The movie 21 Please explain the math.

[meadandale]

I 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…:-)

[ucodegen]

I 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.

[ucodegen]

I 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.

[ucodegen]

I 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.

[ucodegen]

I 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.

[ucodegen]

I 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.

[meadandale]

Comparing 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

[meadandale]

Comparing 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

[meadandale]

Comparing 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

[meadandale]

Comparing 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

[meadandale]

Comparing 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

[ucodegen]

Interesting 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.

[ucodegen]

Interesting 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.

[ucodegen]

Interesting 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.

[ucodegen]

Interesting 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.

[Author]

Posts