How do you interpret the "dice problem"?

[Alan Mendelson]

Did you explain to them why the correct answer is 1/11? I suspect most of them would have said something like "Ah, yes I can see that is the right answer".

While I didn't call it the "right answer" I did mention that the 1/11 camp says the reason is that it is not known which of the two dice is showing a 2. And how do you think that went over with craps dealers who watch two dice all day and all night long?

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a video without changing the value of the die with a 2 to explain how the answer is 1/11. Show me the video and I will show it to the craps dealers.

[Rob.Singer]

Funny. Mickeycrimm is doing his best to make you look like a fool, while Dancer is saying you just might win the bet with the wiz.

[Alan Mendelson]

Funny. Mickeycrimm is doing his best to make you look like a fool, while Dancer is saying you just might win the bet with the wiz.

Okay now I need a link to see this.

[Rob.Singer]

I believe you have to be a member of vpFree to read their posts. It's a Yahoo group.

[Alan Mendelson]

I believe you have to be a member of vpFree to read their posts. It's a Yahoo group.

I just found that out -- joined and read it. Not worth responding to. And what a horrible discussion format!! Not worth the time or trouble to participate there.

[Alan Mendelson]

Our "part-time" forum member OnceDear has posted on the WOV forum that he has a script for a video that will answer my request which was to show me, without altering the position of the die showing a 2, how the answer can be 1/11.

OnceDear wrote, in part: "And still the probability is 1/11. But this video will be a tickets only, paid viewing. If he wants content for his site, it will cost him $100."

Shucks, I thought OnceDear wanted to be a hero???

But the reality is he can't show it's 1/11. He needs to rotate both dice. With one die fixed on a two, and only one die to move with six sides the answer is and will always be 1/6.

[regnis]

Alan--you are a real trouble maker. Spreading this rubbish all over the internet that a die only has 6 faces and once thrown they do not change.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan--you are a real trouble maker. Spreading this rubbish all over the internet that a die only has 6 faces and once thrown they do not change.

When I was playing craps in Vegas over the weekend, I really tried hard to get them to allow me to rotate that die that kept landing on a 5 for a 7-out. But the dealers would not budge. Nor would the floor man. Nor would the pit boss. What's wrong with them??

[OneHitWonder]

Please explain to me how a die that immediately settles on 6 plus a spinner that eventually settles on 2 does not conform to the condition "at least one of the dice is a 2."

Simple, and the answer to this exercise.

"At least one of the dice is a 2" - the same as "one or more of the dice is a 2" - is not the same as "one or the other die is a 2".

You require "one or the other die is a 2" for the answer of 1/11 chance of 2-2, and the correctly (assumed) inclusive or. This follows from the individual rolls allowed by the question's set of distinctly possible rolls (of "one or the other die is a 2"). Each roll would be roll1 or roll2 or roll3 or... of said set.

A roll of non-2 with 2 doesn't conform to "one or more of the dice is a 2" because there isn't the "... or more of the dice is a 2" possibility then. Wouldn't it be deceptive of a lottery to advertise "one prize or more" were there known to be only one prize from the outset? Like claiming the total prize money is "$X or more" when there's only $X. To state this as clearly as possible, the assertion "two or more of the (two) dice are 2's" is silly. You can't just tack on "or more" when no more possible, or "one" when the "or more" part of the condition has already been fulfilled.

[Rob.Singer]

I just found that out -- joined and read it. Not worth responding to. And what a horrible discussion format!! Not worth the time or trouble to participate there.

Apparently most feel that way. There's supposedly over 11,000 members, and maybe 3 or 4 post regularly. There's a guy who lives, eats, and sleeps math (nightoftheiguana) that holds week-long discussions with himself on the stupidest of subjects all the time. Jean Scott & Dan Paymar use the forum to shamelessly advertise their worn out old school vp trinkets. And I was banned from posting for posting that Dancer's column of how/why he got divorced was very disturbing for decent people to read.

[redietz]

Simple, and the answer to this exercise.

"At least one of the dice is a 2" - the same as "one or more of the dice is a 2" - is not the same as "one or the other die is a 2".

You require "one or the other die is a 2" for the answer of 1/11 chance of 2-2, and the correctly (assumed) inclusive or. This follows from the individual rolls allowed by the question's set of distinctly possible rolls (of "one or the other die is a 2"). Each roll would be roll1 or roll2 or roll3 or... of said set.

A roll of non-2 with 2 doesn't conform to "one or more of the dice is a 2" because there isn't the "... or more of the dice is a 2" possibility then. Wouldn't it be deceptive of a lottery to advertise "one prize or more" were there known to be only one prize from the outset? Like claiming the total prize money is "$X or more" when there's only $X. To state this as clearly as possible, the assertion "two or more of the (two) dice are 2's" is silly. You can't just tack on "or more" when no more possible, or "one" when the "or more" part of the condition has already been fulfilled.

Thanks, OneHit. That was concise and clear. Well done.

This whole affair reminds me of an old joke told among editors, "Everybody with a Ph.D. thinks they can read with comprehension and write without crayons."

If only they could; if only they could.

[Alan Mendelson]

Over on the WOV forum the entire "problem" with the 1/11ers was just summed up in this statement by Ibeatyouraces:

They keep thinking it's a once die problem. It's not! People, there are 12 TOTAL faces. Only one face gets eliminated. Not the whole Damn die! There are 11 faces left. The damn answer is 1 in 11. How GD hard is that to understand???

Would someone please clue them in that when you have one face showing on a die that the other five faces on that same die cannot show or be used? To quote the post on the WOV forum, "how GD hard is that to understand???"

I guess it is: "(Alan) simply can't get past a die having six sides." -- Michael Shackleford May 12, 2015

[redietz]

Okay, I took another look at the WoV forum. They are applying themselves to differently worded variations of the dice problem. Reading does not appear to be their strong suit. I guess there's a reason math clubs don't spend a lot of time deconstructing writing. Probably the same reason there's no steeplechase in the Special Olympics.

[Alan Mendelson]

I have to laugh... after quoting Ibeatyouraces here he removed this post from the WOV forum (his typo remains):

They keep thinking it's a once die problem. It's not! People, there are 12 TOTAL faces. Only one face gets eliminated. Not the whole Damn die! There are 11 faces left. The damn answer is 1 in 11. How GD hard is that to understand???

Do ya think he realized how ridiculous it was?

Here was my original response:

Would someone please clue them in that when you have one face showing on a die that the other five faces on that same die cannot show or be used? To quote the post on the WOV forum, "how GD hard is that to understand???"

I guess it is: "(Alan) simply can't get past a die having six sides." -- Michael Shackleford May 12, 2015

[arcimede$]

While I didn't call it the "right answer" I did mention that the 1/11 camp says the reason is that it is not known which of the two dice is showing a 2. And how do you think that went over with craps dealers who watch two dice all day and all night long?

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a video without changing the value of the die with a 2 to explain how the answer is 1/11. Show me the video and I will show it to the craps dealers.

You can't compute probability with a video. When are you going to try and understand the question?

[redietz]

But you can show a single event in present tense with a video. When are you going to understand/appreciate a piece of writing?

[Alan Mendelson]

You can't compute probability with a video. When are you going to try and understand the question?

A video shows that the question has been misunderstood, misinterpreted, and generally ignored.

How absolutely incriminating it is for the Wizard to show himself rotating that die with the two on it. I wonder what Perry Mason would say? Hahaha.

[1in11]

Simple, and the answer to this exercise.

"At least one of the dice is a 2" - the same as "one or more of the dice is a 2" - is not the same as "one or the other die is a 2".

You require "one or the other die is a 2" for the answer of 1/11 chance of 2-2, and the correctly (assumed) inclusive or. This follows from the individual rolls allowed by the question's set of distinctly possible rolls (of "one or the other die is a 2"). Each roll would be roll1 or roll2 or roll3 or... of said set.

A roll of non-2 with 2 doesn't conform to "one or more of the dice is a 2" because there isn't the "... or more of the dice is a 2" possibility then. Wouldn't it be deceptive of a lottery to advertise "one prize or more" were there known to be only one prize from the outset? Like claiming the total prize money is "$X or more" when there's only $X. To state this as clearly as possible, the assertion "two or more of the (two) dice are 2's" is silly. You can't just tack on "or more" when no more possible, or "one" when the "or more" part of the condition has already been fulfilled.

I do not agree with your assertion that "one or the other die is a 2" is different from "at least one of the dice is a 2." To me, the statement "at least one of the dice is a 2" means either the first die only is a 2 or the second die only is a 2 or both dice are 2 (for however you want to define the "first" and "second" die).

I also do not agree with your assertion that a statement constructed with "or" can not contain a statement that is impossible. For an "or" statement to be true, we only need any one of the statements to be true. Your example of an advertisement claiming "one prize or more" when there is only one prize to be awarded is deceptive, but it is not false.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't know what language you "math guys" speak, but English is English.

I do not agree with your assertion that "one or the other die is a 2" is different from "at least one of the dice is a 2."

In English, "one or the other die is a 2" means that either Die A is a 2 or Die B is a 2. Both cannot show 2.

To me, the statement "at least one of the dice is a 2" means either the first die only is a 2 or the second die only is a 2 or both dice are 2 (for however you want to define the "first" and "second" die).

In English, the statement "at least one of the dice is a 2" means that either Die A or Die B is a 2 or Both Die A and Die B are showing a 2.

So, those two statements are different.

Now, regarding this statement:

"one prize or more"

Clearly it means there is at least one prize and there can be more than one prize. If there is only one prize then it can be both deceptive and false. As a matter of fact, "deceptive" statements are "false" statements.

Now, where is that video with at least one die showing a 2 that proves the 1/11 answer when the die showing a 2 isn't changed?

[Rob.Singer]

What I'm seeing from all this is how that oh-so-special group of self-proclaimed WoV geniuses had a light turned on inside those huge heads of theirs by Alan's very simple, realistic, & concise interpretation of the two dice problem. It's like their forum got this one big & sudden SLAP upside their heads over this, all that collective intellect took a stunning blindside hit, and now they can't stop talking about it. It's called "inside your heads" in case their vulgarity-spewing, frustrated, banned crossovers still can't read real English. And you can tell it disturbs them by all the continued name-calling. I would assume their next cry out will be "life isn't fair"!

Every now & then Wizard pops in, wondering when someone will take him up on his 1in11 version bet. It's -EV, but as they all know and won't admit to, any "negative" bet in that range can be beaten in a short term setting (which every betting situation always is, BTW) so I'd be happy to give him a chance to not show up again--but I'd like him to bring along that nickel-playing ibeatyouraces so we can have a "-EV" video poker session side bet using my play strategy for REAL money afterwards. Yes, I'm challenging this ferocious gambling brute to come out of hiding behind the safety of his little computer, and walk the walk instead of all that sissy talk he spreads around over there.

They're also chatting about Alan's sequential royal. Hahaha--actually seeing someone who plays for real instead of anonymous story-tellers going incessantly on & on about this theory and that theory--and at the $5 level no less--on that forum is something very unique indeed. Oh how they must miss that mickeycrimm clown they got so invested in--and infatuated with--for far too long.