/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12396766]

/sci/ humor thread

[Anonymous No.12396776]

Faggot thread

[Anonymous No.12396784]

1/3

[Anonymous No.12396793]

>>12396766
Is this a /sci/ meme? Was there controversy over this?
I don't get it, the answer is obviously 50% unless this is some gay ass trick question where I have to inform the theoretical situation in my head with the picture (in which case it's 0%).

[Anonymous No.12396799]

50/50

[Anonymous No.12396808]

>>12396766
Oh god. I swear to myself I won't get annoyed at all the wrong answers.

[Anonymous No.12396824]

>>12396766
[math]\Omega=\{(H_1,H_2),
(H_1,T_2),
(T_1,H_2)\}[/math]
Answer is one out of the three possibilities. 1/3

[Anonymous No.12396859]

>>12396793
no you're just a pseud

[Anonymous No.12396861]

1/3
notice that this is a different question than the dog thread

[Anonymous No.12396918]

>>12396859
fuck u fagit.

[Anonymous No.12396952]

>>12396793
That would be true if order mattered and the first coin is heads.

[Anonymous No.12396985]

>>12396766
Depends how you got the information at least one is heads.

[Anonymous No.12397047]

>>12396985
You got the information from the question, retard.

[Anonymous No.12397144]

>>12396793
You are wrong though.
1/3 is the answer.

[Anonymous No.12397183]

1/3 but most often, it's tails because the head part is heavier and more likely to be the bottom upon landing
Depends on currency of course.

Can be further made complex if you add the way it was thrown, shape of the coin, air flow, the way it falls and many other crap

[Anonymous No.12397193]

>>12396766

[Anonymous No.12397363]

One coin is guaranteed to be so it's 50% you fucking trolls, your fancy notation and verbose answers won't change that.

[Anonymous No.12397387]

>>12397193
Gave me a good chuckle

[Anonymous No.12397512]

>>12396766
Total possible states: TT, HT, TH, HH
We eliminate TT
We end up with HT, TH, HH
1/3 of the countcomes is HH

[Anonymous No.12397548]

>>12396766
0 - 1 depending on how i do it

[Anonymous No.12397555]

>>12396824
(H, T) is the same thing as (T, H).

[Anonymous No.12397558]

>>12396766
1/2, the only way to know one is heads is to look at it and the only way to be unsure the other is heads is to not look at it so clearly either the unknown one is heads or tails so it is 1/2, all 1/3 posters are brainlets

[Anonymous No.12397560]

>>12397512
Also eliminate HT or TH depending on which one you know is H, idiot

[Anonymous No.12397565]

>>12397512
You throw 2 coins
One of them lands near you you see it is heads.
^this is the question
In this case, (t,h) is the same as (h,t), so the
Answer is 50%.
Think of it like throwing dice, if it helps you, the order of the dice doesn’t matter in a game, they are all gumblud in the cup

[Anonymous No.12397572]

>>12397558
>>12397560
>>12397363
/sci/ is getting a little smarter

[Anonymous No.12397584]

>>12397565
>>12397572
BASED
A
S
E
D

[Anonymous No.12397625]

>>12397565
>One of them lands near you you see it is heads.
It didn't say you see it (like one landed on the floor, and the other went under the couch), you simply know because you're clairvoyant.

[Anonymous No.12397630]

>>12396793
>I don't get it, the answer is obviously 50%
lmao, filtered

[Anonymous No.12397660]

>>12396766
1/3

[Anonymous No.12397674]

>>12397625
/sci/ believes in clairvoyance now?

[Anonymous No.12397698]

>>12396766

[Anonymous No.12397699]

>>12396766

[Anonymous No.12397704]

There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[Anonymous No.12397711]

[Anonymous No.12397716]

[Anonymous No.12397719]

[Anonymous No.12397721]

[Anonymous No.12397726]

[Anonymous No.12397731]

[Anonymous No.12397732]

>>12397721

[Anonymous No.12397735]

[Anonymous No.12397739]

> He denies the big bang theory.

[Anonymous No.12397745]

>>12397698

[Anonymous No.12397749]

[Anonymous No.12397750]

>>12397749

[Anonymous No.12397754]

>>12397711
what does this comic have to do with theism?

[Anonymous No.12397762]

[Anonymous No.12397766]

>>12397754
nix

[Anonymous No.12397767]

[Anonymous No.12397768]

>>12397766

[Anonymous No.12397787]

[Anonymous No.12397807]

>>12397565
Nah,
There are 2 possibilities but the probability are 33% vs 66%

1/3 chance for double head/double tail

[Anonymous No.12397812]

[Anonymous No.12397822]

[Anonymous No.12397832]

[Anonymous No.12397836]

and, of course, it is bs
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/03/05/ask-ethan-is-this-actually-a-hole-in-the-universe/?sh=4deb9870324b

[Anonymous No.12397842]

[Anonymous No.12397850]

[Anonymous No.12397890]

[Anonymous No.12398020]

>>12397560
HT and TH represent two distinct outcomes.
If we were to treat the outcomes as combinations, the ones in the form of {HT,TH} would still represent 50% of possible outcomes.

[Anonymous No.12398030]

>>12398020
No. It would represent 66% of the outcomes

[Anonymous No.12398053]

>>12398030
Including TT

[Anonymous No.12398067]

>>12397565
Even if HT and TH are similar, they are not the same event per se.
The outcome for each coin is independant.
Even if the order doesn't matter *for you*, all the arrangements have the same probability.
This changes if you treat the outcomes as combinations.
Therefore {HT,TH} represent 50% of the outcomes, TT is 25% and HH is 25%.
Let X be the amount of heads you get from the flip.
P(X >= 1) = 75% with {HT,TH,HH}.
Again, you could treat TH and HT as the same event but it justs happens twice as often.
P(X = 2 | X >= 1) = 1/3 with {HH}.

[Anonymous No.12398069]

>>12397699
it's clearly 1/5
distribute the 5[2*2]
[10*10]=100
20/100=1/5

[Anonymous No.12398081]

>>12397726
That's how all viruses work. Else we'd be like 'i dunno he just fell down and died.'

[Anonymous No.12398083]

>>12398030
50% of the outcomes without any given condition
66% given that at least one is heads

[Anonymous No.12398085]

>>12396766
25%

[Anonymous No.12398087]

>>12397726
>incubation period
>qualitative and quantitative variation of symptoms across populations

[Anonymous No.12398103]

>>12398069
>t. just counted my iq

[Anonymous No.12398216]

>>12397047
The sentence "at least one is heads" together with the fact that you don't know whether both are heads implies that the first coin is heads. Otherwise you would have all the information necessary.

[Anonymous No.12398229]

[Anonymous No.12398241]

[Anonymous No.12398248]

>>12396766
Wouldn't it be 50%? probability that the second coin is heads given that the other one is already heads?

[Anonymous No.12398250]

>>12398067
You just used slightly different notation to state the same wrong answer.
H.T. T.T H.H. Are the possible outcomes. It’s not t,t so it’s 50%.
Think of it in different ways. First remember op you know one is heads, period, take two fair coins that are identical, mix them in a jar so you don’t know which is which. Saying there is a h,t or t,h is nonsensical. You throw the jar at stacys stupid fucking head for not having sex with you. The coins scatter, you have found one coin, it’s heads. What are the other choices? It’s 50%
Take 2 identical dice. You mix them up in a jar of lube and stick them up your ass. You shit them out from the second story during deans speech because fuck college for lying to you. You found one, it was even. What are the odds the second one is even? (Even, odd) is the same as (odd, even). Order does not matter.
It matters with lottery numbers (what are the odds of getting 12345, vs 54321) but not in games like dice or coins.

[Anonymous No.12398251]

What a Garbage thread

[Anonymous No.12398261]

>>12398229
That's cruel.

[Anonymous No.12398280]

>>12397699
Fucking troll, you swapped them.

[Anonymous No.12398312]

>>12398216
source: my ass

[Anonymous No.12398502]

>>12398312
>>>/b/ is for trolling

[Anonymous No.12398508]

[Anonymous No.12398554]

>>12397749
facebook tier meme

[Anonymous No.12398574]

>>12396766
tree fiddy

[Anonymous No.12398642]

>>12396766
Probability isn't real in the macro scale.
Whether it's heads or not depends on the circumstances of flipping (how hard,on which side it starts, the degree, exact movement of the finger, maybe even depends on airflow or something.)
But it's not random at all actually. It's very hard to predict as the information is scarce but if you somehow got all this information then it would be possible to predict with 100% accuracy.
The only really random events happen in the micro scale. Some randomly firing photons Michio Kaku level bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12398656]

>>12396766

0. If coin1 = HEADS and conin2 = HEADS, then coin1 = coin2, a contradiction since we assumed that two distinct coins were flipped.

[Anonymous No.12398680]

>>12397890
lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.12398696]

>>12397735
what if the parasite that causes zombification produces adenosine triphosphate?

[Anonymous No.12398699]

>>12398642
Dimiwit. Nature is provably random at its core. Laplace demon BTFO like a hundred years ago.

[Anonymous No.12398780]

>>12398250
>>12396793
I read it this way, too -- the scenario gives you one result, so it looks like only one coin is left up to chance, giving us a 50/50.
I'm quite gullible, and not very skilled at math, so I wrote a simple program to try to test it. It basically flips two coins 1000 times, and any time they come up TT, it re-flips them, and flushes that result (but tells us how many times that happened, for the hell of it). Any other time, it records the result. Here's the code: https://pastebin.com/XAhYxmtQ
Lo and behold, HH only comes up about 1/3 of the time. What gives?

[Anonymous No.12398800]

>>12396766
>hurr durr monty hall for retards

[Anonymous No.12398812]

>>12397711
>commies actually believe this

[Anonymous No.12398964]

>>12397555
Not in this case brainlet

[Anonymous No.12399148]

>>12397047
>you = I
Brainlet.

[Anonymous No.12399154]

>>12398699
Yeah like those random photons that don't seem to even have a cause. Micro-wise it seems random (could not be actually who knows) but large scale nothing is random.

[Anonymous No.12399160]

>>12399148
Retard

[Anonymous No.12399220]

>>12398800
>every probability question is Monty Hall

[Anonymous No.12399230]

>>12399160
Great argument. How the information was obtained determines the answer. If it's information about only one coin then it's 1/2. If it's information about both coins as a combined state then it's 1/3.

[Anonymous No.12399237]

>>12398780
If you only reflip at TT then there is not a specific coin guaranteed to be heads. Since both HT and TH are allowed, either coin can be tails. You are confusing the state of both coins containing a head with a specific coin being a head, which is the ambiguity in the problem.

[Anonymous No.12399238]

>>12396766
P( hh given (ht or th or hh)) =
P( hh and (ht or th or hh)) /P(ht or th or hh) = P(hh) / ( p(ht) + p(th) + p(hh)) =
(1/4)/(3/4)=1/3
You can be a fag and describe probability space as {hh, th, tt} then you get 1/2.
But its not consistent with what we observe in reality, cpins should be considered distinct.

[Anonymous No.12399261]

>>12399238
Finally someone with basic statistics knowledge.

[Anonymous No.12399315]

>>12399238
I flip two coins and look at the one closest to me. I then tell you "at least one is heads." What is the probably both are heads?

I flip two coins and count the total number of heads. It's greater than 0. What is the probability both are heads?

You're assuming that every time the pair contains a head you would be told that it does. But the question doesn't imply that. It has nothing to do with coins being indistinct.

[Anonymous No.12399505]

>>12399220
spoken like someone who doesn't understand the original question at all

[Anonymous No.12399638]

>>12399505
What don't I understand?

[Anonymous No.12399715]

>>12399230
The way you got the information you have is literally from the question, retard. There is no other source of information.

[Anonymous No.12399732]

>>12399715
>The way you got the information you have is literally from the question, retard.
That's not what I asked, illiterate troglodyte. The information you have is ambiguous until you know how it was obtained.

[Anonymous No.12399743]

>>12399732
All you know is that one is heads, you fucking imbecile.

[Anonymous No.12399781]

>>12399743
Yes retard. That's all you know. And that alone is not enough to answer the question since it's ambiguous.

[Anonymous No.12399955]

>>12399781
It's not ambiguous at all, retard. It literally means you know that at least one of the coins is heads.
Dumb fucking ape, there's absolutely nothing ambiguous about what you know, whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.12400005]

>>12396766
If one coin is at least one heads, then two coins would be at least two heads.

[Anonymous No.12400087]

>>12399955
>It's not ambiguous at all, retard.
It is, retard. See >>12399315

You will not respond to this, because your fragile ego just got shattered over a basic probability question.

[Anonymous No.12400108]

>>12400087
Fucking idiot, you're hallucinating a bunch of stupid non sequitur shit that has nothing to do with what the question says. Fucking ape brain.

The question says you flip two coins and at least one coin is heads. That's it. Your idiotic theatrical mises-en-scène are irrelevant and meaningless.

[Anonymous No.12400173]

>>12398069
Top kek

[Anonymous No.12400192]

>>12400108
>>12400087

You two are on the verge of resorting to Skeletor-levels of name calling

[Anonymous No.12400199]

I think we first need to consider what are the possible states of the second coin after being flipped. I can think of several:

1) It lands heads up.
2) It lands tails up.
3) It lands on its edge.
4) It lands in an ambiguous position that cannot be said to be definitely heads, tails, nor on its edge.
5) The coin is destroyed in the flipping process.
6) The coin is irretrievably lost in the flipping process and its orientation cannot be determined.

Can anyone think of some more possibilities.

[Anonymous No.12400216]

>>12400199
Supreme court rules that P(1) and P(2) are 1/2 each, and that P(N+2) are all 0 forever.

[Anonymous No.12400234]

>>12399315
I do not get what the fuck are you on about. Learn to express your thoughts more clearly, no one will keep up with your schizo shit unless you do so.

[Anonymous No.12400263]

>>12398780
This is why no matter how many people we graduate most people are still useless on the job.
The answer is 50%, you are applying the pro me wrong, again, you are just using a model you learned instead of thinking. And thinking you are smart

[Anonymous No.12400274]

>>12400263
1/3

[Anonymous No.12400279]

>>12400108
In both cases the information that at least one is heads is given. So which one is the correct interpretation of the problem in the OP? Oh you can't tell, because the problem is ambiguous.

[Anonymous No.12400280]

>>12400234
What don't you understand? Just answer the two scenarios and I'll explain how you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.12400287]

how does it distribute?

its far too massive to distribute through the human body in the way that oxygen is

[Anonymous No.12400292]

>>12400279
There's no "interpretation." All there is is two flips and at least one heads.

You want a movie version to placate your worm brain?

Okay, you flipped them off the fucking Eiffel tower and then a fat, cacophonous pigeon delivered a cassette tape to you and the tape said at least one of the coins was heads and then the pigeon took a shit on your left ear and flew away and the tape self-destructed, schizo.

[Anonymous No.12400296]

>>12397822
holy fuck what a retard

evolution is not possible without a chaotic framework, its replication that draws the question of order, nothing else

[Anonymous No.12400298]

>>12400280
There's only one scenario, which is that you flipped two coins and you know at least one of the coins is heads.

[Anonymous No.12400306]

>>12397749
which lies are these?
the religious lies, the atheist lies, the political right lies, the political left lies, the economic upper class lies, the economic lower class lies, the economic middle class lies, the politically centrist lies, or some other set of lies?

[Anonymous No.12400319]

>>12398508
inject a poptart into your bloodstream

will it hurt you?

who knows, just take it, screw testing

[Anonymous No.12400380]

>>12400274
Protip: this isn’t Monty hall

[Anonymous No.12400386]

>>12400380
Protip: 1/3

[Anonymous No.12400398]

>>12400292
>>12400298
These anons are right

[Anonymous No.12400401]

>>12399315
> every time the pair contains a head you would be told that it does
>every time
What are you taking about? We are told one is heads. Period. There is no “every time” there is only this time.

[Anonymous No.12400413]

>>12398964
Explain why? Don’t use your wrong notion again. There are two coins, one is heads. Order doesn’t matter. The only option is h,h or h,t. this is the same as saying the only option is h,h or t,h. There are two possible outcomes, 50%

[Anonymous No.12400414]

>>12398780
P(2 Heads | at least one heads) = P(2 heads) / P(at least one heads) = .25/.75 = 1/3

[Anonymous No.12400433]

>>12400292
>There's no "interpretation." All there is is two flips and at least one heads.
At least one is heads can refer to a specific coin or to the combined state of both coins. You can't even answer two simple scenarios. Fucking pathetic.

[Anonymous No.12400440]

>>12400298
Yes, and that's an ambiguous scenario. How was it determined that at least one coin is heads?

[Anonymous No.12400443]

>>12400413
Two possible outcomes don't imply 50/50 probability. Obviously HT is more likely to happen than HH if order doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.12400446]

>>12400398
This anon is wrong.

[Anonymous No.12400458]

>>12400440
>>12400433
Does HH satisfy "at least one is head"?Does HT satisfy "at least one is head"?Does TH satisfy "at least one is head"?Does TT satisfy "at least one is head"?
there's no ambiguity

[Anonymous No.12400461]

>>12400401
I didn't say there are multiple times. I'm talking about a probability, which represents the hypothetical ratio of results over repeated trials.

[Anonymous No.12400472]

>>12400458
>Does HT satisfy "at least one is head"?Does TH satisfy "at least one is head"?
It depends on what specifically is meant by at least one heads. If it refers to a specific coin then only one satisfies that meaning. If not, both satisfy.

[Anonymous No.12400494]

>>12400298
>One is heads
Ok, let’s use your retarded version of logic.
you know the value of coin1: {Coin1-h, coin2-h.} or {Coin1-h, coin2-t}
Or you know the value of coin-2{coin1 head, coin2 h} or {coin1-t,coin2-h}
THIS IS THE SET of possibilities . It’s still 50/50.
You are trying to have it both ways where t,h is not the same as h,t but the coins are still indestent.
This is the wrong model you are using:
{Coin1-h, coin2-h.} {Coin1-h, coin2-t}{coin1-t, coin2-h}
^thats wrong wrong wrong. You don’t get it both ways, where h,t is not same as t,h but you still count them once

[Anonymous No.12400508]

>>12400413
hh
ht
th
tt

the given is that tt is not an option

so

hh
ht
th

1/3

[Anonymous No.12400515]

>>12400386
Protip50%
>>12400433
>>12400443
>>12400458
See here.
>>12400494
And try to *think* outside of the formula you memorized.
Remember this is post roll, you know one is heads, it doesn’t matter if it’s the blue coin or the red coin, h,t is the same as t,h you either count them as one or you count them twice^2 you don’t count h,t and t,h twice you either count the. Twice twice or count them as one

[Anonymous No.12400522]

>>12400508
See
>>12400494
HH
Th(same as ht)
Tt

Tt is not an option

So it’s 50%

[Anonymous No.12400543]

>>12400508
Or your retarded way
Without the tts.:
H1,h2
H2,h1
H1,t2,
H2,t1...

Oh wait you say h1,h2 is the same as h2, h1?
Then
ht=th
Blown the fuck out

[Anonymous No.12400552]

>>12400494
karma is cause and effect
god is an imaginary demon

[Anonymous No.12400556]

>>12400263
>you are applying the pro me wrong
I don't know latin, sorry.
>you are just using a model you learned instead of thinking
What's wrong with my method? The problem clearly calls for two flips. Obviously, the order of the events doesn't affect the outcome of either one, so you can safely flip twice, like the problem tells you to. TT isn't an allowed outcome, so it never happens. It's unnecessary to designate one coin that's always heads -- the problem is simple enough as it is without trying to take a shortcut.

[Anonymous No.12400562]

>>12397749
This is the same thing as "1984 was wrong, huxley got it right with BNW"
Meaning its true but shut the fuck up nobody cares

[Anonymous No.12400567]

>>12400494
Your image is a totally wrong understanding of Karma. Karma isn't the universe rewarding you for acting good, Karma is the notion that the good acts you do make your community better for you.

For instance, if you donate food to farmers whose crop failed, they will make it through the winter. Then, next season, they can help you when your crop fails. It's not divine justice, but rather recognizing that by building a better world, you reap the benefits because you live in that world as well.

[Anonymous No.12400573]

>>12400515
>>12400494
You're assuming "at least one is heads" refers to a specific coin. The problem doesn't clarify that, it's ambiguous. If I look at both coins and tell you at least one is heads, your interpretation immediately fails because it's equally likely I saw any of these three states:

HH
HT
TH

If I only looked at one coin then your interpretation would be correct since it would equally likely I saw either of these two states (with the first coin being the one I saw):

HH
HT

[Anonymous No.12400587]

>>12400522
If you combine ht and th then ht is twice as likely as the others.

[Anonymous No.12400592]

>>12400543
What are the numbers referring to?

[Anonymous No.12400595]

Hh
hH
Ht
hT
2/4 =heads,heads=50%
Here is even cleaner presentation, the first letter is the known. capital letter and small letter are different coins, for the retards hung up on the textbook 101 prahsing “one is heads (but you don’t know which one) so h,t,t,h, hh=1/3.

[Anonymous No.12400599]

>>12400556
Your "error" was already explained here >>12399237

[Anonymous No.12400604]

>>12400543
it doesnt matter if ht and th are the same outcome, they both have their own independent likelihood of happening

this is the most basic of statistics, how do you fuck this up

[Anonymous No.12400611]

>>12400567
I bealive in karma, so I go around all day treating people bad and assume they deserve it.
You are completely wrong, no one from Asia would think of it that way, karma is awarded by the universe, not quid pro qou

[Anonymous No.12400615]

>>12400515
Protip1/3

[Anonymous No.12400619]

>>12400595
>the first letter is the known.
Where does the problem say there is a known coin? If I flip two coins, count the total number of heads, and tell you it's greater than 0, which coin is "known" to be heads? If I got two heads then aren't both coins "known" to be heads simultaneously?

[Anonymous No.12400625]

>>12400543
fucking retard
even with your retard double vision it’s still
“”””
h1h2, h2h1 <<<<<=== two
h1t2 t2h1 h2t1 t1h2 <<<<<=== four
“”””

[Anonymous No.12400638]

>>12400433
Lmao retard
Wipe the pigeon shit out of your ear

[Anonymous No.12400639]

>>12400604
See here
>>12400595
If Th and hT are independent then you also have to count Hh and hH as independent outcomes and you still get 50/50
This is the most basic of statistics.
You
Do
Not
Get
It
Both
Ways
Where
>>12400573
It’s not a specific coin but h,t and t,h are not the same out come. Either it’s like throwing dice and the set is ht or hh or the coin is marked and it’s hH, Hh, Tt, tT, tH Th,

[Anonymous No.12400653]

>>12400619
> coin? If I flip two coins, count the total number of heads, and tell you it's greater than 0
All out comes:
hh
ht
50%

[Anonymous No.12400655]

>>12400639
Fucking retard
see>>12400625
Hh hH
Th tH hT Ht
1/3
fucking ape brain

[Anonymous No.12400659]

>>12400638
You still can't answer two simple questions. Amazing.

[Anonymous No.12400664]

>>12400639
>It’s not a specific coin
Then how are you ordering them according to the "known" coin? Which one is the "known" coin when both are heads?

>but h,t and t,h are not the same out come
It doesn't really matter whether you consider them the same outcome as long as you know the probability of each outcome. It doesn't appear that you do.

[Anonymous No.12400668]

>>12400653
>All out comes:
>hh
>ht
>50%
Incorrect, ht is twice as likely as hh, so it's 1/3.

If I flip two coins then there are four equally likely scenarios:

hh
ht
th
tt

Combining the two mixed results doesn't change the fact that a mixed result is twice as likely as hh.

[Anonymous No.12400680]

>>12400659
I don’t give a fuck about your hallucinations that you want to add to the question, I’m only talking about the actual OP question, retard.

[Anonymous No.12400682]

>>12400664
You are still trying to have it both ways.
> It doesn't really matter whether you consider them the same outcome as long as you know the probability of each outcome
Try it this way. Two fair coins you can not tell apart. You use a big Yahtzee cup to mix them up. You only check the results by lifting the cup looking at both coins at once. There is no order to the coins, do this 1000 times in your simulation. It come out 50%.
Either it’s a single event or it’s not

[Anonymous No.12400689]

>>12400615
Peotip50%

[Anonymous No.12400692]

>>12400680
>I don’t give a fuck about your hallucinations that you want to add to the question, I’m only talking about the actual OP question, retard.
So neither scenario is equivalent to OP's question? How can that be if the problem is not ambiguous?

[Anonymous No.12400696]

>>12400668
But how do you know the order? You have to know the order to say th and ht are independent events. You can’t have it both ways.

[Anonymous No.12400698]

>>12397630
possibilities:
HT
HH
TH
HH
2/4=50%

[Anonymous No.12400712]

>>12400682
>You are still trying to have it both ways.
How? The only one contradicting himself is you, since you think two coins being heads has a single "known" head.

>Two fair coins you can not tell apart.
What does that mean?

>It come out 50%.
No, in that scenario, 1/3 of the time there is at least one heads there will be two heads. Try it yourself if you want.

It doesn't matter whether I can "distinguish" between two coins, there are physically two distinct coins, which makes a mixed result twice as likely as hh.

Now, if you only looked at one coin instead of both, then half the time it's heads both will be heads. That's your interpretation, with a specific coin being "known."

Go ahead and try it yourself.

[Anonymous No.12400717]

now if all the brainlets who were so sure it was 50% could off themselves please, that would help humanity

thanks in advance

[Anonymous No.12400718]

>>12400692
No, neither of your hallucinations are even remotely equivalent to the OP.

[Anonymous No.12400720]

>>12400696
>But how do you know the order?
What order? There are two distinct coins, that's all we need to know.

>You have to know the order to say th and ht are independent events.
No you don't, a coin cannot be both heads and tails in the same event.

[Anonymous No.12400722]

>>12400689
Peotip1/3

[Anonymous No.12400743]

>>12400718
How are they different?

[Anonymous No.12400771]

>>12400743
How are they the same? They add extraneous variables.

[Anonymous No.12400867]

>>12400611
>karma is awarded by the universe, not quid pro qou
not some distant parts of the universe, but the most immediate parts of it, just as he described.

[Anonymous No.12400906]

>>12400771
>How are they the same?
You said how the information was obtained doesn't matter.

>They add extraneous variables.
If they're extraneous then the problem should be the same regardless of whether you include them. Which is it?

The fact is the problem is ambiguous since it doesn't tell you how the information was obtained. If at least one heads refers to a specific coin then you get a diffrent answer than if it doesn't refer to a specific coin. Get over it, retard.

[Anonymous No.12400934]

>>12400906
>the information was obtained
Lmfao retard, no one cares how the information was obtained. It has nothing to do with the OP question.
Reread the screenplay where the bird shits in your face.

[Anonymous No.12400944]

>>12400934
>Lmfao retard, no one cares how the information was obtained.
Those who want to answer the question do. Go ahead and try answering the question.

[Anonymous No.12400965]

>>12400944
No, those who want to answer the question read the question and answer it.
The question is you flip 2 coins and at least 1 is heads.
Anything else is you hallucinating new random variables into the question.

[Anonymous No.12400978]

>ITT: humor thread for OP because he's laughing at you faggots arguing about an ambiguously asked question

[Anonymous No.12400999]

>>12400965
So you can't answer the question?

Either how the infotainment was obtained is irrelevant and doesn't change the question, or it is relevant and the question is ambiguous. Which one is it?

[Anonymous No.12401006]

>>12400978
no ambiguity at all, and i’m laughing AT you, with myself, and don’t care about op other than the text

[Anonymous No.12401022]

>>12400999
there is no random new information to be obtained. the question is the question

[Anonymous No.12401023]

>>12396766
I have no reason to flip two coins knowing that one is definitely heads, so I only flip one coin and the probability is 50/50.
You guys keep thinking of it in terms of multiple flips but only one is necessary. One coin is heads and the other flips.
Also, unless your computer model corrects based on weight distribution in the coin, it won’t create accurate results.

[Anonymous No.12401045]

>>12401022
How is the meaning of "at least one is heads" random information? You can't answer the question or even make an argument that makes sense. Retard, you lose.

[Anonymous No.12401050]

>>12401023
>I have no reason to flip two coins
sorry go make your own thread retard

[Anonymous No.12401054]

>>12401023
>I have no reason to flip two coins knowing that one is definitely heads,
You don't know that "at least one is heads" refers to a specific coin. If both are heads which coin is the one "known" to be heads?

[Anonymous No.12401061]

>>12401045
it’s not, you’re just a retard
at least 1 is heads literally means at least 1 is heads
there’s no ambiguity at all

[Anonymous No.12401092]

>>12398502
move your ass there then

[Anonymous No.12401109]

>>12401006
Are you trolling or is your IQ really that low? Either way, good riddance. OP is surely thankful for this free entertainment.

[Anonymous No.12401116]

>>12401109
Lol please describe more retard shit I love it

[Anonymous No.12401259]

>>12400698
>possibilities
>HH
>HH
Are you being retarded on purpose?

[Anonymous No.12401461]

plausible chimp study
https://youtu.be/vm1U5E44W90?t=61

[Anonymous No.12401620]

>>12398250
Ok imma make this real easy for your mentally deprived ass.
Baby steps.
The outcome for each coin is independant.
We assume the coins are balanced and therefore we have 50% for each side of a coin.
Let's deal with one coin first and then the second.
First coin.
50% chance it's tails, 50% chance it's heads.
Those probabilities also cover the total set of all following events, i.e. 50% of the following outcomes each.
The second coin also has 50% chance of landing on either side
Given the first coin is tails, the second coin is either 50% tails, 50% heads.
Same thing if the first coin is heads.
Regarding the overall probability without any given condition, the probabilities for each coin are multiplied.
First coin is tails and second coin is tails
(50% * 50%) = 25%
First coin is tails and second coin is heads
(50% * 50%) = 25%
First coin is heads and second coin is tails
(50% * 50%) = 25%
First coin is heads and second coin is heads
(50% * 50%) = 25%
Probability of two tails = 25%
Probability of two heads = 25%
Probability of one heads one tails = 25% + 25% = 50%
Probability of at least one heads? = 25% + 25% + 25% = 75%
Probability of two heads given at least one heads? = 25% / 75% = 1/3

[Anonymous No.12401652]

>>12401061
>at least 1 is heads literally means at least 1 is heads
Only looking at one coin and seeing it's heads -> at least one is heads

Looking at both coins and seeing the number of heads is greater than zero -> at least one is heads

Since these both lead to the information "at least one is heads" yet yield different probabilities, the problem is ambiguous. You lose.

[Anonymous No.12401694]

>>12401620
Are you trying to violate casualty?
If they are independent events. If you know when is heads, the other fair coin is 50%/50% unless the first coin has some magical effect on the outcome of the second coin, but then they would not be independent.
You are trying to have it both ways. Having them be independent but also change the odds based on the other. Remember this is not Monty hall, no decision is made, so to speck.
> Probability of two heads given at least one heads?
But those are independent outcomes. The probability is, as you said, 25% for two heads. It remains so regardless if you know one is head, it’s always 25% so it’s actually 25%/50% =1/2.
Ok imma make this real easy for your mentally deprived ass.
I have two flipped coins, under my left and right hand.
I tell you at least one is heads. Remember the coins are flipped, nothing changes this is a posterior probability not prior probability
https://www.statisticshowto.com/posterior-distribution-probability/
I could have looked at my left hand or my right hand. In fact I looked at both. It’s slightly wrong to formulate as first second, they are not sequential events.
Left coin is tails and right coin is heads
(50% * 50%) = 25%
Left coin is heads and right coin is tails
(50% * 50%) = 25%
Right coin is heads and left coin is heads.
50% * 50%) = 25%
Seems like it’s 1/3 right? Except....
If I know one is heads, the possibly is actually 100%.
So the real numbers are
Left 100%*right 25%=25%
Left 25%*right100%=25%
25%+25%=50%
Btfo

[Anonymous No.12401760]

>>12401694
>If you know when is heads, the other fair coin is 50%/50%
What is the "other coin" when both are heads?

[Anonymous No.12401773]

>>12401694
>If I know one is heads, the possibly is actually 100%
LOL, 50% is the prior probability. Why are you changing it to a posterior probability? You have no clue what you're doing. The only thing that happens to the prior probabilities is that they increase proportionally after you are given the info that at least one is heads. So 25% increases to 33%.

[Anonymous No.12401800]

>>12396766
If the probability of two coins both coming up heads is 1/4 then why does being told one of them came up heads suddenly change the probability to 1/3. If /sci/ was actually smart they'd actually have something to say about stupid questions like OPs instead of just saying "oh its 1/3 ya dumb dumb"

[Anonymous No.12402001]

>>12396766
For the guy who keeps saying it's 50%

Don't confuse an independent flip as being mutually exclusive to other coin flips to predict the outcome of a scenario!

Think about it..... Flipping two fair coins can either be
HH, HT, TH, or TT
That's 4 separate outcomes.

The question states:
>at least one is HEADS
OK, so 3 out of the 4 possible outcomes includes at least one heads:
HH, HT or TH

Now, we are asked:
>What is the probability that both are heads?
Obviously, that is scenario HH.

Therefore, HH is one of the three ( HH, HT or TH) possible outcomes.

1/3

[Anonymous No.12402027]

>>12396799
when will brainlets finally realise that everything is in fact 50/50?

[Anonymous No.12402038]

I flip one thousand coins and they all turn out to be heads. Not improbable at all, right?
So what's the probability my 1001st coin will be heads again? Hint: it's not 50/50

[Anonymous No.12402041]

true story

me and my wife performed an experiment wherein I attempted to divine the number telepathically

we memorized a list of 20 tag forms to make this easier

I successfully guessed my first two attempts correctly

statistically those odds please?

[Anonymous No.12402052]

>>12402038
>So what's the probability my 1001st coin will be heads again?
After you've already flipped one thousand times? Then it would be 50% unless you're using a trick coin.

[Anonymous No.12402211]

>>12402052

[Anonymous No.12402369]

>>12401694
>Having them be independent but also change the odds based on the other.
No problem here. Independance and conditional probability are in no way incompatible.
>It’s slightly wrong to formulate as first second, they are not sequential events.
Absolutely correct, only the order we give them is only to better situate ourselves in our calculations.
>If I know one is heads, the possibly is actually 100%.
take your fucking pills

you don't which one is heads, and this is not affecting the toss in any way.
The point of the problem is to find the set of events that have 2 heads in the set of events that have 1 heads. 1/4 / 3/4 = 1/3

[Anonymous No.12402424]

>>12398229
Why exactly do engineering majors even learn about limits?
It would be like a math major learning about circuits.

[Anonymous No.12402429]

>>12400611
>no one from Asia would think of it that way
Citation needed.
Especially considering the Chinese government is secular and based on collectivism.

[Anonymous No.12402438]

>>12401694
>>12398250
The gods of empirical evidence have spoken.
I have treated 3 different cases : HH, TT and (HT/TH)
I made it a point to treat HT and TH as the same event.
See pic related.
First number is 2 tails. Approaches 25%.
Second number is one of each. Approaches 50%.
Third number is 2 heads. Approaches 25%.

Probability of at least one heads = 50% + 25% = 75%
Probability of two heads if we know there is at least one = 25% / 75% = 1/3

[Anonymous No.12402443]

>>12402038
Unusual? Maybe.
Improbable? No.

[Anonymous No.12402562]

>>12402038
4.666318e-302

[Anonymous No.12402563]

>>12402438
Can you model it so the the 1/3 comes out of the problem instead of the post?

[Anonymous No.12402692]

>>12399154
macroscopically quantum effects can still occur, but the probabilities decay exponentially in orders of h, so practically you are correct.

[Anonymous No.12402733]

>>12400472
I'm with the other retard here. At least one coins means coin A or coin B or coin A and coin B. This is the set of outcomes non-ambiguously determined from the information available.

A single coin is not explicitly specified to be heads. That would make the probability 50%, but I can't even think of a way to phrase the problem to make it ambiguous.

[Anonymous No.12402742]

>>12402438
> that much effort
Holy shit this board is brain dead.

[Anonymous No.12402750]

>>12396766
individually its 50% . each instance is separate and does not affect the other statistically. however in reality flipping 10 the odds of them all being heads is not the same as for 1 because when compared to reality it is far less likely to be all 10 heads

so you have to count each instance as if it was in series and its the odds of flipping 1 coin 2 times and it being heads both times to ball park the right answer and thus it is not 50%

im not a mathamagician so i cant tell you what fraction it is but i would take a stab in the dark and say its close to 30%

[Anonymous No.12402752]

>>12402733
They are right under thier frame. Basically they are using the textbook “what are the odds of flipping two heads in a row” the more times you flip the next flip is less likely to be heads, getting 1000 heads in a row is very unlikely. Two heads in row is 25%.
The problem is this is the gamblers fallacy
under the normal person non textbook frame
>While a run of five heads has a probability of 1/32 = 0.03125 (a little over 3%), the misunderstanding lies in not realizing that this is the case only before the first coin is tossed. After the first four tosses, the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are at that point equal to 1 (100%).
THIS IS WHERE THE ANUBGULY ENTERS the problem. The next flip is 50%. If this wasn’t true you could break the bank at any roulette table.
>>12402438
Then they compound their error by thinking it’s Monty hall problem and get 1/3.

[Anonymous No.12402763]

>>12402750
>so you have to count each instance as if it was in series
Nah. That’s the gamblers fallacy. If you know one is heads the run of heads probability doesn’t apply.
See
>>12402752

[Anonymous No.12402776]

>>12402752
you do agree that the OP problem is stated unanubgulisly tho, right?

[Anonymous No.12402781]

how can "at least one is head" mean something different than {HT,TH}?

[Anonymous No.12402783]

>>12402781
{HT,TH,HH}, my bad

[Anonymous No.12402787]

>>12402776
I consider it fairly unambiguous that the answer is not 1/3. It’s slightly ambiguous if the answer is 50% or 25%

[Anonymous No.12402792]

Such a scenario is retarded, why wouldn't both be tails?

[Anonymous No.12402809]

hey faggots, I have a question for you. imagine that you're reading a math book and you encounter this statement:

"let [math]v \in \mathbb{R}^2[/math], such that at least one coordinate is non-zero."

are you going to think it's ambiguous? are you going to think "maybe the author is looking only at the first coordinate"?

[Anonymous No.12402816]

>>12402783
The thread is looping again. ht is the same as th.
Except that’s a troll
The chance one is heads is 100%
Probability is defined as the number of favourable outcomes devided by the total number of outcomes.
The probability of two heads in a row is 1/2*1/2 25%.
If event A and event B have to happen together, we multiply individual probabilities.1/2*1/2 equal 25%
But the question is not asking that.
If either can occur, the individual probabilities are added 25%+25%
But the question is not asking that.
we know one is heads, so it’s 1(100%) *1/2 if you state it something like this way “the coins are already flipped on the other side of a wall, your friend has found one heads, what are the odds the other is heads”

[Anonymous No.12402819]

>>12402809
>faggots
Why the homophobia
v={a,b} where a and/or b is not 0

[Anonymous No.12402820]

>>12397558
>>12397363
>>12397560
>>12397565
The question never states you know which one of the two is heads. It doesn't say the first or second coin is heads, just that one of them is, so this could be either the first or the second. Since it never says you check one of them yourself, just that you flip them, think of it as giving the coins to someone else to check after you have flipped them. They check both and the tell you whether at least one of them is heads. If you check it yourself the information you base your estimate on is revealed differently allowing you to narrow it down.

Of the four possible outcomes, three contain at least one H. So when the coins are flipped and you are informed that there is at least one H you are still left with three possible combinations, of which one one is HH. So you can only rule out one since you don't know which of the HT or TH combinations to rule out, but if you knew if the first or second coin specifically is H you can rule out one of those in addition to TT.

Hence, based on the information you have, there is a one in three chance of HH if you know at least one is H without knowing which one is H.

[Anonymous No.12402825]

>>12402781
>>12402783
how can "at least one is head" mean something different than One is heads and the other is either heads or tails 1/2, 50%?

[Anonymous No.12402826]

>>12402816
>Probability is defined as the number of favourable outcomes devided by the total number of outcomes.
NO, that's true only if all outcomes have the same likelihood of happening. look at this:

what's the probability that a randomly picked day is Sunday? well, there are two possible outcomes: either it's Sunday or it isn't Sunday. so we have two possible outcomes and only one is favorable, therefore probability is 1/2.

obviously this is not true. we do have only two outcomes (if that's how you want to approach the problem), but they different weights. one is 6/7 and other is 1/7.

if you want to work with unordered coin tosses, that's fine, but HT = TH has different probability of happening than HH or TH. namely P(HT) = 1/2 and P(HH) = P(TT) = 1/4.

[Anonymous No.12402833]

>>12402820
Let me blow your mind. There is no “first or second coin” h,t is the same as t,h. The first coin is whichever coin you spot first. They have to be considered independent. So the first coin is 1/2 odds of heads and the second coin is 1/2 odds of heads.
>They check both and the tell you whether at least one of them is heads. If you check it yourself the information you base your estimate on is revealed differently allowing you to narrow it down.
Wat? Why is it different? If it’s different if I check it does it suddenly change odds if I the ask a third person?

[Anonymous No.12402835]

>>12402826
> what's the probability that a randomly picked day is Sunday? well, there are two possible outcomes: either it's Sunday or it isn't Sunday
Are you being retarded on purpose? You better not be, there are 7 possible outcomes (days of the week) it’s 1/7. Your answer is wordplay.

[Anonymous No.12402838]

>>12402835
all right, let's approach this from a different angle. answer this question:

you toss two coins. what's the probability of getting both heads?

[Anonymous No.12402839]

>>12402833
first coin is 1/2 odds of heads and the second coin is 1/2 odds of heads.
Except we know one is heads. So the first coin odds is 1 and the second coin is 1/2. Orrrrr the first coin is 1/2 and the second coin is 1

[Anonymous No.12402841]

>>12402838
25%
If they are fair coins

[Anonymous No.12402842]

>>12402835
do you know what a sigma algebra is?

[Anonymous No.12402844]

>>12402841
but there are three outcomes: HH, TH, TT. how come the probability is not 1/3?

[Anonymous No.12402850]

>>12402825
>>12402833
You get HH, HT, TH and TT. The mistake people make is thinking that knowing whether one of the coins is H means they know which of the two is H, but the question never states you can know which one H since it doesn't say you first check one coin yourself to see if it is H or not.

If you check it yourself you can know Hx or xH and you can rule out HT or TH, but you don't so you just know H. You don't get a sequential revelation of which coin is H since the question only states you are informed that one of the is H, it doesn't ask after the first coin is confirmed H what is the chance that the second is H. Since the only difference between HT and TH is the sequential order, you can't rule one or the other out with incorrect sequential assumptions.

[Anonymous No.12402856]

>>12402844
Don't forget HT.

[Anonymous No.12402859]

>>12402844
As you can see from the picture, the probability of getting one head and one tail on the toss of two coins is 0.5. There are two different ways that this can happen. The first coin can come up heads and the second coin can come up tails, or the first coin can come up tails and the second coin can come up heads. In any single trial, it is not possible for both of these outcomes to occur, so these are mutually exclusive.
There are four possible mutually exclusive outcomes on the toss of two coins as shown, each with a probability of 0.25. The sum of the probability of two of these outcomes (heads, tails or tails, heads) is 0.25 + 0.25 or 0.5.
....
There is only one way to get hh, the chance of this is .25 except we know one is heads....what if they were both nickels...and we knew one is heads...

[Anonymous No.12402864]

>>12396766
1/3

[Anonymous No.12402866]

If you are told the penny is heads or if you are told the nickel is heads the odds are 50% both are heads. If you are just told “one is heads. “ the odds are 1/3”

[Anonymous No.12402884]

>>12402835
Nope, that's how probability works. >>12402816
>number of favourable outcomes devided by the total number of outcomes.
Possible outcomes: HT, TH, HH
Favorable: HH
1/3

[Anonymous No.12402903]

>>12402884
What’s the probability that one is tails if at least one is heads?

[Anonymous No.12402919]

>>12402903
>What’s the probability that one is tails if at least one is heads?
Naive solution:
Possible: HH, HT, TH
Favorable: HT, TH
2/3

More elaborated solution using conditional probability:

P(one tail|one head) =
P(one tail and one head) / P(one head) =
P(TH, HT) / P(HT, TH, HH) =
(2/4) / (3/4) = 2/3

Surprising right?

[Anonymous No.12402922]

>>12402884
>>12402826
Okay, I have a serious question.
You have 4 identical fair dice 10-sided numbered 0-9. What are the odds of rolling 8888. Is this different than the odds of rolling 1234?
You roll them by throwing them against the wall all at once

[Anonymous No.12402933]

>>12397555
not sure, if this bait or just retarded

[Anonymous No.12402939]

Anyone got that image with the flies/gnats and the scale?

[Anonymous No.12402951]

>>12402922
Does "1234" mean one dice is 1, one dice is 2 etc. but it's not important which dice?

[Anonymous No.12402952]

You have 4 identical fair dice 10-sided, the faces numbered 0-9. What are the odds of rolling 8888. Is this different than the odds of rolling 1234?
You roll them by throwing them against the wall all at once.
Part 2
What are the odds that you rolled 8888 if two dice are 88.
Part three.
Instead of rolling at once, you roll one after another. The first two are 88, what are the odds the end will be 8888. Why is this answer different than part two?
Extra credit.
Rolling all at once, you know two dice are 12, what are the odds you rolled 1234.

[Anonymous No.12402965]

>>12402951
You take a gentle ruler and press them against the wall and press them together and read them left to right.
Extra credit. The dice are lettered a,b,c,d and order them that way.
Why is this different than a lottery balls pulled sequentially. I.e. why are the odds of the winning lottery being 8888 lower than a dice game with d10 being 8888

[Anonymous No.12402970]

>>12402965
Oh and just state your answers in the general form of n^x or whatever, the numbers are too big and dumb for this medium

[Anonymous No.12402978]

>>12401800
Because that information decreases the chance of two tails to 0 and therefore increases the chance of the other options proportionally. Ever heard of conditional probability?

[Anonymous No.12402980]

>>12402001
You're assuming "at least one is heads" doesn't refer to a specific coin. It's ambiguous.

[Anonymous No.12402992]

>>12402733
>At least one coins means coin A or coin B or coin A and coin B.
Yeah, that's one interpretation. If I only looked at one coin and it's heads then I could tell you "at least one is heads" and your interpretation would be wrong.

>A single coin is not explicitly specified to be heads.
Yeah, because it's ambiguous.

[Anonymous No.12403003]

>>12402752
>the more times you flip the next flip is less likely to be heads
No, that's the gambler's fallacy. Flips are independent.

Two heads in a row being 25% is because each flip is 50% and 50%*50% = 25%. The individual flips are always 50%.

[Anonymous No.12403010]

>>12402809
There is no question attached that makes that statement ambiguous. Either interpretation is just as informative as the statement itself. It's only when two interpretations lead to different answers that ambiguity becomes a problem.

[Anonymous No.12403013]

>>12396766
This is known as the MacGregor paradox, people intuitively but incorrectly assume that the answer is 50%, when it is actually 66.7%

[Anonymous No.12403021]

TOPKEK good thread. We have
>Bayesianist vs frequentists
>axiom of choice vs no axiom of choice
>knowledge vs data
>linguists vs interpretists
It's really fucking funny seeing you guys seethe so hard over something clearly ambiguous where nobody is wrong.

[Anonymous No.12403039]

>>12403003
>>the more times you flip the next flip is less likely to be heads
>No,
> Two heads in a row being 25%
???????????
It’s funny you made the same linguistic mistake I did
Once the first flip happens it resolves to 1. So the second flip being heads is 50% Before the first flip happens the second flip is 25% of being heads
But!! can you can also say the second flip is 25% even if they both happened but you do not know the result of the first flip yet? This part is sort of a paradox because how can the odds change just by be being /told/ a post hoc result. Yet they do

[Anonymous No.12403044]

>

[Anonymous No.12403046]

>>12403021
You, I like you.

[Anonymous No.12403054]

>>12397719
Kek.

[Anonymous No.12403059]

>>12403039
>It’s funny you made the same linguistic mistake I did
No I didn't. Two heads in a row being 25% means each flip has a 50% chance of being heads.

>Once the first flip happens it resolves to 1.
You are talking about a posterior probability after seeing the result while I'm talking about the prior probability. If you flip both coins but don't look at the result, the chance of two heads is still 25%.

>Before the first flip happens the second flip is 25% of being heads
No. Each flip is 50%.

You're just spouting gibberish at this point. Learn basic probability theory.

[Anonymous No.12403071]

To the guys saying 50% imagine you closed your eyes and flipped two coins. Someone watches and tells you that one is heads therefore the chance that the other is heads is 1/3.

[Anonymous No.12403073]

>>12403059
>>Before the first flip happens the second flip is 25% of being heads
>No. Each flip is 50%.
So ops answer is 50% after all?

[Anonymous No.12403074]

>>12397836
I'm enlightened

It is the promised land of gentoo

[Anonymous No.12403080]

>>12403073
It depends on your interpretation of "at least one is heads"

[Anonymous No.12403083]

>>12399220
Yes, and every monty hall is an array of numbers.

[Anonymous No.12403087]

>>12401652
You aren’t “looking” at any coins, retard. That’s an extraneous retard variable you keep hallucinating about because you’re a retarded schizo. It has nothing to do with OP

[Anonymous No.12403091]

>>12403071
If one is know to be heads, the odds are 1*.50=50% as the odds one coins is Heads is 100%(1) and the odds the other coins is heads is 1/2.

[Anonymous No.12403092]

>>12403021
>ambiguous
nothing about the question is ambiguous in any way, you schizo freak

[Anonymous No.12403106]

>>12403091
the odds that you had both a rat and a lit cigarette up your asshole when you typed that retarded shit is 100%

[Anonymous No.12403109]

>>12403092
Of course, my dear. Didn't mean to upset you. Truth is a harsh mistress in the face of the unseeing.

[Anonymous No.12403114]

>>12396766
B A Y E S I A N
A
Y
E
S
I
A
N

[Anonymous No.12403119]

>>12402992
>If I only looked at one coin and it's heads
This is not what the problem gives you.

[Anonymous No.12403124]

>>12403059
Nope.
P1: the odds of two head flips is 25%
Now, if the first flip is heads the odds of two head flips is always p1. So the second head flip odds being heads has to lower to keep p1 true. If the seconds flip is also 1/2 being heads than p1 doesn’t hold.

[Anonymous No.12403134]

>>12403114
Doesn’t apply
o
e
s
‘
t
a
p
p
l
y.
You are falling for the gamblers fallacy

[Anonymous No.12403137]

>>12403087
This

[Anonymous No.12403139]

>>12403137
>>12403087
Explain how you know one is heads if you are not looking at them

[Anonymous No.12403142]

>>12402859
It's 1/3 lol

[Anonymous No.12403145]

>>12403139
top kek

[Anonymous No.12403151]

>>12403109
Lmfao name one “ambiguity” that’s actually in the question and not some schizo hallucination

[Anonymous No.12403208]

>>12403139
I already gave you a movie to appease your worm brain yesterday.
>>12400292

[Anonymous No.12403242]

>>12402742
>effort
It took the guy 1 minute or less to code that you retard

[Anonymous No.12403275]

>>12403139
if you start asking question about how were the information obtained, you can make literally any probability question ambiguous

[Anonymous No.12403313]

>>12403087
>You aren’t “looking” at any coins, retard.
I didn't say you are, I said two methods of obtaining the information given to you lead to different results.

>That’s an extraneous retard variable
If it's actually extraneous then it should affect the answer, but it does. You won't even explain how you think the problem should be answered, so you don't even believe what you're saying. You lose.

[Anonymous No.12403341]

>>12402742
>effort
>effort
>effort
15 lines including reddit spacing, this is some hello world level of coding, took me 2 minutes

>>12402752
>Basically they are using the textbook “what are the odds of flipping two heads in a row”
This is not about consecutive flips.
The outcome of one coin does not affect the other.
>Then they compound their error by thinking it’s Monty hall problem
You can clearly see I didn't do any of that, I wrote a very simple code to show that I'm treating the coins separately.
Think of it like this.
Let S be the set of all possible outcomes.
TT the set of outcomes where both coins happen to land on tails.
HH the set of outcomes where both coins happen to land on heads.
HT the set of outcomes where one coin lands on tails and the other lands on heads.
As shown in >>12402438 the events don't share the same probability, with HT coming half of the time.
HH has a probability of 1/4.
Probability at least one coin lands on heads: HT + HH = 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4.
Probability both coins land on heads given that at least one does;
i.e. the fraction of events HH inside the set of events HT U HH
1/4 / 3/4 =1/3.

[Anonymous No.12403362]

>>12402563
Here you go senpai

100 000 000 iterations don't lie.
Brainlets need to take their pills

[Anonymous No.12403373]

>>12403119
>This is not what the problem gives you.
Yes, that's my point. It's ambiguous.

[Anonymous No.12403374]

>>12403313
The “method of obtaining information” is that you read the question, retard. All your schizo shit about the imaginary theater in your head has nothing at all to do with the OP question.

[Anonymous No.12403379]

>>12403373
There is no ambiguity whatsoever, you ape brained schizo.

[Anonymous No.12403383]

>>12398250
>>12401694
consider taking a basic probability course. you'll be very very surprised.

[Anonymous No.12403396]

>>12403124
>Now, if the first flip is heads the odds of two head flips is always p1.
Non sequitur.

>So the second head flip odds being heads has to lower to keep p1 true.
No, it's 50%.

>If the seconds flip is also 1/2 being heads than p1 doesn’t hold.
It does, because p1 is a prior probability. It isn't affected by looking at the coins.

It's very simple: if "at least one is heads" refers to a specific coin then the answer is 1/2. If it refers to the combined state of both coins then the answer is 1/3. Just stop posting.

[Anonymous No.12403397]

>>12402965
>Why is this different than a lottery balls pulled sequentially.
lottery balls are ordered, dices aren't (at least the way you phrased the problem)

[Anonymous No.12403399]

>>12403134
>probability theory doesn't apply to a probability question

[Anonymous No.12403408]

>>12403151
"At least one is heads" either refers to a specific coinor both coins.

[Anonymous No.12403413]

>>12403275
Not really. Try Bertrand's box.

[Anonymous No.12403416]

>>12403362
This assumes "at least one is heads" doesn't refer to a specific coin.

[Anonymous No.12403420]

>>12403408
The fuck are you rambling on about?
There are 2 flips and at least 1 heads. That’s it.

[Anonymous No.12403423]

>>12403416
Lmfao your words don’t even make sense, schizo.

[Anonymous No.12403426]

>>12396793
P(two heads | one head) = P(two heads intercept one head) / P(one head)

=(1/4) / (3/4) = 1/3

[Anonymous No.12403432]

>>12403416
Yes. At least one is heads.
"At least one is heads" /= "One specific coin is heads"

[Anonymous No.12403434]

>>12403374
>The “method of obtaining information” is that you read the question, retard.
No, that's the method of you obtaining information, not how that information was obtained from the coin flips. Don't be obtuse, it just makes you look stupid.

You won't even explain how you think the problem should be answered, so you don't even believe what you're saying. You lose.

[Anonymous No.12403444]

>>12403379
So the problem tells you whether "at least one is heads" refers to a specific coin or to both coins? Please show me where it does that.

[Anonymous No.12403448]

>>12403420
"At least one is heads" either refers to a specific coin or both coins.

[Anonymous No.12403455]

>>12403423
What doesn't make sense? I've explained it several times and you've completely failed to respond every time.

[Anonymous No.12403457]

>>12403444
Where in "at least one" do you see ambiguity?
Two coins. At least one.
What the fuck is so hard to understand

[Anonymous No.12403462]

>>12403444
it does that by the literal meaning of "at least one is head"

in my world, clearly
the event HT satisfies "at least one is head"
the event TH satisfies "at least one is head"
the event HH satisfies "at least one is head"
the event TT doesn't satisfy "at least one is head"

[Anonymous No.12403471]

>>12403432
>"At least one is heads" /= "One specific coin is heads"
One specific coin is heads -> At least one is heads
The total number of heads is greater than 0 -> At least one is heads

How do you tell which one it's referring to?

[Anonymous No.12403474]

>>12403457
>Where in "at least one" do you see ambiguity?
I've already explained it several times. Refer back to my posts if you need to. Don't be an obtuse retard.

[Anonymous No.12403475]

>>12403434
There is no other “method of obtaining information” you sorry ass plop of dog shit.
The question says 2 flips, at least 1 heads. Your detective novel has nothing to do with the question, retard.

[Anonymous No.12403479]

>>12403471
Both.
It refers to whatever satisfies the condition.

[Anonymous No.12403485]

>>12403471
By learning ENGLISH you dumb motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.12403487]

>>12403485
kek

[Anonymous No.12403501]

>>12403462
>it does that by the literal meaning of "at least one is head"
The literal meaning can be interpreted either way. Both methods lead to the exact same literal meaning.

>the event HT satisfies "at least one is head"
>the event TH satisfies "at least one is head"
Not if "at least one is head" refers to a specific coin.

For example, if I only look at one coin and tell you "at least one is heads," your interpretation fails. Because you assumed the phrase I used meant one thing when it meant something else. This isnot due tome using the phrase incorrectly, it's due to inherent ambiguity. Two diffrent methods of obtaining information lead to the same result. In other words, a non-injective relationship that doesn't let you determine the method from the result. Since the method changes the answer, the problem cannot be answered.

[Anonymous No.12403502]

>>12397739
Who tf calls it Big-Bang-Theorie in German?

[Anonymous No.12403512]

>>12403501
>For example, if I only look at one coin and tell you "at least one is heads," your interpretation fails.
then you've given me a different information than you wanted to, lmao

[Anonymous No.12403516]

>>12403479
>Both.
Then the problem is ambiguous. Those lead to different answers.

[Anonymous No.12403520]

>>12403475
>There is no other “method of obtaining information”
There is. Cry more.

[Anonymous No.12403521]

>>12403501
>Not if "at least one is head" refers to a specific coin.
>not if the english sentence "at least one is head" means something different than "at least one is head"

[Anonymous No.12403524]

>>12403485
You can't answer the question. You know you're wrong. You lose.

[Anonymous No.12403528]

>>12403512
>then you've given me a different information than you wanted to, lmao
How? All I told you is at least one is heads. Exactly the same as the problem. Yet your interpretation fails because the information in the problem is not sufficient to answer it.

[Anonymous No.12403530]

>>12403501
>Not if "at least one is head" refers to a specific coin.
>At least one coin in one
lmao what

"At least one coin"
"At least"
It's implicit that it means at least one in the total set of coins.
This is a basic conditional probability problem.

[Anonymous No.12403537]

>>12403501
Would you happen to be that anti-box dude?

[Anonymous No.12403542]

>>12403528
you wanted to tell me that the sample space is {HT,HH}. but you've told me that the sample space is {TH,HT,HH}. because that's what the english phrase "at least one is heads" means.

[Anonymous No.12403546]

>>12403516
>Those lead to different answers.
lmao
One coin is heads ⊂ Total number of heads > 0
One coin is heads ∩ Total number of heads > 0 = Total number of heads > 0

[Anonymous No.12403562]

>>12398780
This happened to me years ago with the Monty Hall thing. I used to be a staunch idiot but simulations opened my eyes, now I look down on the retards than can't grasp it. Congrats on your ascension brother; you're gonna discover more stuff like this if you keep programming simulations about the problems. Good luck.

[Anonymous No.12403567]

>>12403521
So if I only look at one coin and see it's heads, it's not proper English for me to say "at least one is heads?" No, it has nothing to do with indirect language, it's an ambiguous statement.

[Anonymous No.12403574]

>>12403142
LMFAOSHMSFOAIDMT

[Anonymous No.12403576]

>>12403530
>At least one coin in one
Who are you quoting?

>It's implicit that it means at least one in the total set of coins.
Yes, and a specific coin is one coin in the total set of coins. Keep spinning your wheels.

[Anonymous No.12403580]

>>12403537
No.

[Anonymous No.12403584]

>>12403542
>you wanted to tell me that the sample space is {HT,HH}. but you've told me that the sample space is {TH,HT,HH}.
It can be either depending on what the order of the coins mean.

>because that's what the english phrase "at least one is heads" means.
Then please explain how the phrase i used was incorrect in the scenario I gave you. It was obviously correct, you just don't like the answer.

[Anonymous No.12403597]

>>12403546
>One coin is heads
This is still ambiguous and not what I said.

Looking at only one coin and seeing heads -> one coin is heads

Looking at both and seeing heads -> one coin is heads

I don't understand why you insist on obfuscating this simple fact.

[Anonymous No.12403652]

>>12403584
your scenario (which is by the way completely irrelevant, there's no scenario and no obtaining information. you know what you've been given, period.) is literally "what if my friend wants to tell me that first coin was heads but instead he tells me that either first coin is head or second one is head"

[Anonymous No.12403657]

>>12403597
your mistake is that even if a statement is true for all elements in a sample space, it doesn't mean that the statement is a good description of the sample space. "one coin is heads" is true also in {HH}, why don't you claim 1 is a possible non-retarded answer to the question?

[Anonymous No.12403659]

>>12403597
>Looking at only one coin and seeing heads -> one coin is heads
>Looking at both and seeing heads -> one coin is heads
Yes. Both satisfy the condition of "at least one is heads".
For the condition to be true, we need any event that satisfies its requirements.
Therefore, the total set of "at least one is heads" is the union of all events that satisfy its requirements.

[Anonymous No.12403690]

>>12403652
>your scenario (which is by the way completely irrelevant, there's no scenario and no obtaining information. you know what you've been given, period.)
If it's irrelevant, how does it change the answer???

>is literally "what if my friend wants to tell me that first coin was heads but instead he tells me that either first coin is head or second one is head"
No it's not.

[Anonymous No.12403711]

>>12403657
>your mistake is that even if a statement is true for all elements in a sample space, it doesn't mean that the statement is a good description of the sample space.
I don't know what you mean by good. Perhaps you mean that the description would be given to you every time it could be applied, but that's just an assumption not in the problem.

>"one coin is heads" is true also in {HH}, why don't you claim 1 is a possible non-retarded answer to the question?
Where did I claim otherwise?

[Anonymous No.12403727]

>>12403659
>For the condition to be true, we need any event that satisfies its requirements.
I just gave you an example in which the condition is true but not under any event from which the condition could be used as a description. If I didn't see the second coin then at least one coin could be heads without me knowing, and then I wouldn't be able to give you that information. The condition is not simply "at least one coin is heads" it's "you are given the information at least one coin is heads."

[Anonymous No.12403734]

>>12403520
>>12403524
No one cares about your schizo detective novel, retard.
All that matters is the info in the OP question, which is unambiguously 2 flips, at least 1 heads.
All the other shit you're hallucinating about is a different question.

[Anonymous No.12403739]

>>12403727
>The condition is not simply "at least one coin is heads" it's "you are given the information at least one coin is heads."
oh my, so many unjustified assumptions

[Anonymous No.12403744]

>>12403734
>No one cares about your schizo detective novel, retard.
Then answer the question. Oh you can't. LMAO.

[Anonymous No.12403748]

>>12403739
Like what?

[Anonymous No.12403749]

>>12403727
no you retard, if the problem says "at least onc coin is heads", it doesn't mean "you are given the information at least one coin is heads", it means "at least one coin is heads". do you know how I know? because the problem literally says "at least one coin is heads" instead of "you are given the information at least one coin is heads".

[Anonymous No.12403750]

>>12403690
>how does it change the answer???
By changing the question, you fucking worm brained buffoon.
No one gives a fuck about your new question except you.

[Anonymous No.12403754]

>>12403744
What question, retard schizo?

[Anonymous No.12403757]

>>12403690
>how does it change the answer???
it doesn't

[Anonymous No.12403764]

>>12403749
>no you retard, if the problem says "at least onc coin is heads", it doesn't mean "you are given the information at least one coin is heads", it means "at least one coin is heads".
So you aren't given that information? LMAO.

How the information was obtained is necessary to answer the question. Ignoring it won't help you.

[Anonymous No.12403767]

>>12403754
The one in the OP, my special friend.

[Anonymous No.12403773]

>>12403764
can you give an example of an unambiguous probability question?

[Anonymous No.12403774]

>>12403757
It does. If I only looked at one coin the answer is 1/2. If I looked at both it's 1/3.

[Anonymous No.12403775]

>>12403767
I answered back it in the third post you psychotic elephant fucker.
>>12396784

[Anonymous No.12403780]

>>12403764
Give it up. Take a hint, idiot. I've been trolling you this entire time. I'm tired now, so peace out sucker.

[Anonymous No.12403781]

>>12403764
>How the information was obtained is necessary to answer the question.
Only in your schizo hallucination lmfao

[Anonymous No.12403784]

>>12403775
And what part of the question told you it's not referring to a specific coin?

[Anonymous No.12403791]

>>12403781
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

You lose.

[Anonymous No.12403795]

>>12403774
it's not important what you did, only thing that matters is what you say. if you say "at least one is heads", it means either of them can be heads.

[Anonymous No.12403796]

>>12403784
The part where is says "at least one" asshat

[Anonymous No.12403797]

>>12403780
>I was only pretending to be retarded
I don't care retard.

[Anonymous No.12403803]

>>12403795
Yeah, if I only look at one coin, either coin can be heads, and the answer is 1/2. Non sequitur.

[Anonymous No.12403809]

>>12403796
You can refer to a specific coin while saying "at least one." Try again.

[Anonymous No.12403810]

>>12403727
>If I didn't see the second coin
>"at least one coin is heads"
>"you are given the information at least one coin is heads."
The probabilities don't change weither you have some information about the outcome or not.

Let's say you can only see one coin and are given the information at least one coin is heads.
If you can see the first coin is tails, and you know at least one is heads, then the other one is necesssarily heads.
If you can see the first coin is heads, the other one can be either of them because the current event already satisfies the condition.
However those two scenarios don't occur at the same frequency.
The TT event doesn't satisfy the requirements so everytime it happens you are not told that at least one coin is heads.
1/3 of the time you are told at least one coin is heads, the second coin (the one you could not see) is heads.
2/3 of the time you are told at least one coin is heads, the second coin is tails.
I can write another code in a better way, following the exact scenario you mentionned to prove this.

[Anonymous No.12403815]

>>12403791
Lmfao that's literally "paradox" about retards hallucinating extraneous variables, you should make it your homepage. Schizo freak.

[Anonymous No.12403818]

>>12403810
>The probabilities don't change weither you have some information about the outcome or not.
They do, try again.

>Let's say you can only see one coin and are given the information at least one coin is heads.
No, you misunderstand, it's the person giving you the information that only sees one coin.

[Anonymous No.12403819]

>>12403809
No you can't, imbecile.
ENGLISH motherfucker learn it.

[Anonymous No.12403826]

>>12403815
>everyone is retarded except for me REEEEEEEEEEEE
Uhuh. You lose.

[Anonymous No.12403828]

>>12403826
>everyone is retarded
No, just you

[Anonymous No.12403829]

>>12403819
I just did. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.12403834]

>>12403828
Nice cope.

>Gardner initially gave the answers 1/2 and 1/3, respectively, but later acknowledged that the second question was ambiguous.[3] Its answer could be 1/2, depending on what information was available beyond that just one child was a boy. The ambiguity, depending on the exact wording and possible assumptions, was confirmed by Bar-Hillel and Falk,[4] and Nickerson.[5]

[Anonymous No.12403838]

>>12403408
"At least one" makes it very clear it's not refering to a specific coin. There is no ambiguity. Otherwise it would just have said "One coin" is heads.

[Anonymous No.12403857]

>>12403834
>>12403829
Fucking idiot, even your own schizo wikipedia article proves you wrong.

> "at least one of whom is a boy" "1/3"
The actual question.

>"one child is selected at random, and the sex of that child is specified to be a boy" "1/2"
A different question, which literally hallucinates a selection process. Schizo retardation.

Lmfao you are an absolute illiterate ass.

[Anonymous No.12403867]

>>12403818
>the person giving you the information that only sees one coin
So you're saying the person giving you the information for the problem is limited by the contextual loopholes of the very problem?

>Here's a math problem. Here's some information about the problem, although it's incomplete because I myself don't have the all of the information about it.
>Try to get the right answer using only biased and incomplete information.
You're not doing math, you're doing a "think outside the boxerino" facebook quiz.

[Anonymous No.12403895]

>>12403838
>"At least one" makes it very clear it's not refering to a specific coin.
No it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.12403899]

>>12403895
Yes it does, dumbfuck.
Even your own fake paradox article says so.

[Anonymous No.12403937]

>>12403818
>the person giving you the information
The problem never stated another person was there to tell you anything.
"YOU flip two coins"
The rest of the information is given per se by the problem and not by an entity that operates inside the context of the problem.
It is implicit that the information is not biased because it is given as necessary information.

[Anonymous No.12403984]

>>12403857
>> "at least one of whom is a boy" "1/3"
>The actual question.
Nice cherrypicked quote.

>From all families with two children, at least one of whom is a boy, a family is chosen at random. This would yield the answer of 1/3.
This is an assumption about how the information was obtained, which you've said throughout this thread is irrelevant. You lose, cry more.

[Anonymous No.12403999]

>>12403867
>So you're saying the person giving you the information for the problem is limited by the contextual loopholes of the very problem?
No, he's limited by whatever his procedure was in determining "at least one is heads."

>>Try to get the right answer using only biased and incomplete information.
Who are you quoting? These are just examples to show the question is ambiguous. Dumb autist.

[Anonymous No.12404006]

>>12403899
No it doesn't. It says a thousand times it's ambiguous. Are you illiterate or just a liar?

[Anonymous No.12404020]

>>12403984
>>12404006
Your own source disagrees lmfao
Lmfao hoist by your own retard. Ahahaha

[Anonymous No.12404021]

>>12403937
>The problem never stated another person was there to tell you anything.
Then how did you get the information? That's exactly where the ambiguity lies.

>The rest of the information is given per se by the problem
This is meaningless.

>It is implicit that the information is not biased because it is given as necessary information.
Doesn't follow.

[Anonymous No.12404024]

Woah woah wait
But what if the guy who wrote the question is lying, and there are actually no heads at all?

"At least one is heads" could either be the truth, or a lie. How can you even tell?
There's no way to know without hallucinating a detective novel!

Ambiguous, I say!

[Anonymous No.12404026]

>>12404020
The source says a thousand times it's ambiguous. Nice cope.

[Anonymous No.12404033]

>>12404021
Here's the movie version again for your fucking sicko fly brain
>>12400292

[Anonymous No.12404038]

>>12404024
Assuming it's true, it's still ambiguous. Cry more retard.

[Anonymous No.12404039]

>>12404026
Cope and cry harder, retard. The source literally says "at least one of whom is a boy" is 1/3, and "one child is selected at random, and the sex of that child is specified to be a boy" is 1/2.
Lmfao cope and cry

[Anonymous No.12404045]

>>12404033
No one cares about your hallucinations, schizo. You lost, get over it.

[Anonymous No.12404046]

>>12404038
Nope, lmfao you got blown the fuck out by your own fake paradox.

[Anonymous No.12404055]

>>12404045
Cry more, schizo.

[Anonymous No.12404060]

>>12404039
>The source literally says "at least one of whom is a boy" is 1/3
No, it literally doesn't say that you literally lying literal retard. It says

>>From all families with two children, at least one of whom is a boy, a family is chosen at random. This would yield the answer of 1/3.

Which is exactly how I explained the ambiguity. You lose.

[Anonymous No.12404071]

>>12404046
Cope, seethe, dilate

[Anonymous No.12404073]

>>12404060
Lmfao all you do is lose and cry about it.
Even your own fake paradox shits all over you.

[Anonymous No.12404077]

>>12404073
>Gardner initially gave the answers 1/2 and 1/3, respectively, but later acknowledged that the second question was ambiguous.[3] Its answer could be 1/2, depending on what information was available beyond that just one child was a boy. The ambiguity, depending on the exact wording and possible assumptions, was confirmed by Bar-Hillel and Falk,[4] and Nickerson.[5]

Loser.

[Anonymous No.12404083]

>>12404077
Lose and cope more lmfao
>"From all families with two children, at least one of whom is a boy, a family is chosen at random. This would yield the answer of 1/3"

[Anonymous No.12404088]

>>12404021
>Then how did you get the information?
By reading the problem.
All the information you need is written.
Again it is implicit that the information is not biased.
If it was, there would be a statement specifying this.
Otherwise, by convention it assumed the information is unbiased for conciseness purposes.
>Doesn't follow.
Elaborate

[Anonymous No.12404095]

>>12404077
>depending on what information was available beyond that just one child was a boy
Lmfao retard. Literally hallucinating extraneous info.

[Anonymous No.12404098]

>>12404077
>depending on what information was available beyond that just one child was a boy.
no further information written = no further information available

[Anonymous No.12404119]

>ITT: 398 replies of absolute idiots arguing about a clearly ambiguous question
I've never been this disappointed in you.

[Anonymous No.12404124]

>>12404095
>>12404098
I swear this dude is convinced the point of the problem is to exploit contextual loopholes like it's some facebook quiz

[Anonymous No.12404127]

>>12404083
That's exactly what I've said throughout this thread.

[Anonymous No.12404134]

>ITT: at least one anonymous retard who thinks the question is ambiguous

[Anonymous No.12404140]

It was never stated if a third coin was flipped behind your back.
Then even if you get tails in both hands, you would be told that at least one is heads!!!!!!!!!

Guys, the question is CLEARLY ambiguous. Think outside the boxerino!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.12404142]

>>12404088
>By reading the problem.
That doesn't explain how the information was obtained from the coin flips. Try again.

>All the information you need is written.
It's not, it's ambiguous.

>If it was, there would be a statement specifying this.
Doesn't follow.

>Otherwise, by convention it assumed the information is unbiased for conciseness purposes.
No such convention exists.

>Elaborate
Necessary doesn't mean complete.

[Anonymous No.12404147]

>>12404098
no further information written = no further information available -> not enough information to answer the problem.

[Anonymous No.12404151]

>>12404124
12404098 is a different guy, you schizo freak.
>the point of the problem is to exploit contextual loopholes
No, the problem is perfectly clear. No matter how many times you try to hallucinate your crazy schizo context loopholes into it.

[Anonymous No.12404152]

>>12404134
It's already been proven to be ambiguous. You lost.

[Anonymous No.12404155]

>>12404147
applies to literally any probability problem then

[Anonymous No.12404157]

>>12404152
You lost.

[Anonymous No.12404163]

Note that the schizo's own fake paradox wikipedia article shits all over him.

>"From all families with two children, ONE child is selected at random, and the sex of that child is specified to be a boy. This would yield an answer of 1/2"
Not "at least one"
"one"

Fucking retarded freak.

[Anonymous No.12404177]

>>12404152
Lmfao cope and cry more.

[Anonymous No.12404188]

>>12404142
>That doesn't explain how the information was obtained
The information is not obtained.
It is given to you as information needed to complete the problem.
You're hallucinating an entity that operates inside the context of the problem to give you the info.

>>If it was, there would be a statement specifying this.
>Doesn't follow.
>Necessary doesn't mean complete.
So the predicate can contain biased information without telling you about it?

>No such convention exists.
I'm not talking about some fucking law here.
I'm saying textbooks and professors assume you're not an autistic baby who needs every little detail pedantically explained to them because they can't interpret a predicate the same way you would with every other math problem.

[Anonymous No.12404209]

>>12404147
All probability textbook exercices are now considered invalid and ambiguous thanks to some anonymous 4chan user who PROVED that they were too ambiguous and don't meet facebook standards

[Anonymous No.12404213]

>>12404188
>I'm saying textbooks and professors assume you're not an autistic baby who needs every little detail pedantically explained to them because they can't interpret a predicate the same way you would with every other math problem.
this very much

[Anonymous No.12404229]

>>12404147
if some information isn't given, you don't assume it, that's the whole point. knowing which coin is heads is clearly additional info, so you don't assume it. you could wreck every single probability problem with this shit.

[Anonymous No.12404241]

>>12404155
Nope.

[Anonymous No.12404248]

>>12404229
>additional info
a.k.a. "hallucinated schizo shit"
>wreck every single probability problem
Lmao, no, he can't even put a dent this one.

[Anonymous No.12404258]

>>12404163
What you quoted is one possible interpretation of the problem with "at least one boy." Please continue citing the article that says the problem is ambiguous several times. You lost. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.12404262]

>>12404258
Cope and cry more, retard.
"At least one"

[Anonymous No.12404294]

>>12404188
>The information is not obtained.
Then the problem is pure gibberish.

>It is given to you as information needed to complete the problem.
It's needed but not sufficient.

>You're hallucinating an entity that operates inside the context of the problem to give you the info.
You're confusing examples of how the problem is ambiguous with additional context being added to the problem.

>So the predicate can contain biased information without telling you about it?
I didn't say it contains that information, I said it requires an interpretation one way or the other to answer it. It doesn't contain the information necessary to make an interpretation.

>I'm not talking about some fucking law here.
Right, but no such convention exists.

>I'm saying textbooks and professors assume you're not an autistic baby who needs every little detail pedantically explained to them because they can't interpret a predicate the same way you would with every other math problem.
You don't need every detail, only the ones that determine the answer. Those details are missing from this problem.

[Anonymous No.12404298]

>>12404209
>All probability textbook exercices
What I said doesn't apply to all exercises. Try again.

[Anonymous No.12404300]

>>12404294
Lmfao give up, retard. You didn't even get the language in your own fake paradox right.

[Anonymous No.12404308]

>>12404213
And when professors say a problem is ambiguous worded, I guess we can just ignore that because some other problem is not? Your gibberish makes no sense. Stop trying to equivocate, you're not good at it.

[Anonymous No.12404321]

>>12404229
>if some information isn't given, you don't assume it
I didn't.

>knowing which coin is heads is clearly additional info
Huh? The person asking the question knows which coin is heads regardless of your interpretation. Either they saw both coins and their states or one coin and its state. If you call this "additional info" then fine, it's info necessary to answer the question but missing regardless.

[Anonymous No.12404326]

[Anonymous No.12404329]

>>12404298
What you said doesn't apply to anything in the thread at all, other than your own schizo hallucinations and your illiterate self-inflicted abuse of English.

[Anonymous No.12404338]

>>12404329
Sure it doesn't. The article didn't say what it says a thousand times either.

[Anonymous No.12404341]

>>12404321
>My imaginary friends live in the question
Cope more schizo.

[Anonymous No.12404347]

>>12404294
>You're confusing examples of how the problem is ambiguous with additional context being added to the problem.
The reasons you gave us as to why the problem is ambiguous were that an entity that operates inside the context of the problem could give you biased information.

>It's needed but not sufficient.
>Those details are missing from this problem.
autistic baby who needs every little detail pedantically explained to them

>requires an interpretation
interpret a predicate the same way you would with every other math problem

>Then the problem is pure gibberish.
Yasss! All textbook probability problems are pure GIBBERISH!!!
The information is not obtained because that would assume an enitity obtains it. The information is given by the problem.

[Anonymous No.12404350]

>>12404341
>the information fairy produced information out of thin air
OK schizo.

[Anonymous No.12404356]

>>12404298
All probability exercices wouldn't meet your standards.
You would say that all of them are missing information.
It is assumed that you are not a mentally deprived manchild, and that you are capable of interpreting a problem correctly, like with every other math problem, like everybody else.

[Anonymous No.12404360]

>>12404350
Only in your hallucination, schizo.

[Anonymous No.12404369]

>>12404308
One professor singlehandedly DESTROYS the whole math community by proving their problems don't meet his autistic, pedantic standards

[Anonymous No.12404370]

>>12404347
>The reasons you gave us as to why the problem is ambiguous were that an entity that operates inside the context of the problem could give you biased information.
No, it's that the problem could be interpreted in two different ways that yield different answers, and there is no way to tell which interpretation is correct. Both interpretations are "biased" towards one method of obtaining information that is not given in the problem.

>autistic baby who needs every little detail
You don't need every detail, only the ones that determine the answer. Those details are missing from this problem.

>All textbook probability problems are pure GIBBERISH!!!
Give an example of one.

>The information is not obtained because that would assume an enitity obtains it.
It does, information doesn't just pop into existence.

>The information is given by the problem.
Not all the information you need.

This is getting tedious. I'm not going to repeat myself again. Read the wiki article if you still don't get it.

[Anonymous No.12404374]

>>12404356
He's a retard who read a wikipedia article about a fake paradox and now thinks it applies to whatever he wants.

[Anonymous No.12404375]

>>12404360
Only in yours schizo.

[Anonymous No.12404382]

>>12404369
You can't even give one example of a problem rendered ambiguous by the same logic. Stop trying to equivocate, you're not good at it.

[Anonymous No.12404381]

>>12404370
>all the information you need.
Is right there in the OP, schizo.
The fact that you keep hallucinating schizo shit doesn't change anything.

[Anonymous No.12404386]

>>12404350
Stop anthropomorphizing a fucking math problem.
The information is not obtained or created, it comes with the question as part of the predicate.

[Anonymous No.12404387]

>>12404374
>the same exact problem with coins instead of children is fundamentally different I swear.
Nice cope.

[Anonymous No.12404388]

>>12404375
You're the only one hallucinating extraneous nonsense and pretending that it's part of the question, schizo.

[Anonymous No.12404392]

>>12404387
"At least one"
Cope and cry more, retard.

[Anonymous No.12404393]

>>12404321
>The person asking the question knows which coin is heads regardless of your interpretation. Either they saw both coins and their states or one coin and its state.
dude, there's no interpretation. the problem couldn't be more clear. it literally is:

"You flip two coins, at least one is HEADS. What is the probability that both are HEADS?"

but for some reason you keep reading this simple problem as

"You flip two coins and you are asked the following question: "You flip two coins, at least one is HEADS. What is the probability that both are HEADS?" what is the probability that both are heads?"

which is a different question entirely. ambiguous indeed, and not really probability theory in the first place.

the actual problem is ambiguous only if the simple expression "at least one" is ambiguous. it's not.

[Anonymous No.12404394]

>>12404386
>Stop anthropomorphizing a fucking math problem.
Sure, as soon as you stop telling me information appeared out of thin air. Schizo. It's fine to have a make believe world with no logic but that doesn't mean you'll get an answer.

[Anonymous No.12404398]

>>12404388
I specifically said it's not part of the question. Nice illiteracy Cleetus.

[Anonymous No.12404399]

>>12404394
>information appeared out of thin air
It's called words, English words. Dipshit

[Anonymous No.12404403]

>>12404398
None of your delirium is part of the question, schizo. I know.

[Anonymous No.12404404]

>>12404382
Bertrand's Box Paradox.
A derivation of this problem sparked some discussion on here about a month ago.
Turns out some retard anons came with the answer to this problem as 2/5 using the very same reasoning you're using, stating the problem is ambiguous.

[Anonymous No.12404407]

>>12404392
>Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?
>Gardner initially gave the answers 1/2 and 1/3, respectively, but later acknowledged that the second question was ambiguous.
Cope more retard.

[Anonymous No.12404412]

>>12404407
>...depending on what information was available beyond that
Oh, you dropped the part of your quote where it explains that you're a hallucinating schizo seeking information from beyond.

[Anonymous No.12404413]

>>12404393
>dude, there's no interpretation
Wrong. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

>but for some reason you keep reading this simple problem as
I never did though. Learn how to read.

>the actual problem is ambiguous only if the simple expression "at least one" is ambiguous. it's not.
Wrong. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

[Anonymous No.12404416]

>>12404399
Words don't make information appear out of thin air. Try again retard.

[Anonymous No.12404421]

>>12404416
>Words don't make information appear out of thin air.
Lmfao absolute donkey brain.

[Anonymous No.12404422]

>>12404404
How is it ambiguous?

[Anonymous No.12404423]

>>12404412
How does that change the fact its ambiguous?

[Anonymous No.12404424]

>>12404413
You're wrong no matter how many times you keep linking the wikipedia article that says you're wrong and shits all over you. Lmfao, retard

[Anonymous No.12404426]

>>12404394
>information appeared out of thin air
Again, it comes with the question as part of the predicate.
It is fucking written.
It was not "obtained" or "produced" .
It is assumed like any other hypothesis that is part of a predicate.

[Anonymous No.12404430]

>>12396793
Ω = {Η, Τ} x {H, T} = {(T,T), (T,H), (H,T), (H,H)}
A = {(T,H), (H,T), (H,H)}
B = {(H,H)}
A intersection B = {(Η,Η)}

P(B|A) = P(A intersection B) / P(A)
= (|A intersection B|/|Ω|) / (|Α|/|Ω|)
= |A intersection B| / |Α|
= 1/3

[Anonymous No.12404436]

>>12404424
Wrong. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

[Anonymous No.12404444]

>>12404423
Yes, your schizo hallucinations are ambiguous because they seek information from beyond.
No, the OP is not ambiguous because it has nothing to do with your retarded Ouija board seance games, schizo.

[Anonymous No.12404446]

>>12404426
>Again, it comes with the question as part of the predicate.
This doesn't exclaim how the information was obtained. Try again.

>It was not "obtained" or "produced" .
Then the question is gibberish. There is no conditions probability without the information being obtained.

[Anonymous No.12404448]

>>12404404
Anons decided that the fact that the coins were separated in distinct boxes didn't matter because it was not specified you had to pick a coin from a box to actually pick a coin.
Because some implicit information was not explicitely stated for their autistic ass.

[Anonymous No.12404451]

>>12404430
Assumes "at least one is heads" doesn't refer to a specific coin.

[Anonymous No.12404460]

>>12404444
Wrong. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

[Anonymous No.12404461]

>>12404451
That's not an assumption, it's fucking ENGLISH dipshit.

[Anonymous No.12404466]

>>12404446
>It is assumed like any other hypothesis that is part of a predicate.
> interpret a predicate the same way you would with every other math problem

[Anonymous No.12404468]

>>12404413
>See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
there's no explanation why would anyone in their right mind think that "at least one" doesn't mean "at least one" but "a specific one". literally only argument is
>well, the person who tells you might actually mean...
guess what, if the person who tells you doesn't speak english, he means neither. this is not math, this is how kids solve word problems trying to be smarter than the teacher.

[Anonymous No.12404469]

>>12404460
Post it again, schizo.

[Anonymous No.12404472]

>>12404448
That's not ambiguous, just misreading the problem.

[Anonymous No.12404477]

>>12404461
Wrong. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox

[Anonymous No.12404480]

>>12404477
Post it again, schizo.

[Anonymous No.12404484]

>>12404451
Ω contains All the possible outcomes
A is the subset of Ω that contains all the possible outcomes such that H appears at least once.
|A|/|Ω| is the probabilty that H appears at least once.

[Anonymous No.12404486]

>>12404468
>anyone in their right mind
Dude's a literal schizo.

[Anonymous No.12404491]

>>12404466
None of this shows the problem is unambiguous. It's just non sequitur.

[Anonymous No.12404497]

>>12404468
It's already been explained in this thread and in the article. Try reading.

[Anonymous No.12404503]

>>12404484
>A is the subset of Ω that contains all the possible outcomes such that H appears at least once.
Right, but you're assuming that's what "at least one is heads" means when it could just as easily mean that a specific coin was found to be heads and the other wasn't even observed. In that case

A = {(H,T), (H,H)}

[Anonymous No.12404505]

>>12404497
You haven't explained jack shit other than the fact that your English is awful and that you hallucinate extraneous nonsense.

[Anonymous No.12404508]

>>12404486
>everyone in the wikipedia article is one guy
>everyone is schizo but me
OK schizo.

[Anonymous No.12404511]

>>12404508
>everyone is schizo but me
No, just you.

[Anonymous No.12404513]

>>12404491
You're saying the information cannot just be given to you per se and needs to be obtained or produced, which contextualizes and anthropomorphizes the process.
That would mean all the information given to you is procured by imaginary friends.

Again, like in every math problem on earth, information is assumed like any other hypothesis that is part of a predicate.

[Anonymous No.12404514]

>>12404505
Wrong. See >>12404477

[Anonymous No.12404517]

>>12404511
And all the people in the wikipedia article.

[Anonymous No.12404518]

>>12404514
Post it again, schizo.

[Anonymous No.12404521]

The train of thought that leads to fallacy is:
"Ok, so I got a Head, what's the chance I get another head?" and the answer is obviously 1/2.
But this is considering only {(H,T), (H,H)} instead of A here >>12404430
People forget to also consider the scenario "Shit, I got Tails. Not matter the next roll is, I can't win"

[Anonymous No.12404531]

>>12404503
see here >>12404521

[Anonymous No.12404532]

>>12404517
The wikipedia article shits all over you and your schizo English. I lmfao every time you refer to the article, because you're literally pointing out how dumb you are, retard.

[Anonymous No.12404534]

>>12404513
>You're saying the information cannot just be given to you per se and needs to be obtained or produced, which contextualizes and anthropomorphizes the process.
It has nothing to do with anthropomorphizing. Information is produced via a mechanism. This mechanism is what probability fundamentally describes. If not, probability should not depend on how the information was obtained. But it does. You lose.

[Anonymous No.12404542]

>>12404521
This is not a fallacy, it's an interpretation just as valid as the interpretation that "at least one is heads" is not referring to a specific coin.

[Anonymous No.12404543]

>>12404503
>a specific coin was found to be heads and the other wasn't even observed
Tell me where exactly in the problem does it state that an imaginary person is there to observe and tell you their biased result?

[Anonymous No.12404547]

>>12404534
Say "you lose" again, schizo. It's almost as funny as when you keep banging your nuts in the door by posting the wikipedia article that shits on you over and over again.

[Anonymous No.12404548]

>>12404531
See >>12404477

[Anonymous No.12404550]

>>12404503
Why would you say "at least" once then?
It can be at most one in that case.

[Anonymous No.12404554]

>>12404532
The wikipedia article agrees with everything I've said. Every time you cite an article that says the exact same question is ambiguous you show yourself to be a lying retard.

[Anonymous No.12404556]

>>12404542
>the interpretation that "at least one is heads" is not referring to a specific coin
That's called English you sad sack of shit.

[Anonymous No.12404561]

>>12404543
>Tell me where exactly in the problem does it state that an imaginary person is there to observe and tell you their biased result?
Where did I say it did?

[Anonymous No.12404562]

>>12404554
Lmfao, retard. You don't even understand your own fake paradox article.

[Anonymous No.12404566]

>>12404547
You lose. See >>12404514

[Anonymous No.12404567]

>>12404534
>Information is produced via a mechanism.
Contextualizing.

Information given as is is assumed like any other hypothesis that is part of a predicate.

assumed like any other hypothesis that is part of a predicate
interpret a predicate the same way you would with every other math problem

[Anonymous No.12404571]

>>12404550
>Why would you say "at least" once then?
Because you didn't see the other coin.

>It can be at most one in that case.
No. It can be two.

[Anonymous No.12404576]

>>12404550
You wouldn't say that, no one other than a hallucinating schizo would ever even think of saying that.

[Anonymous No.12404578]

>>12404556
Wrong. See >>12404566

[Anonymous No.12404580]

>>12404561
>Where did I say it did?
>observed
>the person giving you the information that only sees one coin.

[Anonymous No.12404581]

>>12404571
>Because you didn't see the other coin.
Lmfao, LEARN ENGLISH you dumb motherfucker, just do it!

[Anonymous No.12404586]

>>12404578
Wrong. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
LMFAO

[Anonymous No.12404591]

>>12404567
>Contextualizing.
Probability theory is the context of every probability problem.

>Information given as is is assumed like any other hypothesis that is part of a predicate.
Non sequitur. The information given is ambiguous.

Either information is known that is not being shared with you, or information is not known and all known information is being shared with you. These give different results.

[Anonymous No.12404595]

>>12404580
Where did I say the problem says that?

[Anonymous No.12404599]

>>12404581
Out of the two of us, I know at least one has a brain.

[Anonymous No.12404600]

>>12404571
>>It can be at most one in that case.
>No. It can be two.
I misstyped.
I meant to say that "at least one heads" is redundant because if you think it the faulty way, you can't have 0 heads in the first place.

[Anonymous No.12404601]

>>12404595
ctrl+f

[Anonymous No.12404606]

>>12404600
>meant to say that "at least one heads" is redundant because if you think it the faulty way, you can't have 0 heads in the first place.
What does one have to do with the other?

[Anonymous No.12404616]

>>12404591
>These give different results.
Yes, your different schizo questions give different schizo results than the original question. Who gives a flying fuck?
Meanwhile, the original question—2 flips, at least 1 heads—is unambiguously 1/3.

[Anonymous No.12404618]

>>12404601
So I didn't say that. Thanks for admitting it.

[Anonymous No.12404621]

>>12404616
Wrong. See >>12404578

[Anonymous No.12404625]

>>12404599
Who told you you had a brain? Masterful trolling desu

[Anonymous No.12404627]

>>12404621
Lmfao you lose again.

[Anonymous No.12404635]

>>12404618
Lmao, in full denial.
Here I will spoonfeed you all your bullshit.

>>12403818
>it's the person giving you the information that only sees one coin

>>12404503
"at least one is heads" means when it could just as easily mean that a specific coin was found to be heads and the other wasn't even observed

The problem doesn't state all this, but you pretend that's what it implies.
Because somehow the information needs to be observed and shared by conscious beings that operate inside the context.
Somehow the predicate cannot contain information that is assumed as a hyptohesis.

[Anonymous No.12404653]

>>12404635
let A be the set of all binary strings of length two such that at least one character is 0.

is the set A well-defined or is it ambiguous?

[Anonymous No.12404657]

>>12404606
Because if the problem is formulated and conveyed to us properly without redundancies, then we should assume that there Can be 0 heads, which leads to 1/3.

[Anonymous No.12404658]

>>12404653
well-defined

[Anonymous No.12404679]

>>12404658
wROnG. sEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/bOy_Or_grLL_pArAdOX

[Anonymous No.12404680]

>>12404679
kek

[Anonymous No.12404691]

>>12404653
Well what if the computer is lying to you????
Maybe it's a quantum computer ???
Therefore "at least one character is 0" would return true for all possible strings!!!!!!!

This problem is definitely AMBIGUOUS!!!!

[Anonymous No.12404726]

>>12403502
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urknall
says big bang 8 times

[Anonymous No.12404737]

[Anonymous No.12404746]

[Anonymous No.12404767]

[Anonymous No.12404774]

[Anonymous No.12404805]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ziu2ygE_Wc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4NnCAZcxHg

[Anonymous No.12404963]

>>12404737

[Anonymous No.12404973]

[Anonymous No.12405189]

This thread was even more toxic than the gold and silver balls problem

[Anonymous No.12405199]

>>12404657
No, there's at least one head. And there's not enough information to determine the answer.

[Anonymous No.12405242]

>532 replies
>retards still falling for the trolls

[Anonymous No.12405268]

>>12405199
If there’s 2 flips and at least 1 head and that’s all you know, the one and only answer is 1/3.

[Anonymous No.12405366]

>>12405189
The balls threads deserve all the caviling and venom they get, because the questions are intentionally written like shit to get yous, and would never appear as written on any test in real life.
This question, on the other hand, is perfectly well written, and could appear exactly as is on any test.

[Anonymous No.12405487]

>>12398241
hahah
>Matter interaction violate the NAP
ded