions of grandeur

>>12273515
No need.
You will keep avoiding the question, just like you keep avoiding the boxes

>>12273524
schizos are self-aware now?
that's kinda based

>>12273525
Any sensible man would avoid introducing the boxes. If you understood the fundamental nature of reality / infinity / awareness maybe you would understand why it makes absolutely zero sense to introduce boxes into this problem. (assuming the problem is derived from a real world scenario with the intention to apply math in a non-autistic way. This in fact implies that there is no boxes in the first place.) You have to be a really autistic asshole to introduce boxes into it. A smart man would see right through what you consider to be a box, for what it really is: The set of all dualities minus the balls duality.

>>12273541
I don’t have an appropriate reaction image for the face I’m making right now. So have this

>>12273556
Eat a dick, kid

>>12271422
The only reason this cannot be solved is because it is ambiguously specified wrt the second box. That makes this stupid. It's bad statistics. Not unsolvable, just stupid.

>>12273562
It is absolutely solvable, both in the autistic realm and the REAL world. However, I don't know the autistic realm answer and nobody cares. The real world answer is 2/5 cuz its just 6 balls that you cant see in the real world. thats the most efficient way of posing the problem, no superfluous entities are introduced. very practical.

>>12273541
> A smart man would see right through what you consider to be a box

"You can't see into any of the boxes"

Are you fucking retarded?

>>12273582
>for what it really is: The set of all dualities minus the balls duality

BTFO kid

>>12273582
You really need to learn to think outside of the box, no pun intended. Learn different perspectives on reality moron faggot.

>>12273541
>boxes aren’t real
Hahahahahahahahaha

>>12273591
They are real moron, it's just silly to separate them into existence

>>12273584
I don't know why I keep arguing with you.
Especially since you proved to be an uneducated, schizophrenic subhuman

I keep saying this is my last post, yet I keep coming back.
I keep coming back thinking you might understand.
I keep doing the same thing expecting things to change.
I might be going insane, who knows?

Once again,

You are helpless. Still, I tried very hard to show you.

But I don't care anymore. I am done with you.
I envy you, anon. I do.
Sometimes I wish I were an autistic brainlet like you.
It seems envy is my sin.

>>12273601
the whole reason boxes were mentioned is to let the solver know the balls are separated in distinct subgroups

>>12273610
Ok, incel

>>12273580
The fact that the balls are segregated into boxes could introduce an additional and poorly defined process into the mix. Is it the same box? Is it another randomly selected box? For convenience, let's label the boxes in the image A, B, and C from left to right.

Consider the first case I mentioned. If the initial draw was from box A, then the odds of drawing another gold ball are 100%, while if it was box B then the odds are 0%. Given the preconditions of the random selection and initially selecting a gold ball, these are the only two possibilities. Ergo, 50%.

Now consider the case where the second box is selected at random. If the initial draw was from A, then you have a 50% chance drawing a second gold ball, while if the initial draw was from B then you have a 33% chance. Again, equally likely, so a 5/12 or 41.7% chance.

Either way, the fact that the balls remain in their boxes and unviewable for the second draw means that the 40% chance never comes into play - one way or another, you have to select a box before you draw a ball, and that prevents the remaining balls from ever having an equal chance of being drawn.

Again, not unsolvable for any reason other than the ambiguous wording.

>>12273615
The 'balls' introduction had an inherent subgrouping, gold and silver balls. Again. the boxes were only introduced because its a retarded autistic problem. In the real world you would simply have 6 balls that you cant see.

>>12273616
too bad, I wish I were a 7'0 gigachad with good grades to make mommy proud, all the girls secretly in love with me and the bright future of 10 Elon Musks

Just like you, anon. This is you.
Your totally not delusional existence is very real
You are NOT schizophrenic

>>12273631
And, may I ask, How The FUCK ELSE WOULD YOU NOT SEE THE BALLS?

>>12273631
Yes gold and silver are other subgroups
All of these need to be declared when actually properly solving the problem.
But this might be to jewish for you or something?

>>12273644
6'4 Chad with good grades because I enjoy learning, a lot of girls are OPENLY in love with me and I've rejected them, I have a bright future that will position me higher in the all time historic figure rankings than Adolf Hitler, Jesus Christ, Michael Jordan, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and so on.

That is me
You were close enough, Anon.
Schizophrenia does NOT exist

>>12271422
As a side note, this is a very simplistic form of the calculations used in blocking loss for single photon detectors. If you fail to consider the grouping into boxes, you get results out of touch with reality.

>>12273656
This is fascinating

>>12273650
the set of all dualities minus the balls duality is obstructing a view of the balls

>>12273660
It actually kinda IS.

>>12273656
>Adolf Hitler, Jesus Christ, Michael Jordan, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and so on.
Michael jordan is nowhere near the other you listed

>>12273664
Michael Jordan is what you get when you take Julius Caesar's achievements and give him 0.1% of the resources and support.

>>12273656
>>12273663
Impressive.
Very nice.

Let's see Paul Allen's schizophrenia.

>>12273675
Lolwut

>>12273675
And a complete change in his area of interest. And a completely different set of standards by which to be judged. Just... basically change everything.

>>12273664
I strongly encourage you to study Michael Jordan and basketball. Michael Jordan is such an anomaly that I am tempted to say that he shouldn't even exist. He is in fact more impressive than Caesar and Hitler and so forth. It's just that you'd have to study the basketball context to truly appreciate it and that's too difficult for most, wars are far simpler to understand.

Someone better be screencapping this shit

>>12273628
Correction, the possibility could be 40% if the probability of selecting any given box is weighted by the number of balls remaining inside. A weird case, but its a stupidly posed problem. But the only way to sidestep the boxes in the second draw.

In fact, I'll go as far as to say that if Michael Jordan became president of the United States of America he SHOULD go down in history as the greatest person in history up until that point. Ahead of Jesus Christ.

>>12273664
You're right, but not in the way you think.

>>12273656
Tristan, you need to stop pissing in mason jars.
Those potions do not work.
You can also stop taking hemp oil showers, the walls are getting moldy.
Stop acting like a "solitary witch", that book is bullshit.

You are a burden to the family.
Your whole family is sick of you.

And you do know your father's company will never take off.
He was never successful, he just married a rich girl. It's not his money, it's her father's.
He's just as crazy as you are.

It's ok, Tristan.
Just, please don't put the house on fire, go take care of the goats with your brother to change your mind.

>>12273731
I ain't Tristan, dude. My name starts with a letter within the first 4 letters of the alphabet

>>12273737
Tristan

>>12273742
There's one crucial conqueror missing from my list of greats. It's because there's a direct link between me and him.

>>12273746
Is the link egomania? Narcissism? Which one?

>>12273746
Ghengis

>>12273754
name, idiot. The point is i sure as shit am not named tristan

Did tooker dropped his name or somethng

>>12273770
I'm young, fresh, fit and very vigorous. I sure as shit am not that balding mishap of a 'man'.

>>12273777
Told ya

>>12273777
wtf, he's not tooker, tooker is not that lucky

>>12273328
I like how everyone just ignored this answer. Everyone is going at the question wrong.

>>12273757
Nah, I'm still going with narcissism.

>>12271422
100%
There is a 50/50 chance you pick gold, so if you get the other 50 percent it's 100% chance you get gold.

How the fuck has this duplicate thread WITH A DUPLICATE IMAGE NO LESS not been deleted yet? Jannies on strike?

>>12274542
They get paid nothing and you expect good work?

>>12274567
Oh hey I volunteered to help cook food at the soup kitchen but they're not paying me anything so I'm just going to stare at the wall and not cook any food

>>12274581
Yes but what you did was actually productive and helped people. Not clean up e shite

>>12271422
Last thread's not even dead yet

>>12273162
Figures that 2/5 brainlets would also answer 50% to the original problem.

>>12273320
Why is it so common for people who don't understand mathematics to insist that there's a difference between probability as described by probability theory and probability in the "real world"? It's the same thing. It's what we invented probability theory for.

>>12273418
First line:
>There are 3 boxes
It's weird that you're talking about the "real world" as opposed to the "autistic maths realm" when you're trying to abstract the boxes away.

>>12273478
I would've been, too, had I still been in 3rd grade at the age of sixteen.

>>12273631
So in your mind, three boxes can be viewed interchangeably with a single box? If there were one box with six balls in it, you'd say it was the exact same problem?

>>12274916
>>12274898
>>12274896
>>12274888
>>12274883
Damn you guys are slow as FUCK. Is comprehensive reading really that hard for yous?

>>12275031
dumbass

i believe its 2/5, because of the way the question is worded, people who are saying 2/3 are interesting in how they are focusing on the boxes, but the question is pointed in a way that asks you to chose based on the balls, disregarding the need for you to pick a box yourself.

>>12275045
you can't just pick a ball, because you can't see them.
the fact that they are distributed unevenly makes for non uniform weighting of probabilities
The need to pick a box is implicit

>>12275077
>you can't just pick a ball, because you can't see them.
brainlet detected

>>12275108
take your pills, alex. you are not jesus christ

>>12275112
lmao schizo

Patrician answer is 2/5, autistic answer is something else because they think each individual box is a different reality when in fact you can ignore the box and just pick a ball at randomm (without seeing them)

>>12275117
>schizo

> I have a bright future that will position me higher in the all time historic figure rankings than Adolf Hitler, Jesus Christ, Michael Jordan, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and so on.

>a lot of girls are OPENLY in love with me and I've rejected them

>Schizophrenia does NOT exist

>>12275126
you keep claiming we're imagining problems and playing with physical loopholes.
Yet you keep saying your answer applies to the "real world"
Stop physically contextualizing the problem and start using your fuckin brain

>>12275141
mother fucker i am anti-box man and i am not that fucking guy that called u a schizo

>>12275153
oh so there are two of you 2/5 brainlets?
or is this just some split personnality type thing?

>>12275141
holy shit you’re a real schizo

>>12275155
There's several people who are smart enough to know that introducing boxes makes no sense and is autistic as fuck. Introducing boxes is a slippery slope or a game that if you play it till the end results with the probablity of anything happening is 0%. Which is exactly right, that is the nature of non-duality, but the point of mathematics is to investigate a dualistic perspective on reality. Which makes the boxes superfluous.

>>12275157
>quoting someone

>OMG its you!

>>12275153
>>12275163
You just proved to be the schizo guy with pic related. Are you retarded?

>>12271422
it's a very simple conditional probability problem. P(A|B)= (P(B|A)*P(A))/(P(B|A)*P(A)+P(B|A')*P(A'))

Intuitively:
You've picked one of the first two boxes. Reframing the question: What's the probability that you've picked the first box?

Answer is 1/2

>>12275170
MOTHERFUCKER READ!!! I AM TELLING YOU I AM ANTI-BOX MAN, I AM HOWEVER, NOT THE MAN WHO CALLED YOU A SCHIZO

>>12275141
lmfao this nigger thinks anonymous is one poster xD xD xD

>>12275166
hey retard your name says anonymous too are you gang stalking yourself???

>>12275176

>>12275173
scratch what I said, I misread the question. give me a moment to reevaluate

Reply to this if anti-box man is GOATED

>>12275174
>>12275176
>>12275179
I found the light, Tristan.

Come with me.

>>12271422
>>12275173
>>12275185
The problem doesn't give enough information to provide an answer. There are two scenarios that result from the lack of clarity:

Scenario 1:
After the gold ball is picked, the 3 boxes have equal probability of being picked before drawing the 2nd ball.

Scenario 2:
After the first ball is picked, the remaining 5 balls have equal probability of being drawn (the box with the drawn ball is half as likely to be drawn from as the other two boxes).

The answer will vary based on which scenario is reality.

When in doubt, just invoke the Anti-Box Man argument.

>>12273162
This could be correct. The question doesn't specify if the 2nd ball is picked after a box is randomly picked. Since it doesn't specify, it's safer to assume that the remaining balls have equal probability of being picked independent of which box they're picked from.

>>12271422
Irony humour killed this site.
Can no longer tell the retards from the baiters anymore.

>>12275222
Trips prove anti-box man right once again. He is the divine intellect, without question.

It's 50% you illiterate brainlets.

>>12275222
The balls are distributed unevely.
The weighting of probabilities is not uniform
The box will affect the pick

>>12275233
>totally not schizo

>>12271422
if you take a gold ball, it's 100%, if you take a silver ball, it's 0%.
easy.

>>12275235
>the box will affect the pick

>>12275247
it's implicit.
Only autists need everything to be explicitely specified for them.

>>12275250
Although it's more likely that this is what the question is asking, it doesn't specify so. Some folks commonly refer to this as a trick question.

man i've solved this kind of problem plenty of times in prob class.
it's either 2/3 or 4/9 depending on whether the second pick is in the same box or any box.
if you've never completed a prob class of minimally undergrad level just shut the fuck up

>>12275250
Ok, I will try to articulate the truth in words a toddler could understand.
In the real world you start off with an equal slate; non-duality (AKA the sum of all dualities). Then you decide to introduce a duality of balls, including silver and gold balls. Now what's left is two sets: the sum of all dualities minus the duality of balls and the duality of balls. To introduce boxes is to introduce ANOTHER duality, you see the boxes are already contained within the set of all dualities minus the duality of balls. This means that it is entirely SUPERFLUOUS introduce boxes. If you introduce boxes you might aswell add ALL dualities into the mix which would result in 0% of anything happening, which is EXACTLY right. Because in the non-dualistic world we live in nothing is happening, that's merely an illusion that arises when you separate dualities from the set of all dualities (non-duality)

>>12271422
>You put your hand in and take a ball from that box at random
>if its a gold ball. what is the probability that the next ball you take from a box will be gold
do you return the first ball you take out?

>>12275374
>You put you hand in and take a ball from that box at random
You already interpreted it wrong it should've been:
>You take a ball that you cant see at random

>>12275285
this guy needs to learn about conditional probability

I saw this thread yesterday and now it's today and it's still here. I answered this thread with what I believe was the correct answer, but I don't see any of my comments here, so for some reason they were deleted or something? Here goes again:

Originally, you pick at complete random from the boxes and balls. 1/2 you will get gold. The question assumes you get gold.

At this stage, it simply asks what's the probability that you will get gold again if you pick from a box. Meaning any box. We can safely assume you get to choose because the question doesn't say the second draw has to be random. If you chose completely at random from all the boxes again 2/5 of the time you would get gold again, because there are 2 gold balls and 3 silver left, and you are selecting from any box.

However, say you wanted to get another gold ball. You would have a much higher chance if you took the other ball from the box you already drew from. This is because you know it's not the box with 2 silver, so the remaining possible balls it could be are either 1 of the 2 gold or the 1 silver ball, so 2/3 if you drew from the same box the second time you would get gold, because there are 2 gold balls and only 1 silver it could be.

>>12275280
Hey anon, can you explain to me why if you pick randomly the second time it's 4/9 and not 2/5? I think you might be right but I don't know why.

>>12275564
just to make sure I'm not wasting my time, are you the anti box dude or just some other anon?

>>12275579
I am just some guy. I thought a minute ago if you chose randomly after the first pick it would be 2/5

>>12275584
>>12275584
ok good.
So given that you pick a gold ball at first, there are five balls left, two gold and three silver.

You would think that it's just 2/5 chance of getting another gold ball, right?
But remember the balls are contained within the boxes, in distinct sets.

When you pick the second ball, if you you happen to put your hand in the box with only one ball left, given that you pick a ball from this box, the one ball inside has a 100% chance of being picked.
Whereas given you pick from a box that still has two balls, both of them only have a 50% chance of being picked.

Since the balls are contained in the boxes, it is implicit that if you pick a ball, you are picking from a set of balls within a distinct box.
Therefore, each distinct set of balls has a probability 1/3 of being picked.
This prior probability is inherited by the balls within each set.

There is also another probability having picked either of the 3 gold balls on the first pick which also represent 1/3 of the total propabilities of the conditional event.

So to check for the average probability of picking a second gold ball, you need to consider every possibility of the first gold ball being picked.
And then for each of these possibilities, consider each of the distinct set of balls you would pick from.
And then again for each of these possibilities, check the probability of a blue ball being picked within the distinct set.

Add everything. 4/9. I will also copypaste a post I made on the first thread

>>12271422
Okay. I'm the poster who ran a class, in the source thread for this ugly duplicate, on the difference between a problem that fails to describe conditional probability and one that succeeds.
I've been boycotting this thread for two reasons:
1. Spamming/ flooding.
2. The posts are discursive, disorderly, and frenzied—even by /sci/ standards.

The answer to the actual question, as written in the OP, is 2/5.
The answer to the clever imaginary question, where you have a goal and a memory, is 2/3.
The answer to the tedious imaginary question, as imagined by Probability 101 autists who hallucinate their daily lesson onto every blank piece of paper like a negative afterimage, is 4/9.

Grading distributes as follows:
2/5 = A+
2/3 = A for effort
4/9 = B+ for participation trophy—every child is special in their own way

This will be my only post in this thread. As such, your grade is final and may not be appealed.

>>12275674
stop larping

>>12275584
We are looking for the probability that the 2nd ball is gold (B) given that the 1st ball is also gold (A). Without replacement. I'm gonna assume we can pick the 2nd ball from ANY box. The probability of picking a box at random {I,J,K} is 1/3. I have chosen to not incorporate this explicitely, to make for a lighter demonstration.

Given A, there are 3 gold balls we could have picked in the first round, so there are three different outcomes {X,Y,Z} after A, given that we don't replace the ball. The first two outcomes are actually identical. Given A, {X,Y,Z} represent the total set of events with each having an equal probability of 1/3.

P(B|A) is equal to the sum of P(B|X)P(X), P(B|Y)P(Y) and P(B|Z)P(Z)

P(B|X)P(X): Picked 1st gold ball in box 1
Box 1: P(I) = 1/3
One ball left in box 1, a gold ball, Probability of 1 given I and X
1/3 * 1 = 1/3
Box 2: P(J) = 1/3
One gold ball and one silver ball, Probability of 1/2 given J and X
1/3 * 1/2 = 1/6
Box 3: P(K) = 1/3
Two silver balls, Probability of 0 given K and X
P(B|X) = 1/3 + 1/6 + 0 = 1/2
P(B|X)P(X) = 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/6

P(B|Y)P(Y): Picked 1st gold ball in box 1
Box 1: P(I) = 1/3
One ball left in box 1, a gold ball, Probability of 1 given I and Y
1/3 * 1 = 1/3
Box 2: P(J) = 1/3
One gold ball and one silver ball, Probability of 1/2 given J and Y
1/3 * 1/2 = 1/6
Box 3: P(K) = 1/3
Two silver balls, Probability of 0 given K and Y
P(B|Y) = 1/3 + 1/6 + 0 = 1/2
P(B|Y)P(Y) = 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/6

P(B|Z)P(Z): Picked 1st gold ball in box 2
Box 1: P(I) = 1/3
Two gold balls. Probability of 1 given I and Z
1/3 * 1 = 1/3
Box 2: P(J) = 1/3
One ball left in box 2, a silver ball, Probability of 0 given J and Z
Box 3: P(K) = 1/3
Two silver balls, Probability of 0 given K and Z
P(B|Z) = 1/3
P(B|Z)P(Z) = 1/3 * 1/3 = 1/9

P(B|A) = P(B|X)P(X) + P(B|Y)P(Y) + P(B|Z)P(Z) =1/6 + 1/6 + 1/9 = 4/9

>>12271422
33%. Over

>>12275756
Nope.
You only considered if you picked the gold ball from chest1. Which gives you 1/3 but doesn't represent the whole set of events.
If the second pick is from the same box, it's 2/3.
If the second pick is from any of the boxes, it's 4/9 as depicted in >>12273438

>>12275670
Thanks anon

>>12275670
>>12275710
>>12275802
wrong
>hurr durr i cant see the balls

>>12275756
>he casually disregards all cases where the results doesn't correlate with his hypotheses

you're a mathematician, not data scientist, aren't you..?

>>12276054
>hurr durr i cant see the balls
Indeed.

>"Each box contains two balls"
>"You can't see into any of the boxes"

seems you can't read

>>12276105
and it matters because? read a book or take a class dipshit

>>12276123
it matters because if you can't see, you don't know which box contains which set of balls, and the boxes are separate.

Two boxes contain two balls each and one box contains 1 ball.
You don't know which box contains which set of balls, so you can't just select every ball evenly.

Think about iterating this infinitely.
2 times out of 6 on average, you will get the ball that is from the same box you picked the first one.
Whereas all the other balls will only be picked 1 time out of 6 on average.

Weighting is not uniform.

>>12276123
>take a class

Tell me anon, have you successfully completed a probability course that is at least of undergrad level?
Yes or No?

>>12276276
>undergrad
yes what are you like 19? answer the question

>>12276293
no

>>12276293
now read this >>12276273
and try to tell me why it's wrong without being a retarded autist

>>12273333
>>12273513
>>12275280
>>12276276
oh my god this is all you isn’t it? you’re a freshman with no friends shitposting all day. ahahahahahahh hahahhahhahhhahah never mind

>>12276334
I keep asking this question because the question is always avoided
Then you tell me to take a class because I don't share your brainlet point of view
So I just ask again
Now, >>12276273
prove it wrong

>>12276348
do my laundry freshman

The probability is 1/2. That was easy to solve.

>>12276472
this is even more retarded than 2/5

>>12276521
"what is the probability that the next ball you take from a box will also be gold?"
I pick from the same box because I am not a brainlet.

>>12275163
I just...
>Introducing boxes
>There are 3 boxes
Why introduce the balls, then? Why not live in a solipsistic state of bliss?

>>12275501
That guy needs to take his meds, more like. Before he starts lecturing us about the Time Cube next.

>>12275548
For much the same reason it's 2/3 if you pick again from the same box, it's not 2/5 if you pick randomly. And you are picking randomly because you have no reason to do otherwise.

>>12275674
You're a teacher who thinks people who remember and apply their lessons are autistic and wrong?

>>12276536
This isn't Monty Hall. It's not asking what you should do if you want two gold balls. It's just asking how likely it is that you do get a second gold ball, if you were to pick again from any of the boxes.

>>12276755
are you an intern at CNN by any chance?

>>12276768
Let's avoid another delusional tangent of yours.

>>12276764
>Brainlet chooses not to go for gold ball that is equal in size to silver balls

>>12276775
See, I wanted to add that the problem would be identical if we decided to ask for silver balls instead and that you'd probably misconstrue it and alter it by trying for gold the second time, but there I went and gave you the benefit of the doubt. Doubt that you have now removed.

PS under no circumstances is the answer ever 1/2.

>>12276772
the fuck are you talking about you retarded q anon groupie

>>12276779
I'm talking about not answering your completely irrelevant question that would require me to immerse myself into the complex of idiosyncratic beliefs that informs your obviously delusional posts, in light of which your accusation is very ironic.

>>12276778
1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4 * 2 = 1/2

>>12276792
You must be actively trying to be retarded with this shit.

>>12276820
it's simple mathematics
have you heard of Schrodinger's cat?

>>12276788
oh yeah lol you’re the schizo who’s being gang stalked by a single anonymous poster

>>12276843
I think if anyone is displaying signs of schizophrenia, it's you. Now, are you ready to cope with being wrong or do you want to talk about random shit some more?

>>12276853
your schizo ravings have been debunked over and over again by people who know far more than you do about math (not me)
go get some fresh air schizo

>>12276884
I think you've mistaken me for someone else (possibly one of your personalities).
>people who know far more than you do about math (not me)
Well, that's one thing you're right about.

>>12276889
keep grasping at straws kiddo

>>12276892
It's more like getting your straw-filled head to grasp something.

literal bait. if you fuckers cant agree on a theoretical answer, do a fucking experiment. and the wording of the problem is shit

>>12276899
lmao you just typed out a hyphenated word as an insult, literally no one takes you seriously

>>12276919
Is that the rule on the playground these days? No hyphens? Seems a bit arbitrary.

>>12276923
why are you asking about playground manners now dude that’s sketchy af

>>12276934
If my insults are already too cerebral for you, you have no hope of contributing anything of any value at all to this thread.

>>12276947
no i’m just concerned that you’re a schizo with an unhealthy attraction to kids. sorry to break it to you sweetie but that’s not what cerebral means

>>12276978
Took you a while to come up with what was essentially a restatement of your previous off-the-wall assertions.

Anyway, it's been nice, one of my alter ego wants to go out and molest some kids now

>>12276990
do you use a chess clock to time your schizo game?

>>12276723
real world applications faggot and by the way it has nothing to do with solipsism, solipsism is a dualistic construct

>>12277010
It's the most monistic worldview there is.

this thread has turned into a mental hospital in a minute

>>12277018
I blame anti-box man and his hatred of packaging

>>12277021
reading the thread I wonder if he also happens to be that julius cesar gigachad dude

>>12277026
Seems like it.
Really wish this board had ids right now

>>12277037
foreal. You part of the 4/9 team?
I'm the se7en box dude btw

>>12277044
I’m the OP

>>12277047
But I am on team 4/9

>>12275389
>You already interpreted it wrong it should've been:
nigga, i wrote out what was in the pic the op posted.

>>12277532
im refering to the real world problem not the autist realm problem

>>12277532
>>12275389
you still didn't answer my question?
>do you return the first ball you take out?
yes or no, does the answer change or remains the same whether you return to ball or take the second ball before returning the first.

2/5 looks tempting but it ignores the fact that you pick a box first before picking a ball.
If you were to dump out the balls from the boxes and pick a ball at random then it would obviously be 2/5.
But in this case you gotta do a bit more math which is annoying.

>>12277633
>2/5 looks tempting
Crossposting this now, because the saner version of this thread is almost dead.
2/5 doesn't just "look tempting." If this question were on a test, 2/5 would be the only correct answer.

Here's the simplest way to describe what our persistent 4/9 troll is doing.
Q:
> 2 x 3 = ?
A:
> I took a math class in arithmetic and learned how to add.
> 2 + 3 = 5
> Therefore 2 x 3 = 5 because + and x are the same thing: a binary operator composed of two lines.
> Oh, you don't think so? Have you ever taken "undergrad level" addition? Yes or no?

It's cute and all, but no, it's simply wrong and/ or trolling.
If you answered 4/9 on a multiple choice test, you would get no credit.
If you answered 4/9 and showed your work, you would probably get partial credit.

You don't have to worry, though, because this question would never be on any test.
Because people who actually know the subject material, and the English language, fluently enough to be in a position to write an English language test, would never write that question.

If you really want to learn basic probability, don't look on 4chan for answers. And if you must, always avoid bait from trolls who think that a semester of "undergrad level" math qualifies them for anything other than troll farm labor.

Read an actual textbook instead.
This is a good one, and the full pdf is somehow being hosted for free on a random dot edu in Iran. Maybe they shot the DMCA inspector. In any case, take advantage while you can.

http://ce.sharif.edu/courses/97-98/1/ce181-1/resources/root/Text_Books_References/Papoulis_Pillai_Probability_RandomVariables_and_Stochastic_Processes-4th_Edition_2002.pdf

>>12278136
>our persistent 4/9 troll
there's at least 3 of us

> Therefore 2 x 3 = 5 because + and x are the same thing
nice strawman. That's not what we're saying.
There were 3 sets of 2 balls. You pick one and keep it. 3*2-1=5
Conjointly,, this means there are 2 gold balls left and 3 silver balls, 2+3=5

Now what YOU are thinking is that since there are 2 gold balls in a total of 5, the answer is 2/5.
Yes, 2/5 looks tempting, and you just fell for it.
What WE are saying is that all balls don't assume uniform weighting., which affects the pick.

>this question would never be on any test.
Of course not, the wording is shit.
A real question of this type would avoid ambiguous wording and syntax to prevent brainlets from exploiting contextual loopholes.

>le libgen
yeah, try reading some of it

The thing here is even though the question is horribly formulated, you can use context clues to understand this is meant to be like another typical conditional probability problem.
Probably a copy of Bertrand's Box Paradox.
It just fails terribly to do so.

At this point though it's more of an interpretation thing, maybe you see this more as some innocent Facebook problem where you're supposed to exploit semantics but I just think thats retarded

>think outside the boxerino
No

>>12278566
>there's at least 3 of us
Okay... is that supposed to be meaningful?

>nice strawman
It's an analogy, not a straw man.
It describes the logic of what you're doing in very simple terms that anyone can understand.

>Yes, 2/5 looks tempting, and you just fell for it.
>fell for it
That's the hill you're going to die on?

>try reading some of it
I've read it. I have the third edition in my shelves. You're really not doing yourself any favors by arguing to authority on this.

>Of course not, the wording is shit.
>the question is horribly formulated
>context clues
>It just fails terribly to do so.
>more of an interpretation thing
>exploit semantics
>think outside the boxerino
This is also cute. It's a very roundabout way of ceding the point while pretending not to.
Tell your other two troll friends I said hi.

>>12271422
>solves it

Listen anti-box man, se7en box guy here.

It seems we are destined to disagree.
I just don't share that little rat brain of yours.

But I think we can both agree that 1/2 is a subhuman brainlet answer, and that's enough for me.

I love you anti box man

>>12278136
>If this question were on a test, 2/5 would be the only correct answer.
If it were checked by a total retard, that is.

>>12277551
There is no real world problem.

>>12278754
Seriously what the fuck. This is such a basic application of the Bayes Theorem that it is mind boggling so many people are getting it wrong.

Lol I edited that to troll /pol/ and now it's on here too. The answer is 4/9, you can archive search old /pol/ threads to see the first time I posted it.
To the schizo saying 2/5 please seek help.

>>12271422
Top notch bait post.

>>12281796
It's more than one, and they all seem to have distinct brain problems.

>>12281796
>Lol I edited that to troll /pol/
>The answer is 4/9, you can archive search old /pol/ threads

Lol, I grant your claim to authorship. Imagine playing yourself this hard.

1. You try to edit a conditional pick problem in order to troll a forum of cosplaying nazi trolls.
2. The result is so poorly written that it ends up describing an unconditional pick instead.
3. Even the other 4/9 trolls who permissively reinterpreted your problem by importing "context clues" and "exploit[ing] semantics" eventually cede its failure.
4. You pop back up—like a cooing baby proud of its own poop—to post an authorship claim on your semantic disaster.
5. You cite your own authorship claim and an archived /pol/ thread as the only two arguments in support of your failed answer, 4/9.

This is gold. Thank you for being you.

By the way, the answer to the actual problem you claim to have edited into existence is 2/5.

>>12281902
3 never happened, schizo.

>>12281902
Like I said, get help schizo.
The answer is 4/9, seethe harder.

>>12281906
>3 never happened
>>12278566
>Of course not, the wording is shit.
>the question is horribly formulated
>context clues
>It just fails terribly to do so.
>more of an interpretation thing
>exploit semantics
>think outside the boxerino

>>12281918
>The answer is 4/9,
Nope. No matter how many /pol/ threads you cite, the correct answer will alway be 2/5.

>>12281906
>3 never happened
>>12278566
>Of course not, the wording is shit.
>the question is horribly formulated
>context clues
>It just fails terribly to do so.
>more of an interpretation thing
>exploit semantics
>think outside the boxerino

>>12281918
>The answer is 4/9,
Nope. No matter how many /pol/ threads you cite, the correct answer will always be 2/5.

>>12281924
>>12281925
Speaking of semantics, learn to fucking read, dipshit.

>>12281932
General advice: don't "learn to read" from anyone who thinks this problem successfully describes a conditional pick.

>>12281925
The /pol/ archives was just to somewhat prove authorship of this troll edit.
It has no weighting on the actual problem for which the solution is unequivocally, indisputably, unmistakenly, undeniably, categorically, obviously, patently, and undoubtedly 4/9.

>>12281950
I learnt to read when I was three, you're a bit behind the curve if you're still practising now. Doesn't really put you in any position to tell people how to interpret things, does it?

>>12281955
I accept the clarification. Your argument now consists of an authorship claim and a list of synonyms.

>>12281958
>when I was three
Don't let it get you down—there's no shame in being an opsimath.

>>12281964
That's a word you hear a lot, huh?

Anyway, I'll be magnanimous and help you with your lesson for today. No one "ceded" that they "exploited semantics" for their interpretation. Instead what they said was that YOU were treating it like a viral facebook problem that is heavily dependent on semantics, when actually it isn't.

>>12282015
I love your new semantic argument about how something on facebook reminds you of your old semantic argument. It's very convincing.

>>12282088
You don't even know the meaning of the word "semantic," which renders you doubly unqualified to be discussing semantics.

>>12282112
This all boils down to one simple fact: OP's syntax abortion fails to meet the threshold for an adequate—or even plausible—description of conditional probability. It's dog shit in, dog shit out, and the only solution to a bag of dog shit is to flush it down the garbage chute, along with all the silly 4/9 flies it attracts.

The only correct answer to this bag of pseudoconditional dog shit is, and always will be, 2/5.

>>12282134
You can't have your cake and eat it too, boyo. You can't say that the actual problem as described is really so poorly described as to have no solution, and then declare the solution to be something else.

>>12282138
You really do have trouble with words, don't you?
How could I possibly be any clearer that the solution exists and is 2/5?

The solution is to flush OP's bag of pseudoconditional dog shit down the garbage chute, and solve the remnant.

>>12282177
So you don't understand the problem, ignore whatever you don't understand, and end up solving something else. You don't "solve the remnant," pseud. That's just a different problem then.

You never did address the part where I factually pointed out, with evidence, the words you clearly had trouble with, so I find your allegations quite hypocritical. You simply don't know how to read, is all. That's the fundamental reason underlying your 2/5 answer, but it is visible in every aspect of our interaction.

>>12282177
You're still here trying to prove your shit answer?

hahahahahahahahaha

>>12282177
That's fine buddy, go sperge about whatever problem you are solving that gives the solution of 2/5 in another thread. As you can see, in this thread the topic is OPs dogshit edit of the problem, not what you deem would be a correct problem. Either focus on that or gtfo and make your own thread with your own problem.

>>12282199
Well, it doesn't look like he's trying to prove it to me. More like insisting on it.

>>12282193
>you don't understand the problem
No, I understand the problem you've imagined perfectly.
I understand it far better than you do.
You're like a fly attracted to dog shit. Your fly brain sees dog shit and interprets it as food, causing you lay your eggs into a log of dog shit.

>the part where I factually pointed out, with evidence, the words you clearly had trouble with
Lol, imagine being this daft.

>>12282223
>something something dualities
>think outside the boxerino

>dog shit
>dog shit
>dog shit

I love you antibox man

>>12282226
>something something dualities
Not me.
>think outside the boxerino
Not me, but I quoted it.

>>12282223
>No, I understand the problem you've imagined perfectly.
The issue, which you demonstrate here, is that you don't comprehend how you get from the text to an actual understanding of the problem. You understand the maths. You just don't see how that is what it says. Because your reading comprehension is what's lacking. This is why they practice this sort of thing in schools, right, where you get a little story and you have to "translate" it in your head into a mathematical problem. I suppose it requires some imagination.

>>12282231
>Not me.
So the fact that the only person who agrees with you in this matter is clearly schizophrenic doesn't bother you?

>>12282231
To get things straight, you antibox man or gigachad Julius Cesar?

>>12282235
kek

>>12282235
Oh dear, do you actually think this way?
That a bad argument for something discredits a good argument for that thing? Or that a bag of dog shit is actually food, simply because you see a lot of other people eating dog shit?
If so, that explains a lot.

>>12282233
No, I understand all that perfectly well. You're just wrong about it.

>>12282272
No, dear, I am not saying you must be wrong because the only person you can find who views things your way has a skewed outlook on reality. I am saying it ought to give you pause to consider that perhaps you are wrong, for the other reasons already mentioned. You have no "good" argument. In fact I struggle to think of a single argument you brought up at all. At least the schizo had that going for him.

>>12280933
a proof that the majority of this board either haven't finished high school or are retards.

>>12282289
Then go read the other thread.
This is the duplicate sanatorium thread that I specifically avoided posting in until the (slightly) saner thread archived.

The only "arguments" that I've seen so far in favor of the incorrect answer, 4/9, are a claim to authorship, a list of synonyms, and a unsupported—and unsupportable—claim that the problem validly describes a conditional pick, which it clearly doesn't.
It tries. But it fails completely.
Even our most prolific 4/9 troll agrees, while pretending not to.
>>12278566
>>this question would never be on any test.
>Of course not, the wording is shit.

>>12271422
8/17

>>12282312
holy shit

I've seen 1/2, ive seen 1/3, even 2/5

But this is fascinating

>>12282308
Yes, the wording is shit, which is why it takes effort to decipher, effort you are clearly incapable of. But that doesn't mean you are justified in ignoring it altogether. No one agrees with you, pretending or otherwise. You obviously misread the actual explanation for why it's 4/9, much like you misread the problem itself.

umm but actually this is a word problem it says there are 3 boxes but it doesn't say there are exactly 3 boxes so there could be more boxes and some could have 0 golds and some could have all golds it just says we take a ball from a box not one of the 3 boxes so the answer is 621/17628

>>12271422
9/4

>>12282333
No, it requires no effort at all to decipher OP's bag of dog shit. It's obviously a failed attempt at describing a conditional pick.

You think you're operating at a higher level because you "deciphered" that?
Lol. This shit is equivalent to learning the alphabet.
Wow, you can sing the alphabet song. You're a genius.

No, the correct response is to reject failure, not coddle it.

>>12282372
I am operating at a higher level than you are, certainly. I never pretended that was anything special, however.

>>12282372
lol, your argument is literally
>Can I go to the bathroom?
>I don't know, CAN you? *smug face*
and for that you deserve to be pissed all over.

>>12282383
kek

>>12282372
You cannot escape the box

>>12271422
Here, dumbasses. It's 2/3.
https://repl.it/@xlifeform8/GoldBallThing
Hit "run" a bunch of times.

>>12282378
No, there's no lower level than the level you're operating at.
You literally just described your own banal interpretation of a troll edit as:
>takes effort to decipher
>you are clearly incapable
>obviously misread
>misread the problem
You have your head so far up your own ass, it's no wonder you think a bag of dog shit is food.

>>12282383
No, what I'm doing is pointing out that that's your argument.

>>12282474
I am clearly operating on a level far too advanced for you. You are unable to discern the obvious fact that I am condescending to you. Not even subtly. When I mention the "effort" of interpreting this silly little thing it could not be more clearly dripping with irony. I am insulting your intelligence, if that wasn't clear. You consistently demonstrate poor reading comprehension. I'm guessing autism, maybe?

>>12282478
I'd like to see you explain how. You know, semantically.

>>12282534
Your argument, in a nutshell.
Q:
> 4 x 7 = ?
A:
> I took a math class in arithmetic and learned how to add.
> 4 + 7 = 11
> Therefore 4 x 7 = 11 because + and x are the same thing: a binary operator composed of two lines.
> Oh, you don't think so? Have you ever taken "undergrad level" addition? Yes or no?

>>12282502
Imagine literally explaining condescension and irony to someone, as if it wasn't perfectly clear, and then accusing the person you just explained that to of autism.
Your whole shtick is solid gold.

>>12282584
oh yeah just post the same retard strawman argument

>>12282502
Yes, autism.
he clearly needs to have everything explicitely specified

>>12282675
>strawman
Lol.

>>12282595
It's too late for you to pretend you understood now. Just like it's too late to pretend you understand the problem.
>>12282719
Yes, it's a strawman. A very obvious one, as a matter of fact.
>+ and x are the same thing: a binary operator composed of two lines
This couldn't be less relevant or less like an actual argument anyone has made in the entire thread. You don't actually understand the arguments people give in favour of the 4/9 interpretation, which is why you are unable to properly refute it. The opposite is not true, however. Your stance is refuting by pointing out that the problem specifies the balls are in boxes. Again and again we see your wrongness is compounded by your inability to read.

>>12281796
Thanks for the edit
-OP
>>12281864
Better than expected

>>12282754
>>12282754
>Your stance is refuting
Is refuted*, rather. Wouldn't want to make things too hard on your feeble comprehension. I mean, the meaning is still clear to anyone arguing in good faith and with two brain cells to rub together, but obviously neither can be counted on with you.

>>12282235
Same typing style

>>12282312
Probably bait but please show work
>>12282245
I want a mod to come over here and look at every poster’s IPs to see just how schizophrenic anti-box man is

>>12282754
>>12282761
There's a perspective motif in all your posts: you see yourself as a sort of hyperaware explainer of subtleties that others somehow fail to grasp—whether in deciphering math clues, or in picking up on layers of language—while in reality, everything you're aware of, and everything you've explained, is so trivial that any normal interlocutor would simply take it as a common reference point, not a bird of paradise.

>This couldn't be less relevant or less like an actual argument anyone has made in the entire thread.
No, indeed it's the only argument you or anyone else has made in the entire thread (other than an authorship claim and a list of synonyms). You keep repeating the answer to a different problem as if repeating your same mistake over and over again will somehow change a bag of dog shit into a happy meal.

It's exactly—exactly—analogous to repeating 4 + 7 = 11, over and over again, as your only argument for why 4 x 7 = 11.

And no, you haven't even come close to refuting the fact that this problem utterly fails to describe a conditional pick.

>>12282819
You don’t sound human. Like a robot mimicking a man.
That’s is currently in psychosis

>>12282819
>while in reality, everything you're aware of, and everything you've explained, is so trivial that any normal interlocutor would simply take it as a common reference point
Well yes, so one would assume, hence you must appreciate how incredibly damning it is that you appear to need them explained to you in excruciating detail. But you really had it coming because you waltzed into this thread like the arbiter of truth and then failed to have any argument prepared and failed to show any understanding of what you were arguing against.
>You keep repeating the answer to a different problem
Ironic, since the very foundation of your argument is "we have to treat it like a completely different problem to which I do know the answer". 4/9 is the answer to the question with the boxes, as specified. If you want to forget about the boxes, find a different problem.

But just to humour you, let's say 4/9 wasn't the answer, and 2/5 was. Your analogy is still utter fucking dog shit (or should that be happy meal?) because there is absolutely ZERO confusion about the basic mathematical functions, or indeed, even advanced ones. The actual point of contention is whether you read "there are 3 boxes" to mean there are three boxes, or not, for whatever reason.

>>12282840
>need them explained to you
No, you're the one who feels a need to explain them. I just find it amusing that you do.

>the very foundation of your argument is "we have to treat it like a completely different problem to which I do know the answer"
No, that's your autistic hallucination of my argument.

>4/9 is the answer to the question with the boxes, as specified.
Nope. I could—and did, in the earlier thread—easily write a valid conditional probability problem whose correct answer is 4/9. This one isn't it.

>ZERO confusion about the basic mathematical functions
Lol, this is more gold. As if the actual arithmetic functions themselves have anything to do with the analogy. Please, keep it coming!

>>12282875
>No, you're the one who feels a need to explain them.
Because you give every indication that you do, and then afterwards you just say you understood all along and never really acknowledge it again. Kind of like how you approach mathematical problems.
>No, that's your autistic hallucination of my argument.
Consider that it's you who is autistically hallucinating an argument that looks like "+ = x"
>This one isn't it.
This is exactly it.
>As if the actual arithmetic functions themselves have anything to do with the analogy.
If they don't then it's just an elaborate way of saying "you're wrong" without specifying why. Your argument is like trying to argue that the sun rises in the West, in that both are wrong. Very insightful, that.

Look, you're clearly terrible at anything to do with language, whether it's interpreting the words of others, or making sense of yourself. Why don't you just leave it to us neurotypicals?

>>12282893
>us neurotypicals
Says the guy who evaluates his own neurotypicality in terms how many 4chan posters share it.

>hallucinating an argument that looks like "+ = x"
You know, maybe if you googled analogy really quick you wouldn't keep making the same mistake over and over and over again.

>>12282584
You know, you might say this of people who answer 2/3. They're the ones who go "oh, I recognise this." People who answer 4/9, though, they're the ones who do take the effort to see what it actually says and apply their mathematical knowledge to it to come to a new answer. It's not that they don't know how calculating probability works because they clearly do. The point is not that they think both problems are interchangeable, or that they wouldn't be able to calculate 2/5; in fact many of them can explain what it would have to look like for the answer to be 2/5. The issue is not with any mathematical knowledge. Literally the only thing you disagree about is how to apply the maths in the first place, and why. If you can't even acknowledge that then all you can do is strawman.

>>12282931
>Says the guy who evaluates his own neurotypicality in terms how many 4chan posters share it.
No, dear, again, I have my separate reasons for that. But you, on the other hand, are being a hypocrite now, because I couldn't evaluate your stance by the fact that a schizo agreed with you, but now I am wrong because other people on 4chan agree with me?
>You know, maybe if you googled analogy
Maybe if you made a proper analogy. You know, your analogy is to a proper analogy as 4 + 7 is to 4 x 7.

>>12282938
>The issue is not with any mathematical knowledge.
We agree on this.
>in fact many of them can explain what it would have to look like for the answer to be 2/5.
You do realize that I can, and did, explain what it would have to look like for the answer to be 4/9.

>>12282952
I don't believe you did and I doubt you can. But I will not be here to see it. I have things to do. Don't mistake my silence for an admission of defeat. The way things were going, that was never going to happen.

>>12282946

>>12282946
>hypocrite
No, I'm replying directly to your neurotypicality argument. You're the one who keeps trying to argue ad 4chan. I just point it out and discredit it.

>You know, your analogy is to a proper analogy as 4 + 7 is to 4 x 7.
Trying googling analogy. I dare you.

>>12282958
>Don't mistake my silence for an admission of defeat.
I'm so sorry to make you admit that you were defeated so quickly.

>>12282875
>>12282952
>I can, and did, explain what it would have to look like for the answer to be 4/9
If I remember correctly all you did was specify that you had to put your hand in a box to pick a ball on the second pick, which is implicit to the action of picking a fuckin ball anyway.

>>12271422
its 1/2 because the only way you can get another answer is by creating additional imaginary boxes. Simulating this by code comes up with a different result depending on how you program it as well.

When you pick a ball at random you have a 3/6 chance to pick a gold ball, which when you analyze the box pairings leaves you a 2/3rd chance that ball is paired with another and 1/3rd its paired with a grey.


But this only works if you treat each ball seperately and split the puzzle into 6 different first picks. This is a mistake as its not what the question asks you to do.

Instead the question draws you three boxes and states that you are picking between boxes and the first round of selection is already complete. This leaves you one scenario, you have a gold ball and since you only have two boxes you only have two outcomes.

I honestly hate that i remember now this question was on an SAT quiz i took when i was younger though, fuck whoever thought that was fair.