Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#453 - karesokin
Reply +18
(09/29/2012) [-]
I'd press the green button twice....
I'd press the green button twice....
#495 to #453 - captaindakir
Reply -1
(09/29/2012) [-]
If you flip a coin twice, you have a 50% chance of heads. If you flip a coin a hundred times, you have a 50% chance of heads. The chance of heads is multiplied, but so is the chance of tails. The odds are always the same.
#507 to #495 - AcidFlux
Reply -1
(09/29/2012) [-]
If you flip a coin twice, you have a 75% that at least one of the flips will be heads.
Four possible outcomes (H = Heads, T = Tails)
HT
TH
TT
HH
Ten flips? Then there is a 99.9+% chance that at least one of the flips will result in a heads.
If you are going to use Bill Nye, please get your math right.
#513 to #507 - captaindakir
Reply 0
(09/29/2012) [-]
Refer to my reply to Hooves.
#619 to #513 - AcidFlux
Reply -1
(09/29/2012) [-]
Your original statement was inaccurate. If you flip a coin twice, you have a 50% chance of heads for each flip, not in total. Therefore, if you press the green button twice, you have a 75% chance of the $100 million.

You may have known what you meant, but you explained it improperly. Also, you didn't show that karesokin was wrong in any way. By replying to comment #453, it appeared you were trying to point out a flaw in their logic. There was none. If there is no limit to the number of times the button can be pressed, and no negative consequences for a failure, then there's no reason not to press the green button twice, or even as often as you possible could.

So, in short... I'm still not sure if you were wrong about the math, or that you simply explained it wrong. It boils down to you either making a math error... or sharing a pointless bit of mathematical information that had no relevance to the original comment. Which one is it?
#626 to #619 - captaindakir
Reply 0
(09/29/2012) [-]
So, you're saying each time you press increases possibility of a positive outcome? Don't forget that each time has also has an increased possibility of a negative outcome.
#643 to #626 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(09/29/2012) [-]
Try this: Who has the better chance of winning the lottery: the person that buys one ticket, or the person that buys one hundred tickets? It's the same idea.

If you are allowed to flip a coin multiple times, then your chance of getting a heads, at least ONCE, increases with each flip. It may happen on the first flip or on the 100th flip. All we're looking for is ONE occurrence.

There is no negative consequence for pressing the green button and not getting a positive result. If you are allowed to press it multiple times, then the chance of getting the money increases.

Refer back to my first example of 2 coin flips: HH, TT, TH, HT. Heads appears in 3 of the four possible event sequences. Therefore, there is a 75% that heads will appear, at least once, in a two flip scenario.

In a three flip scenario? 87.5% chance of seeing a heads.
HHH
HHT
HTH
HTT
THH
THT
TTH
TTT


It's like binary code, man. 000,001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111.

What are the chances, in a three-flip series, that the coin will land on tails three times in a row? If you believe it's a 50% chance that it lands on tails three times consecutively, then we need to play a few games of chance together.
#657 to #643 - captaindakir
Reply -1
(09/29/2012) [-]
"If you are allowed to flip a coin multiple times, then your chance of getting a heads, at least ONCE, increases with each flip."
The coin doesn't care. No matter how many times you flip, it's 50% chance positive and 50% negative. Purely random chance that does not change.
#774 to #657 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(09/29/2012) [-]
Holy ****, how are you not getting this? You are confusing the idea of changes in probability for a single instance with an increase of probability of the occurrence with MULTIPLE instances.

Coin Flip #1: It's 50/50 that it will be heads/tails, for this single instance.
Coin Flip #2: It's 50/50 that it will be heads/tails, for this single instance.

No one is arguing that point. For each, individual instance, the chance is always 50/50. Previous instances have no bearing on future instances.

You seem to think that I'm saying that if coin flip one was tails, then there's an increased probability that coin flip #2 will be heads. WRONG. I never said that.

What I am saying is that the odds of a heads up coin flip, when viewing TWO OR MORE INSTANCES, is increased. Each instance is still it's own, individual event. But taken as a whole, the odds that one will be heads up increases... AS A WHOLE. Not for any one particular event, but for one of the multiples to occur at least one time.

If you SIMULTANEOUSLY flip ten coins, what are the odds that all ten coins will be tails, and NONE will be heads? Answer that, and if you get it right, we can continue.

TEN simultaneous coin flips. All TEN showing the same side.

#782 to #774 - captaindakir
Reply -1
(09/29/2012) [-]
50/50. Just because there are more coins, does NOT change the probability.
#794 to #782 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(09/29/2012) [-]
Are you saying that if I simultaneously flipped 100 coins, that the odds that NONE of them would show Heads is 50%? I need to know if you aren't grasping the mathematical concept, or if you are misunderstanding what we are trying to explain to you.
#798 to #794 - captaindakir
Reply -1
(09/29/2012) [-]
Gah, I'm tired. I meant that the odds are the same as any outcome.
#804 to #798 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(09/29/2012) [-]
For any one, individual, specific coin flip, all by itself. Yes. We never disputed that.
But we are talking about looking for a SINGLE occurrence of Heads out of multiple coin flips. Whether we see heads once, twice or fifty times is irrelevant. To satisfy the conditions of our observation, we only needs to see Heads ONCE.

Go get some sleep, come back later and look at what we've been saying. You have been confusing individual probability with multiple probabilities.
#489 to #453 - anon
Reply 0
(09/29/2012) [-]
still a chance you wont get 100m
#473 to #453 - robbgnarlee
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#467 to #453 - sreggin
Reply +1
(09/29/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#1328 to #467 - karesokin
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
mfw i come back to see all the replies...