### Author Topic: who can work out this?  (Read 16887 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Master

• Posts: 555
• Darwins +0/-0
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #58 on: October 08, 2009, 06:16:27 PM »
The important variable is the length of time before you posted your next post.
Exactly, correct and very well-said.

Quote
er, right, but that's the opposite of what you seemed to be saying in the OP. You seemed to be saying that it was unlikely to spot a post number like 1111; now you're saying that it's normal.
I am sorry, I didn't mean it to appear like this, I was just waiting for someone to make the calculation and see how many variable he will take in consideration to show that the probability of the "1111"is not as tiny as it seems.

Quote
How old are you, M? Just curious.
I would like to keep it private, so I will tell you in a PM.
Quote
"a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
http://www.determinism.com/05042002.shtml

#### Azdgari

• Laureate
• Posts: 14123
• Darwins +472/-40
• Gender:
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #59 on: October 08, 2009, 06:22:29 PM »
The important variable is the length of time before you posted your next post.

True that.  Apparently, it was over an hour.  So it's likely that a lot of people saw my "3333".

If you "don't differ with me" on this, then that means that you agree it's a minor occurance.  If so, then why bring up the even more minor occurance of having seen Gnu's "post #1111"?
Oh, there may be a misunderstanding, did you mean "rare" by using "minor", I thought so!

The internet has dictionaries available, M.  While it may be difficult to translate sentences accurately, single-word translations should not be a problem for you.  I meant minor.  As in, unimportant, trivial, not worthy of mention.  Respond to what I write, not to what I don't write.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

#### Master

• Posts: 555
• Darwins +0/-0
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #60 on: October 08, 2009, 06:28:02 PM »
I meant minor.  As in, unimportant, trivial, not worthy of mention.  Respond to what I write, not to what I don't write.
Fine, now I get it, no, I differ on that too much, realizing how tiny 9/10000 is(as an apparent normal probability of occurrence) you should know why, unless you are not convinced with my calculation.
Quote
"a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
http://www.determinism.com/05042002.shtml

#### RaptorJesus

• Posts: 1296
• Darwins +0/-0
• Internet Cake Machine
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #61 on: October 08, 2009, 06:28:56 PM »
I meant minor.  As in, unimportant, trivial, not worthy of mention.  Respond to what I write, not to what I don't write.
Fine, now I get it, no differ on that too much, realizing how tiny 9/10000 is(as an apparent normal probability of occurrence) you should know why, unless you are not convinced with my calculation.

lol let it go, you pretty much put this thread in a nose dive. Give it a rest before you do some more damage.
Jamie: I understanding these things [SCUBA tanks] have about a million—or actually, it's 1.3 million—pounds of explosive force. I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like a lot.

#### Azdgari

• Laureate
• Posts: 14123
• Darwins +472/-40
• Gender:
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #62 on: October 08, 2009, 06:45:25 PM »
I meant minor.  As in, unimportant, trivial, not worthy of mention.  Respond to what I write, not to what I don't write.
Fine, now I get it, no, I differ on that too much, realizing how tiny 9/10000 is(as an apparent normal probability of occurrence) you should know why, unless you are not convinced with my calculation.

It's not a 9/10000 probability of occurance.  It's a 1/1 probability.  For any poster who continues posting past 3333, the probability will always be 1/1.  Again, you fail at statistics.  Go back to school.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

#### Master

• Posts: 555
• Darwins +0/-0
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #63 on: October 08, 2009, 07:05:11 PM »
Again, you fail at statistics.  Go back to school.
Actually I got fired from school, because my teachers couldn't stand the fact that I was way better than them

I am calculating here how frequent such wired number shows up, and that is an essential determinant to the probability that someone would capture it!
Don't feel so embarrassed
Quote
"a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
http://www.determinism.com/05042002.shtml

#### Azdgari

• Laureate
• Posts: 14123
• Darwins +472/-40
• Gender:
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #64 on: October 08, 2009, 07:18:28 PM »
Sigh.  I'll try to simplify this for you, M.

Let's say you are counting to 10, out loud.  What is the probability that you will say "9" in the course of doing so?
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

#### RaptorJesus

• Posts: 1296
• Darwins +0/-0
• Internet Cake Machine
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #65 on: October 08, 2009, 07:22:51 PM »
Quote
Actually I got fired from school, because my teachers couldn't stand the fact that I was way better than them
That's not something to be proud of

Quote
I am calculating here how frequent such wired number shows up, and that is an essential determinant to the probability that someone would capture it!
Quote
Don't feel so embarrassed
I'd really hate to see you embarass yourself more.
Jamie: I understanding these things [SCUBA tanks] have about a million—or actually, it's 1.3 million—pounds of explosive force. I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like a lot.

#### Master

• Posts: 555
• Darwins +0/-0
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #66 on: October 08, 2009, 07:27:42 PM »
Sigh.  I'll try to simplify this for you, M.
Let's say you are counting to 10, out loud.  What is the probability that you will say "9" in the course of doing so?
I didn't need that simplification, rather you would need this, let you are counting from 1 to 500 very fast that you finish the count in 100 seconds, now what is the probability that someone heard you saying "333"
I could stay silent and someone surely was going to explain the misunderstanding to you, because the subject discussed here is so obvious for many.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 07:32:41 PM by Master »
Quote
"a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
http://www.determinism.com/05042002.shtml

#### Master

• Posts: 555
• Darwins +0/-0
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #67 on: October 08, 2009, 07:31:30 PM »
Never worry about my calculation ability, I have really beaten my teachers many times, anyway any way can criticize my calculation and provide one better if they could!
Quote
"a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
http://www.determinism.com/05042002.shtml

#### RaptorJesus

• Posts: 1296
• Darwins +0/-0
• Internet Cake Machine
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #68 on: October 08, 2009, 07:34:21 PM »
Quote
Never worry about my calculation ability
now I'm even more worried... you're too cocky for your own good

Quote
I have really beaten my teachers many times, anyway any way can criticize my calculation and provide one better if they could!
This is irrelevant, you made a big deal out of 4 little numbers... i don't care how smart you think you are.
And if you're as smart as you say are you why are you wasting your time bragging about it ? I'd think you'd be smart enough to figure that out
Jamie: I understanding these things [SCUBA tanks] have about a million—or actually, it's 1.3 million—pounds of explosive force. I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like a lot.

#### Emily

• Professor
• Posts: 5770
• Darwins +64/-0
• Gender:
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #69 on: October 08, 2009, 07:36:30 PM »
Never worry about my calculation ability, I have really beaten my teachers many times, anyway any way can criticize my calculation and provide one better if they could!

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

#### Master

• Posts: 555
• Darwins +0/-0
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #70 on: October 08, 2009, 07:40:11 PM »
I'd think you'd be smart enough to figure that out
I really know why I do everything I do, determining causes and reasons is why I am, is what I for!
Quote
"a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
http://www.determinism.com/05042002.shtml

#### Master

• Posts: 555
• Darwins +0/-0
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #71 on: October 08, 2009, 07:41:22 PM »
What do you mean, do you have any objections about my calculation?
Quote
"a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
http://www.determinism.com/05042002.shtml

#### RaptorJesus

• Posts: 1296
• Darwins +0/-0
• Internet Cake Machine
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #72 on: October 08, 2009, 07:43:59 PM »
I'd think you'd be smart enough to figure that out
I really know why I do everything I do, determining causes and reasons is why I am, is what I for!

Jamie: I understanding these things [SCUBA tanks] have about a million—or actually, it's 1.3 million—pounds of explosive force. I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like a lot.

#### Gnu Ordure

• Fellow
• Posts: 3833
• Darwins +109/-9
• Gender:
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #73 on: October 08, 2009, 07:50:46 PM »
M,

Quote
Here is what you are asking for:
"1111" has other 9 equivalent combinations, they are:(2222, 3333, 4444, ......, 9999) all equiprobable
While "1112" has much more equivalent combinations:(1113, 1114, ......, 1119, 2221, 2223, ......, 2229, ......, 9998) all equiprobable too

I think this is where you making an error, M. There aren't more equivalent combinations of 1112.

On the other hand, I believe you're correct in saying that 1111 is somehow different to a number such as 3071. They certainly look different to me. So how are they different?

To make it clear, let me first reduce the number of digits in your example, so it reads:
Quote
"111" has other 9 equivalent combinations, they are:(222, 333, 444, ......, 999) all equiprobable
While "112" has much more equivalent combinations:(113, 114, ......, 119, 221, 223, ......, 229, ......, 998) all equiprobable too

OK? The sense remains the same.

Now, let's clarify the algorithm used to generate the numbers in your first series:

1. For the first digit, select any number from 0 to 9.
2. For the second digit, add 0 to the first digit.
3. For the the third digit, add 0 to the first digit.

As you say, that generates 10 numbers, 000, 111, 222, etc.

Obviously, we need a hundred of these algorithms to generate all 1000 numbers.

That generates 112, 223, 334 etc... (ten numbers only, just as in the first series).

It doesn't generate, as you claim, 221, or 229, or 998, so those are not equivalent combinations - they are generated by Add 0 Add 9, Add 0 Add 7 and Add 0 Add 9 respectively.

So the question remains, why does 111 seem different to 496, if they're both equally probable?

Well, if the structure of the algorithm is Add x, Add y, any algorithm that has a value of zero for x or y immediate becomes noticeable to our pattern-sensitive perception, because it makes a pair with the first digit.

eg 484  661  585 - we see the pattern immediately.

Similarly, any algorithm in which x=y also becomes noticeable for the same reason, that it creates a pair.  388 611

If x doesn't equal y, the pattern doesn't stand out (though it's still there). 493 217

(Now I'm halfway through this, I've just realized what M was trying to say in his quote above - but I'll plough on anyway).

But, of the 100 available algorithms, one stands out in our perception because it forms not just a pair, but a triple, and triples are more noticeable than pairs. Add 0 Add 0 is special for this reason, and the numbers that it generates stick out like a sore thumb.

Likewise, Add 1, Add 2 sticks out, as it generates the familiar 123 etc.

So M was throwing 229 and 221 into the same category, in the sense that they both contain a pair, and pairs are more common than triples.

Gnu.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 08:03:31 PM by Gnu Ordure »

#### GetMeThere

• Posts: 2196
• Darwins +0/-0
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #74 on: October 08, 2009, 07:51:07 PM »
Edit: And how scary is it that this post is my 100th ?!?!?!

About as scary as a black cat crossing in front of me, walking under a ladder, breaking a mirror, or opening an umbrella indoors.

*Cue spooky music.

Actually, many people find Benford's law spooky and unbelievable... Nevertheless, it's true.

#### Master

• Posts: 555
• Darwins +0/-0
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #75 on: October 08, 2009, 08:11:06 PM »
I think this is where you making an error, M. There aren't more equivalent combinations of 1112.
They are, and the algorithm analyzing is not necessary to find out why, the first algorithm is right, and that  is actually what I meant, but the second algorithm isn't what I meant
1112 has many equivalents that satisfy having three identical digits with the forth different, that is it,
"1112", "1113", "6665" and "9998" all share the same degree of being "normal or usual" So, they imply the same impression on us when encountered, while, "0000", "1111", "2222", "3333", ......, "9999" also share the same degree of being "normal or usual" so they also imply the same impression on us when encountered, but they differs in the degree they sound usual to us, four identical digits is something happening only ten times in the range from zero to 10000, Do you agree on that?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 08:13:43 PM by Master »
Quote
"a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
http://www.determinism.com/05042002.shtml

#### RaptorJesus

• Posts: 1296
• Darwins +0/-0
• Internet Cake Machine
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #76 on: October 08, 2009, 08:13:04 PM »
can we lock this thread ? this circular logic isn't going anywhere
Jamie: I understanding these things [SCUBA tanks] have about a million—or actually, it's 1.3 million—pounds of explosive force. I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like a lot.

#### Azdgari

• Laureate
• Posts: 14123
• Darwins +472/-40
• Gender:
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #77 on: October 08, 2009, 08:27:05 PM »
Sigh.  I'll try to simplify this for you, M.
Let's say you are counting to 10, out loud.  What is the probability that you will say "9" in the course of doing so?
I didn't need that simplification, rather you would need this, let you are counting from 1 to 500 very fast that you finish the count in 100 seconds, now what is the probability that someone heard you saying "333"
I could stay silent and someone surely was going to explain the misunderstanding to you, because the subject discussed here is so obvious for many.

My situation is more analogous to the post-count situation.  Yours is not.  I'm not going to go forward until you demonstrate that you understand my question first.  You have demonstrated a poor grasp of statistics in the past, so I have no reason to assume that you understand my question and its correct answer.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

#### naemhni

• Global Moderator
• Posts: 4377
• Darwins +208/-6
• Gender:
• Je bois ton lait frappé
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #78 on: October 08, 2009, 08:28:18 PM »
Sigh.  I'll try to simplify this for you, M.

Let's say you are counting to 10, out loud.  What is the probability that you will say "9" in the course of doing so?

Hee.  Reminds me of that one scene from The Man With Two Brains.

You... You...!  You cooked her nines!
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

#### Master

• Posts: 555
• Darwins +0/-0
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #79 on: October 08, 2009, 08:34:12 PM »
My situation is more analogous to the post-count situation.
Not if you understand the subject well.

Quote
I'm not going to go forward until you demonstrate that you understand my question first.
Quote
"a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
http://www.determinism.com/05042002.shtml

#### GetMeThere

• Posts: 2196
• Darwins +0/-0
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #80 on: October 08, 2009, 08:44:50 PM »
Now, simply because you happen to look at it while it hit 1111 is irrelevant, it doesn't get special meaning simply because YOU happen to see it.
What I am talking about here, is what is the probability that I could randomly have a look at the number during the period of time it was standing at "1111" it doesn't equal the probability of seeing "1112" at all
try to imagine it with a much extreme case, consider this one : "123456789" is it just a number, is it equiprobable to any other number, if your answer is yes, then I can't help you any better.

In all seriousness, I want to tell you that maybe you should seek some psychological counselling (I'm NOT kidding about this). I mention this especially because you say you were fired from your teaching job for being smarter than your bosses.

You do NOT understand applied probability and statistics; and the fact that you think you do--the fact that you seem to believe you have a "special" understanding--suggests you're at least somewhat delusional.

1) The probability that the current number of a counting series IS that number is 1
2) The probability of you noticing any particular number in a counting sequence is a function of the rate at which the numbers in the sequence progress, and the frequency of your observation of the sequence.
3) The probability of you noticing a number that "amuses you" in a counting sequence is ZERO if there are no numbers in the sequence that you find amusing, and otherwise is a function based on the function as described in item 2, with the additional component of the frequency of numbers in the sequence that you will find amusing.

Beyond that, the number of posts a poster had made has no special existential quality apart from a count of the number of posts the poster has made.

#### HAL

• Professor
• Posts: 5203
• Darwins +109/-17
• Gender:
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #81 on: October 08, 2009, 08:49:05 PM »
Seriously, you guys are the meanest people I have ever met.  I hope you are happy and feel really good about yourself.

#### Azdgari

• Laureate
• Posts: 14123
• Darwins +472/-40
• Gender:
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #82 on: October 08, 2009, 08:59:27 PM »
My situation is more analogous to the post-count situation.
Not if you understand the subject well.

Mmhmmmm...says you, without any reasoning to support what you say.  But let's see how you answer my question - which for the record, was this:

Quote from: Azdgari
Let's say you are counting to 10, out loud.  What is the probability that you will say "9" in the course of doing so?

Quote
I'm not going to go forward until you demonstrate that you understand my question first.

Do you consider "yes" to be a coherent answer to the question I asked, as bolded above?  Because you have just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what the question even was, let alone what its answer is.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

#### Master

• Posts: 555
• Darwins +0/-0
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #83 on: October 08, 2009, 09:01:03 PM »
In all seriousness, I want to tell you that maybe you should seek some psychological counselling (I'm NOT kidding about this).
Thanks, I appreciate it, but actually understanding what exactly the delusions of grandeur is, and what causes it, prevent me really from being disillusioned.

Quote
2) The probability of you noticing any particular number in a counting sequence is a function of the rate at which the numbers in the sequence progress, and the frequency of your observation of the sequence.
agreed, and mentioned previously.
Quote
Beyond that, the number of posts a poster had made has no special existential quality apart from a count of the number of posts the poster has made.
let's see what is special about digits combination like this one: (77777)
what is special about it, that such combination appears only ten times in the whole integer range from 0 to 100000, isn't that so special?

but what special about this one:(123456789), for your surprise, it appears only once within the range from 0 to 1000000000 making it so special.
Quote
"a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
http://www.determinism.com/05042002.shtml

#### Master

• Posts: 555
• Darwins +0/-0
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #84 on: October 08, 2009, 09:03:20 PM »
Do you consider "yes" to be a coherent answer to the question I asked, as bolded above?
Oh, let me see, oh still the answer is yes
Quote
"a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
http://www.determinism.com/05042002.shtml

#### Backspace

• Posts: 1617
• Darwins +99/-1
• Gender:
• IXNAY
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #85 on: October 08, 2009, 09:03:56 PM »
Master, if you keep this up you'll reach 1111 posts, and we'll all get to see it -- but wish we hadn't.  What are the odds of that?
There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.
-- Bernie Katz

#### Azdgari

• Laureate
• Posts: 14123
• Darwins +472/-40
• Gender:
##### Re: who can work out this?
« Reply #86 on: October 08, 2009, 09:05:06 PM »
Do you consider "yes" to be a coherent answer to the question I asked, as bolded above?
Oh, let me see, oh still the answer is yes

It's not a yes-or-no question.  Reported for trolling.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.