A math Problem

[leroy]

No, it isn't. You can't conclude "it won't happen" from "it has a low probability of happening". The last part is the only correct conclusion.

That's it, we're done.

yes if something has a probability of 0.000000000002 it is more reasonable to assume that it wont happen than to assume that it will happen,

 

[Deleted member 619]

granted, however the event of me selecting a number is not a randon event and it does not impply infinite opptions.

Yes, but this was only because of a silly attempt by you to save face by moving the goalposts.

well then please provide your demonstration, ................so far all you did was to provide a non random event that does not involve infinite options. .

events with a zero probability happen all the time

that sounds to me logically incoherent, but I´ll give you the opportunity to prove your statement..........provide an example of an event with zero probability that can happen ...

I already did, namely the random selection of a real integer, which has a zero probability, yet such numbers are selected all the time.

You should pay attention instead of attempting to score a gotcha, because you're not up to this task in this venue.

 

[leroy]

[I already did, namely the random selection of a real integer, which has a zero probability, yet such numbers are selected all the time.

You should pay attention instead of attempting to score a gotcha, because you're not up to this task in this venue.

Well then provide an example of something that can select a random number within all the real intergers.

Human minds and computers can’t do that………..care to provide an example of something that can do it?

 

[Rumraket]

No, it isn't. You can't conclude "it won't happen" from "it has a low probability of happening". The last part is the only correct conclusion.

That's it, we're done.

yes if something has a probability of 0.000000000002 it is more reasonable to assume that it wont happen than to assume that it will happen,

But now you're merely speaking in a sort of colloquial sense. It's not a correct statement, speaking rigorously.

There is only one correct statement, which is the exact probability that it will happen. You're merely trying to circumvent this when you insist on making it a case of yes or no. IT ISN'T A YES/NO case. Why do you want to make it so?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

[I already did, namely the random selection of a real integer, which has a zero probability, yet such numbers are selected all the time.

You should pay attention instead of attempting to score a gotcha, because you're not up to this task in this venue.

Well then provide an example of something that can select a random number within all the real intergers.

Human minds and computers can’t do that………..care to provide an example of something that can do it?

:facepalm:

leroy[/url]"]2 I am more likely to imagine some numbers than others, I am more likely to choose 7 than to choose 7312004874512...

[emphasis added]

 

[Nesslig20]

It doesn't really surprise me that you don't know how to do math Leroy.

 

[Deleted member 619]

[I already did, namely the random selection of a real integer, which has a zero probability, yet such numbers are selected all the time.

You should pay attention instead of attempting to score a gotcha, because you're not up to this task in this venue.

Well then provide an example of something that can select a random number within all the real intergers.

Human minds and computers can’t do that………..care to provide an example of something that can do it?

Humans actually can do it, they just can't do it with foresight. Scroll the decimal expansion of pi, and hold down a select button at some point for an indeterminate amount of time, and you will select a random number on the real line in any stretch of digits.

This is trivial. The fact that your tiny mind can't cope with it is neither here nor there.

 

[leroy]

[quoteBut now you're merely speaking in a sort of colloquial sense. It's not a correct statement, speaking rigorously.

There is only one correct statement, which is the exact probability that it will happen. You're merely trying to circumvent this when you insist on making it a case of yes or no. IT ISN'T A YES/NO case. Why do you want to make it so?

ok granted I am speaking in the coloquial sense, you see, my intent with the math problem was not to talk about probabilities, my intent was to talk about infinity and the math of infinity, I simply used a probabilistic problem as part of the formulation.

If you don't like probabilities I can easily provide an other math problem that deals with infinity.

for example.


Given that PI has an infinite number of integers after the decimal point. Would you ever get to a point where all the preceding integers repeat? will you ever get to a point (call it point x) where all the subsequent integers mirror all the preceding integers?

will you ever get this pattern 3.141592..........x141592........x?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

I should add,just in case you don't read the post, thatr even events with a zero probability happen all the time, and this is trivial to demonstrate.

Pick any number on the real number line. Let's say, for example, that you choose the number 7. The probability of choosing that number at random is zero. How? Because the reals are infinite, and any number divided by infinity is zero, hance the probability of choosing 7, or indeed any other number, is exactly zero, yet the probability of choosing some number is exactly one.

Naïve appraisals of how probabilities work are always going to fail, and that's even before we get into Bayes Theorem.

2 mistakes.

1 the fact that the series of real numbers is infinite, does not mean that I have the ability to choose from an infinite set of numbers, I can only choose from the numbers that I can imagine. I can only choose from the numbers that exist in my mind (a finite number)

2 I am more likely to imagine some numbers than others, I am more likely to choose 7 than to choose 7312004874512...

And yet you just chose both...

 

[Grumpy Santa]

John is planning to play the lottery, the probability of winning the lottery is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000

tomorrow there will be an other lottery where the probability of winning is 1 in 2,000,000,000,000

the next day 1 in 3,000,000,000,000

the next day 4,000,000,000,000

after 100 days 100,000,000,000,000

the probability of winning the lottery is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000N

N = The number of days that has passed since day 1

etc

everyday the probabilities of winning the lottery are less.


John will buy 1 ticket every single day and he will play the lottery every single day for an infinite amount of time, will he ever win the lottery?




I´ll say that the answer is NO, but before justifying my answer I would like to read some opinions,

I'm pretty sure that it was covered why this was wrong, but I didn't see you acknowledge it...

First day, 1 in a billion
Second day, 1 in a billion times two, you've tried twice.
Third day, 1 in a billion times three, you've made three attempts.
One billion days, 1 in a billion times a billion since you've tried a billion times. The larger the number of tries the more likely that you'll eventually win.

 

[leroy]

Humans actually can do it, they just can't do it with foresight. Scroll the decimal expansion of pi, and hold down a select button at some point for an indeterminate amount of time, and you will select a random number on the real line in any stretch of digits.

This is trivial. The fact that your tiny mind can't cope with it is neither here nor there.

who is ready for a 10 pages long discussion where I ask the same question dozens of times without ever having a direct answer from hackenslash?


even in that example, the human would not be selecting out of a pool of infinite options, he would only select within the amount of numbers available in the computer, since no computer has infinite memory, no computer could ever reproduce PI with its infinite digits therefore one cant select out of a pool of infinite options.


so in summery, yes your math is correct, the probability of selecting a particular option from a pool of infinite options is zero, my disagreement is on that it is impossible to have an infinite pool of options, even if the series of numbers where infinite, no computer or mind could ever reproduce and infinitud of options to choose from.


besides you are suppose to be a nominalist, you are not suppose to believe that the series of numbers is infinite, we already went over this before.

events with a zero probability happen all the time

this is even more absurd and ridiculous than the idea of talking snakes, or the idea of 900yo humans that lived before the flood. You are lucky to be in an atheist forum where no one would ever ridicule you. because everybody is on your side no matter how wrong you are

 

[MarsCydonia]

this is even more absurd and ridiculous than the idea of talking snakes, or the idea of 900yo humans that lived before the flood. You are lucky to be in an atheist forum where no one would ever ridicule you. because everybody is on your side no matter how wrong you are

But is it as ridiculous as defending free will by denying free actions...? Yet you have no issues with that.

Seriously Leroy, you should stop this "you're lucky to be an atheist in an atheist forum" as if this somehow makes bad ideas acceptable as long as they are from an atheist.

It doesn't. Thinking this criticism is true and that justifies taking digs at atheists for a fantasy that just exists in your mind just makes you look like an asshole. But you have no issues with that either.

 

[leroy]

John is planning to play the lottery, the probability of winning the lottery is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000

tomorrow there will be an other lottery where the probability of winning is 1 in 2,000,000,000,000

the next day 1 in 3,000,000,000,000

the next day 4,000,000,000,000

after 100 days 100,000,000,000,000

the probability of winning the lottery is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000N

N = The number of days that has passed since day 1

etc

everyday the probabilities of winning the lottery are less.


John will buy 1 ticket every single day and he will play the lottery every single day for an infinite amount of time, will he ever win the lottery?




I´ll say that the answer is NO, but before justifying my answer I would like to read some opinions,

I'm pretty sure that it was covered why this was wrong, but I didn't see you acknowledge it...

First day, 1 in a billion
Second day, 1 in a billion times two, you've tried twice.
Third day, 1 in a billion times three, you've made three attempts.
One billion days, 1 in a billion times a billion since you've tried a billion times. The larger the number of tries the more likely that you'll eventually win.

reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed the problem

Second day, 1 in a billion times two, you've tried twice

.


no, it would be 1 in a billion times 1.5

 

[leroy]

this is even more absurd and ridiculous than the idea of talking snakes, or the idea of 900yo humans that lived before the flood. You are lucky to be in an atheist forum where no one would ever ridicule you. because everybody is on your side no matter how wrong you are

But is it as ridiculous as defending free will by denying free actions...? Yet you have no issues with that.

Seriously Leroy, you should stop this "you're lucky to be an atheist in an atheist forum" as if this somehow makes bad ideas acceptable as long as they are from an atheist.

It doesn't. Thinking this criticism is true and that justifies taking digs at atheists for a fantasy that just exists in your mind just makes you look like an asshole. But you have no issues with that either.

there is nothing absurd in denying what you call free actions I accept what I call free will and I don't grant what you call free options..........I even changed free will for just will, to prevent your stupid word games


just because we are using the same word (free) does not mean that we mean the same thing................this is very easy to understand but your atheist friends will always be on your side and wont even try to correct you.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed the problem

Second day, 1 in a billion times two, you've tried twice

.


no, it would be 1 in a billion times 1.5

Ah, I see what you did, you made a silly example where each lottery is independent and has more and more difficult odds of success each perspective day.

Regardless, it is possible to win any one of those lotteries, yes.

 

[leroy]

Ah, I see what you did, you made a silly example where each lottery is independent and has more and more difficult odds of success each perspective day.

Regardless, it is possible to win any one of those lotteries, yes.

yes it is possible to win one of these lotteries, (that is granted) but it is also possible that you will never win any of the lotteries..................the question is which one is more likely to happen?


my point is that even with an infinite amount of tries, chances say that you are not likely to ever win the lottery...........but I might be wrong, this is why I posted the problem ........

 

[MarsCydonia]

there is nothing absurd in denying what you call free actions I accept what I call free will and I don't grant what you call free options..........I even changed free will for just will, to prevent your stupid word games

just because we are using the same word (free) does not mean that we mean the same thing................this is very easy to understand but your atheist friends will always be on your side and wont even try to correct you.

That was not the point Leroy. The point is that just because you find something ridiculous (such as free choices requiring freedom or events with a zero probability happening) does not mean that everyone will agree with you and certainly not mean that people that agree with you are under the obligation to correct others for you. And whining that people are not obligated to correct people fir you because they're atheists just make you look as a whiny, self-entitled asshole. Worse, it makes you look as lying whiny, self-entitled asshole because it simply isn't true as we've seen atheists correct other atheists when they believe they're wrong. Its just that you simply have a terrible ability to determine when they're actually wrong.

By the way, changing "Leroy's free will" to "Leroy's will" was a stupid word game, it did not prevent any.

 

[leroy]

there is nothing absurd in denying what you call free actions I accept what I call free will and I don't grant what you call free options..........I even changed free will for just will, to prevent your stupid word games

just because we are using the same word (free) does not mean that we mean the same thing................this is very easy to understand but your atheist friends will always be on your side and wont even try to correct you.

That was not the point Leroy. The point is that just because you find something ridiculous (such as free choices requiring freedom or events with a zero probability happening) does not mean that everyone will agree with you and certainly not mean that people that agree with you are under the obligation to correct others for you. And whining that people are not obligated to correct people fir you because they're atheists just make you look as a whiny, self-entitled asshole. Worse, it makes you look as lying whiny, self-entitled asshole because it simply isn't true as we've seen atheists correct other atheists when they believe they're wrong. Its just that you simply have a terrible ability to determine when they're actually wrong.

By the way, changing "Leroy's free will" to "Leroy's will" was a stupid word game, it did not prevent any.

no one is obligated to correct others for me, but the fact that you don't correct, insult and ridicule hackenslash and you do it to me, proves that you have a bias in favor of your atheist friends

hackenslash wrote:
events with a zero probability happen all the time

if I would have said something like that, you would have corrected, insulted and ridiculed me,

 

[MarsCydonia]

no one is obligated to correct others for me, but the fact that you don't correct, insult and ridicule hackenslash and you do it to me, proves that you have a bias in favor of your atheist friends

1. Maybe we do not correct Hackenslash because we do not think he is wrong
2. Maybe if we do think he is wrong, we give Hackenslash the benefit of the doubt and look into it to see if he is actually wrong because unlike you, he is not repeatedly, patently and obviously wrong.
3. Maybe if we do think, we give Hackenslash the benefit of the doubt because unlike you, he's actually interested in being correct and we expect him to self correct when he will look into it on his own.
4. Maybe we do not have the knowledge required to determine if Hackenslash is right or wrong.

So you are right, we, at least I, do have a bias towards atheists. The benefit of doubt i give them when it comes to scientific matters and religious matter is not the same as I give to creationists and theists.
You can thank yourself and your fellow creationists and theists for having created it.

But that still does not make your pathetic attempts to have people obligated to correct what you see as wrong for you any more valid or makes you look less lying, whiny or self-entitled.

 

[leroy]

no one is obligated to correct others for me, but the fact that you don't correct, insult and ridicule hackenslash and you do it to me, proves that you have a bias in favor of your atheist friends

1. Maybe we do not correct Hackenslash because we do not think he is wrong
2. Maybe if we do think he is wrong, we give Hackenslash the benefit of the doubt and look into it to see if he is actually wrong because unlike you, he is not repeatedly, patently and obviously wrong.
3. Maybe if we do think, we give Hackenslash the benefit of the doubt because unlike you, he's actually interested in being correct and we expect him to self correct when he will look into it on his own.
4. Maybe we do not have the knowledge required to determine if Hackenslash is right or wrong.

So you are right, we, at least I, do have a bias towards atheists. The benefit of doubt i give them when it comes to scientific matters and religious matter is not the same as I give to creationists and theists.
You can thank yourself and your fellow creationists and theists for having created it.

But that still does not make your pathetic attempts to have people obligated to correct what you see as wrong for you any more valid or makes you look less lying, whiny or self-entitled.

well in this case, which one is it 1,2,3 or 4?

hackenslash wrote:
events with a zero probability happen all the time

why haven't you corrected him?