Re: Probability question

"Bill T" <wctom1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44e108e4$0$25875$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The two puzzles are completely unrelated. A certain number of you won't
get it, no matter how it is explained to you. Reminds me of the "group
theory" course I took in college. Eighty percent of the students
memorized the equations without any deep understanding of the concepts.
A few of us read a couple of chapters and blew off the classes. I had
fogotten some of the equations, and had to devrive them from first
principles while in the middle of the final exam. Still got 100% for
the course.

Just like some of us will never bat 250 in the major leagues, so some of
us will never "get" math. If you didn't viscerally grasp math and stats
concepts by age 16, you sure aren't going to do it now.

For the math-impaired: stop arguing. You are wrong, and we cannot
explain to your satisfaction why you are wrong. Our brains are just
hard-wired differently.

Having said all that, I am still disappointed that so many posters on
this thread are basically innumerate. In a poker newsgroup, I would
have expected better.

Well, 'numerate', inserting unnecessary theoretical constructs into a simple
semi-pragmatic puzzle is certainly not 'ane'.

Indeed, in this case it is certainly inane.

Someone comes to you and offers you a choice of the contents of two
envelopes under the conditions given, and 'you' talk about infinite numbers
of integers? rofflmfao!

Someone comes to you and offers you a choice of the contents of two
envelopes under the conditions given, and 'you' talk about finite
destributions in which one or both of the two values may be unlikely because
of financial considerations? rofflmfao!

Fact is, no one would offer you the deal (given uncomfortable amounts)
unless drunk or insane or they had some sort of advantageous side bet or
deal.

The two/three amounts, pragmatically, would thus not be amenable to
distributional analysis even if the (irrelevant) distribution were fully
known. They would be trivial from the profferer's viewpoint.

And certainly not a random sample unless so stated.

Your numeracy is something I believe in - I could have written part of your
account - but 'schizo' math is ridiculous, such math being application of
pure math in cases where measurements - actual quantities - are involved.

However, fine. Bring up sampling and theoretical distributions, but get
real, eschew schizo pedantry.

eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
http://eleaticus.blog-city.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Do I have pot odds to call here?
    ... years.  I have two master's degrees in quant fields.  But the kind of math ... what are the odds of making that flush and am I getting the right price to ... directly) I gave him probabilities to be on certain hands. ... If you want to do an EV calculation you need to put a probabilty distribution on ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • pdf output does not show bold faced math fonts
    ... I've recently installed a fresh kubuntu distribution. ... output does not display the math symbold bold faced. ... However after I apt-got every font package related to latex that I am ... Please could somebody point me out which packages are most probably ...
    (comp.text.tex)
  • Re: Randomize three variables subject to sum always equal to 1
    ... We don't know if that is a problem or not as the original problem was ... >If I could do the math, I also might prove a suspicion that the result is ... it is not the same as the "divide by the sum" result given by Tom ... where the "RV's" do have the same distribution. ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.programming)
  • Re: need tutorial or lecture notes on Tempered distribution, generalized functions and Fourier Trans
    ... > I am in a process of revisiting Fourier Transform via way of Tempered ... > Distribution and Generalized Functions. ... > into math but not too math such as math graduate. ... > Generalized Functions, and with good understandable math as a bridge from ...
    (sci.math)