Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
On the 366th person there must be a guarantee of a match. There are but 365 days in a year and if the first 365 peeps represent each day as their birthday, then the 366th HAS to match someone in the room. Or are you inventing new days in the year???
“Let’s ask the simple question: “If I roll the die 6 times, what are the odds that a single number (let’s say the number 1) will appear one time”
Using the methodology that you and Legion discussed last night, the answer would be (1/6)*(5/6)*(5/6)*(5/6)*(5/6)*(5/6)=0.063.”
Almost. First, the first number should be 5/6, not 1/6, so you can actually simplify to 5/6 ^ 6, which is .3349. Second, you forgot the final step, which is to take the inverse. The cumulative probability of there NOT being a 1 rolled is 33.49%. So the inverse of that, which is the cumulative probabiliy that there IS at least one 1 rolled, is 66.51%.
Oh and another complain this morning (sorry am in a baaaaad mood)
I joined Park Slope Parents ( I know laugh away….) however it’s So friggin annoying. I get 100 emails a day in my inbox from random folks(I must have joined a certain group to email me every time someone emails a question) and the questions are beyond hilarious.
“When you get to the 366th person, the probability of no match is zero, so multiply that by the cumulative probability of no match (at this point vanishingly small) and you get zero chance of no match, the inverse of which is 100% chance of at least one match.”
Incorrect Lech!!! This is exactly the type of phenomena I used to characterize. There is NO GUARANTEE that there will be one match after 366 encounters, by the very nature of a distribution. It is highly likely, but there is still a small chance that there will be no match-up after 366 persons.
This is akin to the “random walk” phenomena that I used to characterize. To put it in simpler terms: while the likelihood of a monkey typing randomly at a typewriter will compose a Shakesperean play is exceedingly small, one cannot say, statistically speaking, that it will never happen.
gemini, WASPY dogs ALWAYS win that pageant unfortunately. westminster is beyond racist. a beagle did win one year, but that was cuz they were getting charied
by civil rights organizations or something
On the 366th person there must be a guarantee of a match. There are but 365 days in a year and if the first 365 peeps represent each day as their birthday, then the 366th HAS to match someone in the room. Or are you inventing new days in the year???
“Let’s ask the simple question: “If I roll the die 6 times, what are the odds that a single number (let’s say the number 1) will appear one time”
Using the methodology that you and Legion discussed last night, the answer would be (1/6)*(5/6)*(5/6)*(5/6)*(5/6)*(5/6)=0.063.”
Almost. First, the first number should be 5/6, not 1/6, so you can actually simplify to 5/6 ^ 6, which is .3349. Second, you forgot the final step, which is to take the inverse. The cumulative probability of there NOT being a 1 rolled is 33.49%. So the inverse of that, which is the cumulative probabiliy that there IS at least one 1 rolled, is 66.51%.
Oh and another complain this morning (sorry am in a baaaaad mood)
I joined Park Slope Parents ( I know laugh away….) however it’s So friggin annoying. I get 100 emails a day in my inbox from random folks(I must have joined a certain group to email me every time someone emails a question) and the questions are beyond hilarious.
“When you get to the 366th person, the probability of no match is zero, so multiply that by the cumulative probability of no match (at this point vanishingly small) and you get zero chance of no match, the inverse of which is 100% chance of at least one match.”
Incorrect Lech!!! This is exactly the type of phenomena I used to characterize. There is NO GUARANTEE that there will be one match after 366 encounters, by the very nature of a distribution. It is highly likely, but there is still a small chance that there will be no match-up after 366 persons.
This is akin to the “random walk” phenomena that I used to characterize. To put it in simpler terms: while the likelihood of a monkey typing randomly at a typewriter will compose a Shakesperean play is exceedingly small, one cannot say, statistically speaking, that it will never happen.
OK, that is it for me today.
“I love watching the dog show.
Akita you not.”
I like to chow on a buttered beagle while watching.
I love watching the dog show.
Akita you not.
what’s the probability i’m gonna smoke a big bowl and eat sloppy joes tonight while watching law and order svu?
gemini, WASPY dogs ALWAYS win that pageant unfortunately. westminster is beyond racist. a beagle did win one year, but that was cuz they were getting charied
by civil rights organizations or something
*rob*
Ok… that made zero sense. Zilch. I’m gonna stick with Lech’s explanation.