Do The Math!

[EE THr]

Think of it this way---How many times can you guess all four flips correctly, if you if you do 100 sets of four flips each?

Hint: Even though each individual flip of the four flips is 50-50, which would give you 2 out of 4 correct, the set only counts as correct if all 4 are correct.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Rudy(CA)]

Each flip is a separate event whose outcome is not dependent on prior events. Each coin flip has a 50% probability. 6.25% is
the probability of getting 4 heads (or 4 tails) in exactly four flips.

Dude, with only one idependent event you get 50%.
But when you have 4 successive flips being that in the 3 previous flips you got heads and you want one more head, obviously this is the same as wishing exactly 4 equal results for heads. And this probability is 6.25%.

For a probability result of 50%, only if you flipped all four coins simultaneously.

Why are you exposing yourself to ridicule like that?

Hung, you are the one exposing yourself with your Hung pseudo science. I suggest you contact a local college professor
and have him/her explain it to you.

Ok, let me add some superfluous detail which doesn't change the statistics but may help you see ... without seeing..

Suppose you are the coin flipper and I have a bag of fair coins. You however are blindfolded. You can't see the results of the toss.

I give you a coin from the bag and you flip it. Then I give you another coin and you flip it again. We do the same thing a third time.
You have no idea of wether I am giving you a new coin each time or using the same coin (you can't see).
Now, I give you one more coin and you flip it. What is the probability of this last coin coming up heads?

 

[hung]

I give you a coin from the bag and you flip it. Then I give you another coin and you flip it again. We do the same thing a third time.
You have no idea of wether I am giving you a new coin each time or using the same coin (you can't see).
No, I give you one more coin and you flip it. What is the probability of this last coin coming up heads?

Please. Don't be silly, don't try to turn me into an idiot and don't make the members here fools.
Don't try to put the case you posted above inside the same bag of what you originally posted:

'If you flipped the coin three times and got heads, what are the chances that if you flipped it again a head would appear?Well it's 50%.'
No. It's not 50%. Any teacher of statistics can tell you that. Just show them what you claim in bold and listen to their answer.
Maybe you already know your mistake but just don't know how to get out of the trap you set to yourself.

Flip a coin until you obtain a second head. What is the probability that the coin be flipped 4 times?

Do your calculations and answer the question above.
This one is quite similar to your claim but constructed in another way so you understand the process. It's a simple binomial distribution and should be fairly simple to you. If you get it right, you will hopefully understand your mistake in your previous claim. I will leave this all night so you have plenty of time to resolve.
Can you do it or not?
Actually anyone is invited to resolve this. There is only one answer. So it will be the same for everybody in case it's correct.

 

[woof!]

Looks like we've got two different worldviews being expressed here.

#1: Science is whatever you want it to be, and math results are also whatever you want them to be. You're in control, no stupid Universe is gonna tell you what's what!

#2: Science is a disciplined approach to reasoning about observed phenomena; and ordinary mathematics is an exact science in which the result does not depend on what you want the result to be.

The #1 group swing LRL's-- no surprise there! The #2 group are the anti-fraudsters. No surprise there!

When EE started this thread by saying "Do the Math!" he was barking up the right tree. If you aren't gonna let mere evidence (or even grade school math) dissuade you from believing what you want in preference to what really is, you're gonna want an LRL, you're gonna buy it even though you know its manufacturer is defrauding you, you're gonna screw around with it and no matter how stupid the gadget actually performs, you're gonna say it's working pretty good, and you'll likely defend Chuckie whose own words reveal that he's a compulsive liar and con artist even if you haven't bought his brand of LRL!

The anti-fraudsters don't have to make it up! I'm merely reporting what you see happening in this very thread.

Anti-fraudsters find it almost impossible to persuade anyone who has actually bought an LRL that they've been the victim of a con game. The reason is real simple: the victim is getting what he or she wants out of the deal, and admitting that he or she was a fool is not what the victim wants! Every time the victim resists the idea that they've been screwed, it rings Pavlov's dog's bell again and reinforces the delusion rather than chipping away at it.

The same principle of human nature is behind the well-known resistance that addicts have to admitting to the obvious, that the dope has destroyed their life, and the resistance of religious obedience cult victims to seeing what has happened to them the more it's pointed out to them by their family and friends. Denial strengthens denial.

One might argue that dowsing is plausibly effective at greater than random chance, and that LRL's (since they're a method of dowsing) are therefore effective and that it's their effectiveness that leads to the passionate defense put up by LRL fans. The problem with that argument is that the evidence provided by the LRL fans themselves shows that with results no better than random chance, they believe they've been successful with the thing, and that if the things were to somehow work big bunches worse than random chance, the LRL fans would still invent ways to report that they work great!

--Toto

 

[Rudy(CA)]

I give you a coin from the bag and you flip it. Then I give you another coin and you flip it again. We do the same thing a third time.
You have no idea of wether I am giving you a new coin each time or using the same coin (you can't see).
No, I give you one more coin and you flip it. What is the probability of this last coin coming up heads?

Please. Don't be silly, don't try to turn me into an idiot and don't make the members here fools.
Don't try to put the case you posted above inside the same bag of what you originally posted:

'If you flipped the coin three times and got heads, what are the chances that if you flipped it again a head would appear?Well it's 50%.'
No. It's not 50%. Any teacher of statistics can tell you that. Just show them what you claim in bold and listen to their answer.
Maybe you already know your mistake but just don't know how to get out of the trap you set to yourself.

Flip a coin until you obtain a second head. What is the probability that the coin be flipped 4 times?

Do your calculations and answer the question above.
This one is quite similar to your claim but constructed in another way so you understand the process. It's a simple binomial distribution and should be fairly simple to you. If you get it right, you will hopefully understand your mistake in your previous claim. I will leave this all night so you have plenty of time to resolve.
Can you do it or not?
Actually anyone is invited to resolve this. There is only one answer. So it will be the same for everybody in case it's correct.

Why bother? I'm not going to continue wasting my time with you on this.

 

[EE THr]

hung-up;

You are confusing the chance odds and probability, with real world actual occurrences.

Calculating odds is an attempt to predict actual occurrences.

Just because the odds of a coin flip are 50-50, doesn't mean that it will come up in the exact order of heads, tails, heads, tails forever. What prevents that is randomity.

But, it you toss the coin enough times it will begin to average 50-50 overall.

This is different than guessing the toss.

If you make one guess for each one toss, your odds of getting each toss correct are still 50-50 on an overall average. Like I said, however, just because that's the odds, doesn't mean it will actually happen.

It's very different when you try to guess a complete set of four. You must get all four right, in order to have one correct set, which has different odds.

You also have the same odds for just counting "heads" in sets of four flips. Four heads in a row are far less likely than 50-50.

Anyone can try actually doing this, and see for themselves. There's really not much to debate. Just use a large enough number (maybe a hundred) of either single flips, or sets of flips, and see for yourself.

 

[hung]

Why bother? I'm not going to continue wasting my time with you on this.

I see. Your pride is as big as your ego. It must hurt really bad to admit: 'can't do it.'

This is the indication that you've made that statement with a mistaken rational thinking process.
'If you flipped the coin three times and got heads, what are the chances that if you flipped it again a head would appear?Well it's 50%.'
Before I resolve the probability problem I proposed to you in the other post, I will demonstrate by simple logic how you are very wrong in your answer above.

You ask what the chances are that 'heads' appear again in the fourth flip, after it had appeared in all three previous flips.
This is very much different than stating what you did in your later post:

I give you a coin from the bag and you flip it. Then I give you another coin and you flip it again. We do the same thing a third time.
You have no idea of wether I am giving you a new coin each time or using the same coin (you can't see).
No, I give you one more coin and you flip it. What is the probability of this last coin coming up heads?

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, even the simplest of laymans will figure that in this case there is no prior record of the results of the flips and also there are different coins. THIS IS TOTTALLY different than what you state in bold in your earlier post.
Of course, in this case, IT'S OBVIOUS that if you flip a coin it's 50% chance for resulting 'heads'. There are only two results possible. Heads or tails.
But, when you flip the same coin with prior results on record and clearly stated it was 'heads' in all 3 flips and you want the chances that heads show up again in a fourth try, no way it will be 50%. Each time a flip is made the chances DIMINISH.
Sorry again, but I cannot be more specific than that. This is pure simple logic. Any 10 year old kid would understand.

But this proves one thing for skeptics here.
It's very easy for them to state and claim whatever they want regarding 'supposed' scientific knowledge about the whole babble they insist against LRLs. Even when provided all the evidence on the contrary, in which they attempt to use corroborating concepts even limited by science itself, there is no proof on anything. So they may perpetuate their 'free speech' as they like.

Now, this is very different. This is math, an exact science. There is no opinions or views. Only one correct result. There is no escape.
Next time skeps use math jargons as fundament to their babbles, at least know what you are doing first.

Flip a coin until you obtain a second head. What is the probability that the coin be flipped 4 times?

No skep can answer it? Not even by simple logic?

 

[EE THr]

hung-up;

It's been explained to you about a half dozen times now.

You are trying to impose the odds of a four-flip set onto Rudy's comment about a single, individual flip within the set of four.

Each flip in the four-flip set has a 50% chance, even though the odds for the set are different. That's what Rudy was saying.

Your attempt to twist what he was saying, into pretending he was saying something else, then arguing that other thing which he was not saying, is merely a common Straw Man Fallacy false-rebuttal attempt.

 

[hung]

I tried to help you by pointing your mistake. And you have comitted a mistake. No question about it.
Now it's up to you to react as you wish as long as you do not break any forum rule.
But to me it's very clear that you do not know how to deal with probabilistic problems.
No problem.

 

[hung]

Now that Dr. Rudy has backed out, I offer the skeptics here the chance to resolve this easy probability problem and quit posting blah, blah, blahs.

If you really understand and deal with Binomial Distributions try to use the 50% thing to see if it works.
Answer it right and see what you get.

DO IT. No dogdings.

If you can't do it, leave it blank and the lack of capacity will be obvious. No questions asked.
Let's see how many skeptics really know what they are talking about.

Flip a coin until you obtain heads in the second time. What is the probability that the coin is flipped 4 times?

PS. Edited for better clarity.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good morning Gals & guys, bk: During WW-2 there was a considerable amount of worrying on missions. After so many missions one was allowed to relax for a bit. Unfortunately most of the crews worked upon the accumulated no of missions to predict the results on the next one. Morale was at a low, so the gov't created a campaign to convince the men that each flight was a new toss. It didn't work on the long term toss for completing the 50 combat missions.

They were computing for two different factors.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

Flip a coin until you obtain heads in the second time. What is the probability that the coin is flipped 4 times?

Both sides of this debate have already agreed to what that is, and have stated it.


What is your point in asking that question over and over, now?


Oh, that's right, you like to change the subject whenever you have been proven wrong! That's the famous hung-up Straw Man Fallacy at work once again!


Get someone around your place to stick a fork in you, hung-up, cause you're done!

 

[Rudy(CA)]

hung-up;

It's been explained to you about a half dozen times now.

You are trying to impose the odds of a four-flip set onto Rudy's comment about a single, individual flip within the set of four.

Each flip in the four-flip set has a 50% chance, even though the odds for the set are different. That's what Rudy was saying.

Your attempt to twist what he was saying, into pretending he was saying something else, then arguing that other thing which he was not saying, is merely a common Straw Man Fallacy false-rebuttal attempt.

I had always wondered if he was past Chairman Emeritus of the Flat Earth Society. Now I am sure.

 

[hung]

ElainE does not count as he has never heard about Probability calculus, much less binomial distribution.
Dr. Rudy keeps stoping by in a desperate temptative of creating some exotic new term to the words 'can't do it' which applies to himself.
So, who is left?
Anybody?
Woof, Ted, Prong, etc.?

None skeptic can solve that problem?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey EE and Rudy..I call your theory a “moving target”..What does Random odds (Flipping a coin) have to do with using a LRL to find treasure?...Art

 

[hung]

Hey EE and Rudy..I call your theory a “moving target”..What does Random odds (Flipping a coin) have to do with using a LRL to find treasure?...Art

That's the point Art.
Dr. Rudy started an odds theory about LRLs, which I confess did not even read it, because I stared at his coins example which included probability odds and instantly noticed he was wrong. A very unfortunate example actually.
You get a coin, keep flipping it and after 3 flips you only got heads. Wow, lucky guy. Up to now, a great evolution against the odds:

50% in the first flip.
25% in the second flip.
12.5% only of success in the third flip.

Then he asks the probability that in a fourth flip heads shows up again. And he stated 50%!!? Wow. How come someone after getting heads 3 times in a row with the odds diminshing, all of a sudden rises his chances to 50%?
Actually this is a mistake. It's not 50% but 6.25%. This is a classic problem on probabilities you will find in all high school books in Brazil.

Still, I agree with you, what does it have to do with LRL and treasure hunting? I dunno. Except to calculate the odds that you go against every time you score the sample under the easter egg covers with the examiner? Who knows?

PS. I will start a thread in some minutes in that I will need your help. Stand by.

 

[Carl-NC]

Hung, in prior discussions you so overwhelmingly demonstrated an underwhelming knowledge of statistics that it doesn't surprise me in the least that you missed this slow-pitch softball. The knee-slapping funny part of it is, you contradicted your own conclusion:

The chances that heads would appear in the fourth flip after 3 heads had prior appeared in the first 3 flips is:

1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2 = 1/16 or 6.25%

Now, I wonder why in the world you put 1/2 for that 4th event in the series, unless you completely agree with Rudy?

 

[EE THr]

Hey EE and Rudy..I call your theory a “moving target”..What does Random odds (Flipping a coin) have to do with using a LRL to find treasure?...Art

Just what it said. It answers the question: "What are the odds this thing will work"?






Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[Rudy(CA)]

Hey EE and Rudy..I call your theory a “moving target”..What does Random odds (Flipping a coin) have to do with using a LRL to find treasure?...Art

Artie,

Maybe you didn't read, or remember reading, this?

Hopefully this will help those that are not conversant with probability and statistics.

A fair coin flip should produce a 50 50 chance of heads or tails, over a large number of flips. If you flipped the coin
three times and got heads, what are the chances that if you flipped it again a head would appear? Well, it is 50%.
The coin holds no prior history of the previous tosses and each toss has a 50 50 chance of coming up heads.

Now, lets do an experiment. Suppose we have an LRL with an experienced operator, an observer/recorder, an assistant,
two identical containers, a gold coin and a junk target. A wall separates the LRL operator from where the boxes are.

So, the assistant goes behind the wall where the two boxes and the two targets are and he places one target in each box,
then leaves the area. The observer and the LRL operator then enter the area where the boxes are and the LRL operator, using
his trusty LRL selects the box he feels has the gold. The box is opened by the observer/recorder and the results are written down.

A short digression. The above is a double blind test. Neither the observer nor the LRL operator know in advance which box has
the gold and the assistant that put the targets in the boxes left the area and can't communicate his actions to the other two.

Getting back to the test, pure chance predicts that, over a large number of tests, the LRL operator would guess correctly 50%
of the time. Ok, we need to conduct the test many times to see if there is a statistically significant difference in the number of
successful outcomes over those that pure chance predicts.

Lets say we do the test four times. There are 16 possible outcomes. Using "S" for success and "F" for failure,

SSSS
SSSF
SSFS
SSFF
SFSS
SFSF
SFFS
SFFF
FSSS
FSSF
FSFS
FSFF
FFSS
FFSF
FFFS
FFFF

Note from the above sequence of 4 tests, the average probability of getting four successes is 1/16 or 6.25%.
If instead we insisted that there'd be no more than 1 failure, then the probability would be 5/16 or 31.25%.

Of course, if we used sequences with more tests, we can produce even smaller probabilities of success from purely
random chance.

However, if we do this test only once, then we can't rule out that it may have been an accidental quirk that produced
the results obtained. To eliminate, or at least quantify the probability of a quirk producing the results, we would need to run
the experiment multiple times, each time recording the results obtained.

If enough of these 4 test trials are run (from sampling theory and the Central Limit Theorem, 30 or more sequences of tests
should suffice), we can assure ourselves of approaching the random chance probabilities with some suitably small confidence
interval, as well as determining if the LRL produced results that are statistically significant and different from random chance.

 

[EE THr]

Hung, in prior discussions you so overwhelmingly demonstrated an underwhelming knowledge of statistics that it doesn't surprise me in the least that you missed this slow-pitch softball. The knee-slapping funny part of it is, you contradicted your own conclusion:

The chances that heads would appear in the fourth flip after 3 heads had prior appeared in the first 3 flips is:

1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2 = 1/16 or 6.25%

Now, I wonder why in the world you put 1/2 for that 4th event in the series, unless you completely agree with Rudy?

I tried to tell him that he had already agreed, but why should he bother to actually read others' posts, when all he is trying to do is pull a Straw Man Fallacy, and take the heat off of the whole point of the topic?

It doesn't seem to matter to him if he makes a fool of himself, so long as he can post lots of gibberish, and make the significant stuff scroll way up high, where he thinks most people won't go.

It isn't working for him, though!