Your answer is indeed 1/6. I absolutely agree that your answer is 1/6. You don't seem to like it when I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Your answer is still wrong though. That seems to be one thing we will never agree on.
Printable View
Your answer is indeed 1/6. I absolutely agree that your answer is 1/6. You don't seem to like it when I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Your answer is still wrong though. That seems to be one thing we will never agree on.
Just as expected, these WoV theorists couldn't spin the problem enuf to get common sense based people to fall for their BS, so they've returned to wizard's jumping up & down like crying kids because they couldn't convert people with more brains than them, and namecalling those over here. All with anonymous courage. But I understand their frustration with me at least, after I humiliated wizard, math extremist, and several other mensas in the past when they were afraid to meet up with me in LV and wanted no part of betting me that my play strategy would win as they watched--of course, after bravely claiming that I was a "fraud". Their method then? Ban me :)
So Alan, being that those clowns actually gave us the ultimate compliment by running away like sissies, job well done!
Like I said, the last time I saw this approach at reasoning it was by con artists who went to prison.
Once again state your case. Skip the questions. No demonstration needed.
Who ran away? I'm still here. I'm somewhat bored trying to get Alan to see sense. Alan has given up, not I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You, Rob, you don't even rise to the challenge to your own untenable standpoint. You just ignore it or describe it in BS words like 'wordsmithing'. I'm trying to figure out who is doing the namecalling? Other forum members can make their own judgements.
Alan,
Third time lucky. I asked...
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnceDear
Once Dear you owe me an apology. I am traveling and responding to the forum using my smartphone. Excel is not available. Be sure you mention this on the Wizard's site as well.
Basic conditional probability:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The probability of A given B = Probability of (A and B are true)/Probability(B is true)
In this case, A = "The dice show 2-2"
B = "At least one of the dice shows 2"
The fact that at least one of the dice shows 2 is a necessary condition for both dice to show 2, so Probability(A and B are true) is the same as Probability(A is true)
Therefore,
The probability of The dice showing 2-2 given that at least one of the dice shows 2 = (Probability of dice showing 2-2)/(Probability of at least one die showing 2).
There is 1 way, with probability of 1/36 to roll two dice so that they show 2-2. There are 11 ways, with probability of 11/36 to roll two dice so that at least one die shows 2.
(1/36)/(11/36) = 1/11, the probability that two dice show 2, given that at least one of them shows a 2.
Well Alan, I showed you how to solve this problem back on page 1 with two coins. The math steps are exactly the same. Now, all the possible throws are given to you and yet you still are in denial.
Look, it all gets down to how the question is asked. You refuse to accept there are two ways of phrasing the problem. Once you accept there are two different questions then maybe you will realize each question has a different answer.
PS. Did you note the last post from Singer is full of name calling and lies? Did you really expect him to change?
Arc there is only one answer for the one way the question was asked. I'm afraid the 1/11 crowd has been trying to change the question or they read it wrong. I said this early on. As the question appears and was originally stated the answer is 1/6. Even Once Dear concedes this conditionally.
As I said earlier, it's bad writing that creates the pseudo-paradox. If these folks wanted to be clear, they could be clear. They're interested in being oh-so-clever, not clear.
As for wordsmith being a BS word, as OnceDear suggested, I'm going to point out that it's a very interesting word in that it has an established definition (someone who is expert at using words; a professional writer) and an urban moderne usage, namely one who strings words together in pleasing, interesting, amusing ways regardless of their meaning. I'm not sure which definition Rob was using.
For what do I owe you an apology, this comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Well. I did find it funny. That is my privilege. I did not misquote or misrepresent you. You had previously mentioned that you would fire someone who disagreed with you on this 1/6 1/11 issue. That's not a direct quote, but a parody based on your previous style of posting.Quote:
The funniest so far, has to be Alan announcing on his forum (about a fellow member's independent proof)...
"Synergistic your application of Excel was just wrong."
Closely followed by
"Sorry, I am not using a regular computer and I am unable to see the spreadsheets. "
And this guy claims to be a business man. What did he do? Fire the cretin that suggested using a spreadsheet application?
And as to 'And this guy claims to be a business man' Well that came from my incredulity that wherever you are and whatever you are using to reply to forum posts with, I would have found it strikingly unusual to not have access to a laptop with Excel.
If you are offended by the tone of my posts, then be assured that no personal offense was meant. If I owe you an apology for any factual misrepresentation, anywhere, then direct me to that misrepresentation and I will happily put that right with appropriate humility.
I might have a personal opinion of you, others, here and on WOV. That is my right. I do my level best to argue the topic, and not attack the person. You've already expressed irritation with my style. Without checking, I think you said something about being bored by my questions ( I'll fix this if its a misquote). I might equally express frustration with what I perceive to be your style. I'm still stubbornly trying to stay on topic.
Now, as to Bob S. I'm personally offended by his name-calling here. I do not demand or really expect any apology.
"And this guys claims to be a businessman?" is a bit out of line. I know plenty of businessmen who don't lug their laptops. I know plenty of businessmen who have others do the Excel work. I think, OnceDear, that you're confusing the word "businessman" with "accountant."
I've said this before, but academic journals are not filled with articles and reviews signed "anonymous" or "OnceDear." If you're going to take public shots at someone, have the decency or intestinal fortitude to sign your actual name so people know where to send the fish.
Please explain how I am misinterpreting the question. The only condition in the original problem is that "at least one of the dice is a 2." You then use the example of a craps table where the first die lands on a 2, and then the other die spins. This is not every situation that is covered in the original problem. What about the example of the first die landing on 4, and the other die spins and eventually comes to rest showing a 2. This situation is also covered in the original problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, Please do not credit me with agreeing in any way shape or form, that I agree with your 1/6 answer to the original question as asked and upon the additional common sense conditions that we agreed. vis-a-vis Assertions that the partner always called out if there was a two and that the partner saw both dice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I have unconditionally agreed that the probability is 1/6 where you set aside one die as a two and go on to cast just a second die. I don't think anyone ever disagreed to that answer to that different question. ( Except when one member agreed breifly in error and later retracted that agreement)
And in this example the answer is still 1/6.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1in11
'And this guys claims to be a businessman'Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I did not add a '?' to that did I? You implied it. It was an assertion and not a question.
OK. granted I have not heard or read the actual words 'I am a businessman' from Alan. So maybe that assertion is incorrect. I apologise to Alan if Alan makes no claim to be a businessman, especially if he considers it an insult to be called a businessman.
The answer to what is 1/6?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I humbly step aside and let OnceDear (still anonymous, mind you) set the forum record for "unaware-I'm-obnoxiousness." The "aware-I'm-obnoxiousness record" is still up for grabs, but a certain reinstated member has set the bar quite high. OnceDear, you have some work to do, but I'm confident you'll at least make a run at it.
Well that settles it because that in effect was the information in the original question.Quote:
Originally Posted by OnceDear
How are these two pieces of information equivalent: At least one of the dice is a 2, and I can determine with certainty which die is a 2?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson