- This topic has 220 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
sdduuuude.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM #248056July 27, 2008 at 2:16 PM #247849
ucodegen
ParticipantI don’t know why some of you people are arguing against the 2/3 answer. It IS the correct answer, whether you understand the logic or not.
People who study probabilities for a living have said this is the answer. All you amateur naysayers should just capitulate and move on…:-)
Because the experts all said that real estate always goes up.. and guess what….
So it gets argued until it gets understood. We don’t accept expert opinion as gospel here. We try to dissect it.
July 27, 2008 at 2:16 PM #248003ucodegen
ParticipantI don’t know why some of you people are arguing against the 2/3 answer. It IS the correct answer, whether you understand the logic or not.
People who study probabilities for a living have said this is the answer. All you amateur naysayers should just capitulate and move on…:-)
Because the experts all said that real estate always goes up.. and guess what….
So it gets argued until it gets understood. We don’t accept expert opinion as gospel here. We try to dissect it.
July 27, 2008 at 2:16 PM #248007ucodegen
ParticipantI don’t know why some of you people are arguing against the 2/3 answer. It IS the correct answer, whether you understand the logic or not.
People who study probabilities for a living have said this is the answer. All you amateur naysayers should just capitulate and move on…:-)
Because the experts all said that real estate always goes up.. and guess what….
So it gets argued until it gets understood. We don’t accept expert opinion as gospel here. We try to dissect it.
July 27, 2008 at 2:16 PM #248069ucodegen
ParticipantI don’t know why some of you people are arguing against the 2/3 answer. It IS the correct answer, whether you understand the logic or not.
People who study probabilities for a living have said this is the answer. All you amateur naysayers should just capitulate and move on…:-)
Because the experts all said that real estate always goes up.. and guess what….
So it gets argued until it gets understood. We don’t accept expert opinion as gospel here. We try to dissect it.
July 27, 2008 at 2:16 PM #248071ucodegen
ParticipantI don’t know why some of you people are arguing against the 2/3 answer. It IS the correct answer, whether you understand the logic or not.
People who study probabilities for a living have said this is the answer. All you amateur naysayers should just capitulate and move on…:-)
Because the experts all said that real estate always goes up.. and guess what….
So it gets argued until it gets understood. We don’t accept expert opinion as gospel here. We try to dissect it.
July 27, 2008 at 2:22 PM #247854meadandale
ParticipantComparing Math/Probability with Real Estate…
Novel approach. However, Mathematicians hold themselves to a much higher standard of PROOF. It’s like Fermat’s Last Theorem. You may not understand Andrew Wiles math but the experts who have verified his proof do and they’ve said it is correct. Debating it is pointless.
Next thing you’ll be disputing 1+1=2
July 27, 2008 at 2:22 PM #248008meadandale
ParticipantComparing Math/Probability with Real Estate…
Novel approach. However, Mathematicians hold themselves to a much higher standard of PROOF. It’s like Fermat’s Last Theorem. You may not understand Andrew Wiles math but the experts who have verified his proof do and they’ve said it is correct. Debating it is pointless.
Next thing you’ll be disputing 1+1=2
July 27, 2008 at 2:22 PM #248013meadandale
ParticipantComparing Math/Probability with Real Estate…
Novel approach. However, Mathematicians hold themselves to a much higher standard of PROOF. It’s like Fermat’s Last Theorem. You may not understand Andrew Wiles math but the experts who have verified his proof do and they’ve said it is correct. Debating it is pointless.
Next thing you’ll be disputing 1+1=2
July 27, 2008 at 2:22 PM #248074meadandale
ParticipantComparing Math/Probability with Real Estate…
Novel approach. However, Mathematicians hold themselves to a much higher standard of PROOF. It’s like Fermat’s Last Theorem. You may not understand Andrew Wiles math but the experts who have verified his proof do and they’ve said it is correct. Debating it is pointless.
Next thing you’ll be disputing 1+1=2
July 27, 2008 at 2:22 PM #248076meadandale
ParticipantComparing Math/Probability with Real Estate…
Novel approach. However, Mathematicians hold themselves to a much higher standard of PROOF. It’s like Fermat’s Last Theorem. You may not understand Andrew Wiles math but the experts who have verified his proof do and they’ve said it is correct. Debating it is pointless.
Next thing you’ll be disputing 1+1=2
July 27, 2008 at 2:48 PM #247863ucodegen
ParticipantInteresting experiment to think of:
If we have 3 doors, 2 goats and 1 car.
You don’t make a choice on the first sequence.. the announcer just opens one of the goat doors.What is the probability of choice between the two remaining doors that either is a goat or a car, and how is this example different than the one given earlier.
The real importance it the independence of trails when doing the choosing. We are asking for the probability of the next decision, not the probability of the pattern of events leading up to the choice.
July 27, 2008 at 2:48 PM #248018ucodegen
ParticipantInteresting experiment to think of:
If we have 3 doors, 2 goats and 1 car.
You don’t make a choice on the first sequence.. the announcer just opens one of the goat doors.What is the probability of choice between the two remaining doors that either is a goat or a car, and how is this example different than the one given earlier.
The real importance it the independence of trails when doing the choosing. We are asking for the probability of the next decision, not the probability of the pattern of events leading up to the choice.
July 27, 2008 at 2:48 PM #248023ucodegen
ParticipantInteresting experiment to think of:
If we have 3 doors, 2 goats and 1 car.
You don’t make a choice on the first sequence.. the announcer just opens one of the goat doors.What is the probability of choice between the two remaining doors that either is a goat or a car, and how is this example different than the one given earlier.
The real importance it the independence of trails when doing the choosing. We are asking for the probability of the next decision, not the probability of the pattern of events leading up to the choice.
July 27, 2008 at 2:48 PM #248084ucodegen
ParticipantInteresting experiment to think of:
If we have 3 doors, 2 goats and 1 car.
You don’t make a choice on the first sequence.. the announcer just opens one of the goat doors.What is the probability of choice between the two remaining doors that either is a goat or a car, and how is this example different than the one given earlier.
The real importance it the independence of trails when doing the choosing. We are asking for the probability of the next decision, not the probability of the pattern of events leading up to the choice.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.