Do The Math!

[Carl-NC]

What's the matter Carl, you need more time to consult a Statistics teacher?
Is 6.25% your answer to my question or not?

Is it or not??
...........

Dr. Rudy, since my last probability question might be too hard for you to solve, here's a simpler one.

'Four distinct coins are flipped. What's the probability of appearing 2 heads and 2 tails?'

Sorry, Hung, had a fundraiser tonight. Won a metal detector of all things. No stats teachers around as far as I knew.

After reading your follow-up, I think I might have misunderstood your original question, which ain't too surprising. I read,

"After getting a heads, what is the probability you will need to flip the coin 4 more times to get a second heads?"

That is 6.25%.

However, I now think you might have meant,

"You flip a coin until you have landed 2 heads. What is the probability it took 4 flips?"

The answer to that is 18.75%.

If you meant something else yet, then you will have to re-phrase.
-------
37.5%
-------
Here's one for you, Hung... I flip a coin 100 times and get 100 heads in a row. What is the probability that the next flip will land heads?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[hung]

You still haven't admitted you were wrong on the other one. Why should I waste my time ?

Bye Dr. Rudy.

C4,2*1/2^2*1/2^2 = 4!/2!*2!*1/2^2*1/2^2 = 37.5%

Anybody disagrees?

 

[hung]

"After getting a heads, what is the probability you will need to flip the coin 4 more times to get a second heads?"
That is 6.25%.
However, I now think you might have meant,

"You flip a coin until you have landed 2 heads. What is the probability it took 4 flips?"

The answer to that is 18.75%.

If you meant something else yet, then you will have to re-phrase.
-------
37.5%
-------

Carl, the question is clear.
Now, when you are confused on how a particular distribution applies, you start to 'overdrive' a trivial interpretation of a simple question.
If you were in an examination situation with multiple answers to choose only one, you would be lost.

Two events are independent when the occurence or not of one of the events does not affect the probability of occurence of the other event and vice versa. For instance, when we flip TWO coins, the result of one coin independs of the result of the other.

When we have only one coin, we have only two possible results, the elementary events H or T. If this result happens to be H, it cannot be at the same time T, because they are said to be mutually excludents.
So, when you flip a coin, the probability of H or T is 50%.
Flip another time and the mutual excludent result is 50%. BUT...
But you start to develop a pattern, in which if H will keep resulting and chances diminishing until the chances for a H again will be ZERO for infinite flips.

Regarding your question: 1/2^100 for all 100 times. Then it's 1/2 for the 101th event which is the mutiplying factor for the pattern.
The 101th event becomes a dependent pattern and it's not 1/2 anymore. Itr would be like asking the chances for H 101 times.
This is known as the 'vicious coin' paradigm.
Conversely, tough the probability of T would also be 1/2 as a stand alone event, the probability of occurence in the above case would be the opposite of H in the pattern.

Now regarding your 3 answers to my question, it's funny how you changed it for a wrong meaning that would result in a wrong answer but you got to the right one.
Which one of the three is the correct answer?

Please do not simply post the result. Type the process to demonstrate how you got to the result.

 

[Rudy(CA)]

So, when you flip a coin, the probability of H or T is 50%.
Flip another time and the mutual excludent result is 50%. BUT...
But you start to develop a pattern, in which if H will keep resulting and chances diminishing until the chances for a H again will be ZERO for infinite flips.

Hung science in action.

That's why he didn't land that government job.

 

[Carl-NC]

I flip a coin 100 times and get 100 heads in a row. What is the probability that the next flip will land heads?

But you start to develop a pattern, in which if H will keep resulting and chances diminishing until the chances for a H again will be ZERO for infinite flips.

Sorry, the correct answer is 100%.

 

[hung]

Now reading again:
'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%.'

The way you posted this gives the impression that you WANT another heads as result. At least for me, it did.
If this is not what you mean, then I stand correct and it's 50%. Otherwise it would be 1/2^4.

When you use the words 'you' and 'again', leads to believe that the agent wants that particular result.
Carl rephrased the same type of situation which made me go back to your original sentence.

Yet, you were not able to solve any of the problems I posted, so I am still not sure about your level in probabilities distribution due to the way your example was constructed. As you see, it gives the impression of something else.

 

[hung]

I flip a coin 100 times and get 100 heads in a row. What is the probability that the next flip will land heads?

But you start to develop a pattern, in which if H will keep resulting and chances diminishing until the chances for a H again will be ZERO for infinite flips.

Sorry, the correct answer is 100%.

No, it's not. It's 50%. Unless it's a vicious coin and you should have indicated that.
Read my post above and also post your answer to my quiz.
Gotta leave now. Will be back in 2 hours.

 

[Rudy(CA)]

Now reading again:
'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%.'

The way you posted this gives the impression that you WANT another heads as result. At least for me, it did.
If this is not what you mean, then I stand correct and it's 50%. Otherwise it would be 1/2^4.

When you use the words 'you' and 'again', leads to believe that the agent wants that particular result.
Carl rephrased the same type of situation which made me go back to your original sentence.

Yet, you were not able to solve any of the problems I posted, so I am still not sure about your level in probabilities distribution due to the way your example was constructed. As you see, it gives the impression of something else.

I picked the wording I used, precisely to illustrate the misconception that many people have about probabilities in cases where
the events are unrelated to previous outcomes. Note that later, in that same post, I also mentioned the probability of getting 4 heads
in a row and that of course was not 50% but it was 1/16 or 6.25%. Clearly I understood the differences between the two.

I accept your apology.

Dr. Rudy, since my last probability question might be too hard for you to solve, here's a simpler one.

'Four distinct coins are flipped. What's the probability of appearing 2 heads and 2 tails?'

That probability is the same as getting 2 tails and two heads, or getting 2 pairs of head-tails, or 2 pairs of tail-heads and
it is 6/16 or 37.5%.

 

[EE THr]

Hi EE, remember your recent post on insults my friend ?? tsk tsk

Don Jose de La Mancha

Like I have said many, many, times before on here: "I have never insulted anyone first."

So, if someone gets insulted by me, who's fault is that?

8)

 

[EE THr]

Hung-up's last round of questions are merely a diversion away from the fact that he screwed up the original questions about calculating odds.

As Nixon said, "The best defense is a strong offense."

(He also said, "I am not a crook," which hung-up likes, too.)

 

[hung]

I picked the wording I used, precisely to illustrate the misconception that many people have about probabilities in cases where
the events are unrelated to previous outcomes. Note that later, in that same post, I also mentioned the probability of getting 4 heads
in a row and that of course was not 50% but it was 1/16 or 6.25%. Clearly I understood the differences between the two.

Maybe. Maybe not. But you decline solving any quiz I posted.
Prove me. Answer the one I have asked Carl or this isimple one here that will tell if you really know the variations in binomial.

'A coin is flipped 10 times. What's the probability to get at least 8 heads?'

Will you do it or talk?

 

[hung]

One of my favorites regarding coins.
But this requires knowledge on hypothesis tests.
It's fun doing it.

' A coin is flipped 20 times and the occurence of 7 heads is observed. Being 'P' the probability for heads, what is statistic-test value according to the hypothesis test H: P>= 0.5 against A: P<0.5 ?

Anybody?
I don't think so...

 

[Rudy(CA)]

I picked the wording I used, precisely to illustrate the misconception that many people have about probabilities in cases where
the events are unrelated to previous outcomes. Note that later, in that same post, I also mentioned the probability of getting 4 heads
in a row and that of course was not 50% but it was 1/16 or 6.25%. Clearly I understood the differences between the two.

Maybe. Maybe not. But you decline solving any quiz I posted.

No I didn't. See my previous post.

Dr. Rudy, since my last probability question might be too hard for you to solve, here's a simpler one.

'Four distinct coins are flipped. What's the probability of appearing 2 heads and 2 tails?'

That probability is the same as getting 2 tails and two heads, or getting 2 pairs of head-tails, or 2 pairs of tail-heads and
it is 6/16 or 37.5%.

 

[Rudy(CA)]

One of my favorites regarding coins.
But this requires knowledge on hypothesis tests.
It's fun doing it.

' A coin is flipped 20 times and the occurence of 7 heads is observed. Being 'P' the probability for heads, what is statistic-test value according to the hypothesis test H: P>= 0.5 against A: P<0.5 ?

Anybody?
I don't think so...

Seems to me that you have to specify the acceptable confidence level you have in mind (90%, 95%,...), before one can specify the
critical test value to use in testing the hypothesis.

In any case, as Artie has said. What does this have to do with LRLs?

I started formulating the statistical framework for a double blind test that could be used to determine the effectiveness
of an LRL, but it seems that we have drifted significantly away from that objective.

 

[hung]

I picked the wording I used, precisely to illustrate the misconception that many people have about probabilities in cases where
the events are unrelated to previous outcomes. Note that later, in that same post, I also mentioned the probability of getting 4 heads
in a row and that of course was not 50% but it was 1/16 or 6.25%. Clearly I understood the differences between the two.

Maybe. Maybe not. But you decline solving any quiz I posted.

No I didn't. See my previous post.

Dr. Rudy, since my last probability question might be too hard for you to solve, here's a simpler one.

'Four distinct coins are flipped. What's the probability of appearing 2 heads and 2 tails?'

That probability is the same as getting 2 tails and two heads, or getting 2 pairs of head-tails, or 2 pairs of tail-heads and
it is 6/16 or 37.5%.

I had solved it in my post #129. You only posted your result after me.

 

[hung]

Seems to me that you have to specify the acceptable confidence level you have in mind (90%, 95%,...), before one can specify the
critical test value to use in testing the hypothesis.

No. You don't need it at all.
You already have p, q and q0 right under your nose.

In any case, as Artie has said. What does this have to do with LRLs?

Nothing. I just posted one fun quiz that I like and you seem to be interested in solving it. Fine.
Don't miss the previous easy one too.

For me, probabilities are like crossworrd puzzle. I enjoy.

 

[EE THr]

Seems to me that you have to specify the acceptable confidence level you have in mind (90%, 95%,...), before one can specify the
critical test value to use in testing the hypothesis.

No. You don't need it at all.
You already have p, q and q0 right under your nose.

In any case, as Artie has said. What does this have to do with LRLs?

Nothing. I just posted one fun quiz that I like and you seem to be interested in solving it. Fine.
Don't miss the previous easy one too.

For me, probabilities are like crossworrd puzzle. I enjoy.

Hung-up;

What are the probabilities of your seeing the words, "Post Your Fun Quizzes Here," in this topic title?

Your "fun quizzes" theme is merely a contrivance to divert attention away from the fact that you got the original concept wrong, anyway.

The topic of "Do the Math," pertains to this section of the forum, which is LRLs, so knock off all the BS, and stick to the topic.





Your behavior is classic Straw Man Fallacy, used to attempt to change the subject away from what another actually said, or from your being wrong, (because you can't confront it), and onto something that you feel you can answer, thereby making you appear to be right.

It's not just a "fun quizz," at all for you. It's that you can't admit to being wrong.

So deal with it.

 

[aarthrj3811]

What are the probabilities of your seeing the words, "Post Your Fun Quizzes Here," in this topic title?
Your "fun quizzes" theme is merely a contrivance to divert attention away from the fact that you got the original concept wrong, anyway.
The topic of "Do the Math," pertains to this section of the forum, which is LRLs, so knock off all the BS, and stick to the topic.

This is fun seeing as how your thread "Do the Math," has nothing to do with using LRL’s in the field in the first place..It is even more fun when your theory gets shot down big time..To cap it off you are now claiming we are off topic…That seems to be par for the course in ever thread you participate in. Do I see a pattern in your posts?..Art

 

[EE THr]

What are the probabilities of your seeing the words, "Post Your Fun Quizzes Here," in this topic title?
Your "fun quizzes" theme is merely a contrivance to divert attention away from the fact that you got the original concept wrong, anyway.
The topic of "Do the Math," pertains to this section of the forum, which is LRLs, so knock off all the BS, and stick to the topic.

This is fun seeing as how your thread "Do the Math," has nothing to do with using LRL’s in the field in the first place..It is even more fun when your theory gets shot down big time..To cap it off you are now claiming we are off topic…That seems to be par for the course in ever thread you participate in. Do I see a pattern in your posts?..Art

con-artie;

The topic is generally defined more specifically by the original post. If you're not sure, just reread it.

There is nothing in the topic title about "in the field."

The average percentage of success in controlled tests would be far greater than in field use, which has already been stated in the thread. So controlled test are even more fair than field tests would be.

Besides, nobody has even suggested that field tests would be possible, and many LRL promoters have given the excuse that their device couldn't find anything "because there is some kind of interference in the field," which has been attributed to everything from sun spots to "bad vibes" from non-believers.

But, controlled tests do give a much better idea of how well a device works, and how it will fare in the field. The trouble is that so far, no LRLs have worked at all in controlled tests.

And since controlled tests eliminate all that nasty "interference," then whatever average success percentage is established in them, it will always be much worse in the field.

How much worse can it get from the "zero" percentage in controlled test established so far?

Do that math!




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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

con-artie;

The topic is generally defined more specifically by the original post. If you're not sure, just reread it.
There is nothing in the topic title about "in the field."

Since we are suppose to be discussing LRL’s I assumed the we were talking about LRL’s. They were designed and are made to be used in the field..The only thing you seem to want to discuss are fake testing procedures..In case you have not noticed the own/operators of these Treasure Hunting devices have no interest in Tests..Art