Ok, let me regroup after my momentary lapse of stupidity.
I’ll repeat the following:
-my 10.18 post remains correct, except for my error in the calculation of the roll of the dice, which Lech corrected. My larger point about the difference between the probability of one sequence of event, and the underlying statistical Poisson distribution (the “odds”), remains correct.
-my point about the probability after 367 encounters was wrong. I went into a lapse of stupidity there, thinking about another type of problem.
oops once again missed a few posts between typing and posting b/c I was doing my real job.
“He does owe me a shot of jameson at the next meetup though.â€
Make it car bomb!
Ok, let me regroup after my momentary lapse of stupidity.
I’ll repeat the following:
-my 10.18 post remains correct, except for my error in the calculation of the roll of the dice, which Lech corrected. My larger point about the difference between the probability of one sequence of event, and the underlying statistical Poisson distribution (the “odds”), remains correct.
-my point about the probability after 367 encounters was wrong. I went into a lapse of stupidity there, thinking about another type of problem.
I’ll be back…I have to step out to buy Statistics for Dummies.
benson, let me extend membership to you my friend – ie into “Putting big money where your mouth is” Club. 500 will buy you lots of Manhattan’s
Don’t understand the the points about randomness or averages (but not a mathematician, so don’t blame me). Everyone has to have a birthday.
I’ll let benson out of the bet.
He does owe me a shot of jameson at the next meetup though.
“Incorrect. I did take the inverse when I converted the number 0.063 into 1/16th.”
Inverse is 1 minus the probability. So if the cumulative probability of there not being a match were 1/16th the chance of a match is 1 minus 1/16th.
Wait, so does Lech get $500 then?!?!