Probability
Moderator: Michael Wallace
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Probability
I live just outside York whose population are seen to be quite "normal". Considering this, when I leave my house tonight, what is the probability that the first person I see will have an above average number of legs for a human?
(By average I mean the usual average - i.e. mathematical mean)
Kirk
(By average I mean the usual average - i.e. mathematical mean)
Kirk
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Probability
The average number of legs is a bit less than 2, given that a small number of people have no legs or only one leg, while barely anyone has more than 2 legs. So the probability that you see someone with more than the mean number (e.g. two) is, well, close to 1 I'd say.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Probability
Spot on. The mean number of legs for a human is as you said, 1.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ish and so the probability is more-or-less 1 (although I think statisticians would say exactly 1 but I disagree with their philosophy).
The reason I disagree with their philosophy is similar to why I disagreed with Paul Howe's argument that picking two random numbers the same occurs with probability zero. So, picking 1 and 5 occurs with probability zero. Picking 56788 and 234543322 occurs with probability zero. Adding all these combinations together should give me a probability of 1. 0+0+0+0+..... = 1. What nonsense.
The reason I disagree with their philosophy is similar to why I disagreed with Paul Howe's argument that picking two random numbers the same occurs with probability zero. So, picking 1 and 5 occurs with probability zero. Picking 56788 and 234543322 occurs with probability zero. Adding all these combinations together should give me a probability of 1. 0+0+0+0+..... = 1. What nonsense.
Re: Probability
I think it should be infinitesimally small, so it's 1/infinity + 1/infinity ....... infinity times and this would add up to 1. I'd imagine this is a bastardization of maths, but it's easier (for me) to understand.
Re: Probability
Kirk, I thought a spooky but still perfectly logical problem would've been right up your street
I've actually just thought of another problem that confounds most people's expectations (at least if they haven't seen it before) and also has nothing to do with probability, which I'll post later this week. Hopefully this will be more to your taste!
I've actually just thought of another problem that confounds most people's expectations (at least if they haven't seen it before) and also has nothing to do with probability, which I'll post later this week. Hopefully this will be more to your taste!
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Probability
They most certainly wouldn't, unless he or she was an idiot. The number of people in the world is finite, so the probability is going to be exactly something fractionally smaller than zero.Kirk Bevins wrote:(although I think statisticians would say exactly 1 but I disagree with their philosophy).
The problem with the numbers on paper example is that infinity is involved, and if we are going to explain things properly we have to talk about limits. Let's look at it this way:
Suppose you're measuring the height of people. You'll find that with some relatively large probability, a randomly selected person's height is, to the nearest metre, 1 metre. Now let's try and measure their height to the nearest 10 centimetres, now the probability they are exactly 1.4m tall is going to be a fair bit less than their height being 1m. So now let's measure to the nearest 1 cm, again the probability gets smaller.
The point is, that as your measuring gets more and more precise, the probability of finding someone whose height is close enough to whatever height you're measuring gets smaller and smaller, and since you could go on measuring smaller and smaller distances forever, this probability tends to zero (that is to say, it is getting smaller and smaller and can never reach some lower limit other than zero).
It's a similar thing with the numbers example, the probability of picking *exactly* 5 is basically zero, but we don't sit there and talk about limits and infinity because usually that just confuses people even more.
It's not philosophy, just maths
- Jason Larsen
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3902
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:18 pm
- Location: Seattle, Washington
Re: Probability
What is the probability of seeing a blackjack table in England?
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Probability
Is American Blackjack the same as 21, Vingt-et-un and Pontoon? To me Blackjack is that game where if a black jack is played the next person picks up 7 cards (unless they have red jack which cancels it)
- Jason Larsen
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3902
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:18 pm
- Location: Seattle, Washington
Re: Probability
No, Blackjack is the game where you try to get as close to 21 as possible without going over. The term, "doubling down" was popularized because of that game.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Probability
In other words yes, it's the same as pontoon.
- Ben Wilson
- Legend
- Posts: 4549
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
- Location: North Hykeham
Re: Probability
I love that game, especially when we play with rules where you can stack up black jacks and 2s to make a hideous penalty. And especially when I've preloaded the deck.dinos_the_chemist wrote:To me Blackjack is that game where if a black jack is played the next person picks up 7 cards (unless they have red jack which cancels it)
- Jason Larsen
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3902
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:18 pm
- Location: Seattle, Washington
Re: Probability
What do you call pontoon?
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Probability
Michael, do you mean a probability fractionally larger than zero, rather than less than zero
- Jason Larsen
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3902
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:18 pm
- Location: Seattle, Washington
Re: Probability
Did someone say fractions were involved in this?
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Probability
Close..I actually meant fractionally less than 1...Kirk Bevins wrote:Michael, do you mean a probability fractionally larger than zero, rather than less than zero
(if I told you about these new fangled probabilities which are less than zero, I'd have you kill you...or something...)
- Jason Larsen
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3902
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:18 pm
- Location: Seattle, Washington
Re: Probability
Is this just a hypothetical question?
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Probability
Jason, mate, what you call Blackjack we Brits call Pontoon. There's another card game called Blackjack but its more of a kids game and not played in casinos and the rules are a bit ambiguous and it seems each person I play with uses different rules.
As for the fractions, they were to do with the original post on this thread which was a riddle to do with probability (hence the title!)
As for the fractions, they were to do with the original post on this thread which was a riddle to do with probability (hence the title!)
- Jason Larsen
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3902
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:18 pm
- Location: Seattle, Washington
Re: Probability
I understand some British English a lot better now.
Thank you!
Thank you!
-
- Series 48 Champion
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:08 pm
Re: Probability
HmmmmKirk Bevins wrote:I live just outside York whose population are seen to be quite "normal".
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Probability
Ha ha - the funniest post ever.