81–90 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can and you should. If you flipped a coin 100 times and all you got are heads you really should assume it didn't happen by chance.
Nope. A previous flip has no bearing on the next flip.
This is basically an article describing why you can’t just look at an event after it occurs, see that it has some extremely rare characteristics, and then determine it was unlikely to happen by chance. It is like asking someone to pick a random number between 1 and 1 million and then saying, “oh my god, it must not actually be random… the chances of choosing the exact number 729,619 is 1 in a million! That is too rar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feynman is one of the best ever at explaining complicated concepts in ways almost everyone can understand. That is a very rare skill for the super intelligent to have.
Agreed on Feynman, but not necessarily on the generalization that it being a rare skill to simplify things. When you understand a thing so well, you can simplify it enough.
This is basically an article describing why you can’t just look at an event after it occurs, see that it has some extremely rare characteristics, and then determine it was unlikely to happen by chance. It is like asking someone to pick a random number between 1 and 1 million and then saying, “oh my god, it must not actually be random… the chances of choosing the exact number 729,619 is 1 in a million! That is too rar…
During WW2, allies tried to guess the number of German tanks by observing the serial numbers on captured tanks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem If, say, the serial numbers are unique, and come in sequence, if the five first numbers you see are all less than 100, it's a far chance that there aren't produced 200 tanks. (Provided some assumptions, of course.)
The funfact is that you get different results if you follow the frequentist or the Bayesian approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can and you should. If you flipped a coin 100 times and all you got are heads you really should assume it didn't happen by chance.
Nope. A previous flip has no bearing on the next flip.
This is basically an article describing why you can’t just look at an event after it occurs, see that it has some extremely rare characteristics, and then determine it was unlikely to happen by chance. It is like asking someone to pick a random number between 1 and 1 million and then saying, “oh my god, it must not actually be random… the chances of choosing the exact number 729,619 is 1 in a million! That is too rar…
You can and you should. If you flipped a coin 100 times and all you got are heads you really should assume it didn't happen by chance.
By starting the sentence with if, you are selecting the occurrence to look at.
If you said I am about to look at the results of this coin toss that happened yesterday, if it is all heads then I am going to assume it was not random, then you are making the claim before you have seen the results. You can still be wrong, but the chances of you being wrong is the rarity of the event.
This is basically an article describing why you can’t just look at an event after it occurs, see that it has some extremely rare characteristics, and then determine it was unlikely to happen by chance. It is like asking someone to pick a random number between 1 and 1 million and then saying, “oh my god, it must not actually be random… the chances of choosing the exact number 729,619 is 1 in a million! That is too rar…
It is well known that Kramnik baselessly accuses everyone. The article seems to be more about statistics than chess, and doesn’t make any accusations. Kind of a click bait title IMO.
The title is “Did a US Chess Champion Cheat?” and the text of the article uses statistical analysis to show that the person most likely did not cheat. What would you consider to be misleading between the title and the article?
This is basically an article describing why you can’t just look at an event after it occurs, see that it has some extremely rare characteristics, and then determine it was unlikely to happen by chance. It is like asking someone to pick a random number between 1 and 1 million and then saying, “oh my god, it must not actually be random… the chances of choosing the exact number 729,619 is 1 in a million! That is too rar…
Your comment made me think of an interesting story and a funfact. During WW2, allies tried to guess the number of German tanks by observing the serial numbers on captured tanks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem If, say, the serial numbers are unique, and come in sequence, if the five first numbers you see are all less than 100, it's a far chance that there aren't produced 200 tanks. (Provided some…
(The frequentist/Bayesian estimates should converge as you collect more observations.)
This is basically an article describing why you can’t just look at an event after it occurs, see that it has some extremely rare characteristics, and then determine it was unlikely to happen by chance. It is like asking someone to pick a random number between 1 and 1 million and then saying, “oh my god, it must not actually be random… the chances of choosing the exact number 729,619 is 1 in a million! That is too rar…
You can and you should. If you flipped a coin 100 times and all you got are heads you really should assume it didn't happen by chance.