Wrath of Dagon

Meh, if he was the real Darth Vader, he'd have used a lightsaber and force choke, not a gun. Lame.

OK, but you're assuming that it's I who's misunderstanding and not Calax, which you really can't judge unless you understand the issues involved. The real reason the posts have gone nowhere is there's a fundamental disagreement on what very small probabilities mean in practice, and this issue doesn't seem like it will get resolved here.

That's funny, you yourself admitted you don't know much about math, yet feel entitled to critisize both my understanding of math and of English. See, that isn't actually a criticism. It is a simple statement, one which you decided not to refute. My math skills may be weak, but I am a confident English teacher, and your writing has flaws. It could be a number of reasons, but being an English language learner is nothing to be ashamed of. I also recall something about you being from another country and becoming a US citizen after birth, but I could easily be mistaking you for another poster. No, you're not mistaken, but why don't you point out the flaws in my writing instead of critisizing my math, which you admit you don't understand?

No, if you can define a set of sequences, you can calculate the probability of the set instead of an individual sequence. Thus a set of all possible sequences is much larger than of the set of sequences with the same rank repeating, thus you're much less likely to see something from that set than from the universal set. That's funny, you yourself admitted you don't know much about math, yet feel entitled to critisize both my understanding of math and of English. I'm not claiming the probability is actually 0, I'm saying it's practically 0 for a single trial. For a million trials it is indeed significant. What's theoretically possible isn't necessarily practically possible, but we just keep going around in circles on this.

I never claimed it does, you keep arguing against something you think I'm saying instead of what I'm actually saying. As far as Wals's sequence, those would only be the odds he first predicted that specific sequence, getting some sequence means nothing since you'll always get some sequence. The only way this wouldn't be true if you pulled some pattern that's much rarer, like your example of a 100 Aces from 100 decks of cards. Any sequence of only one value would be much more rare than a sequence of mixed values, thus the odds that you'd pull all the same value instead of mixed would be appropriately lower. Edit: Actually I take that back. If I understand you correctly and you actually got the same number 7 times in a row, those are indeed incredible odds. I would have to assume that either the roulette was fixed, or everyone was too drunk to know the difference.

Yes, he did use p in the formula instead of a number, I didn't pay attention to that. He should be able to assume a probability of the lottery (it's usually twice the jackpot she won) and replace 100 with the total amount of money she spent playing the lottery, but we can only guess what that is. nvm, that's what he did anyway, I didn't quite realize he was just changing p in my original reply. Edit: You still don't seem to understand that what's relevant is someone in the pool of possible winners winning, not an individual person winning. And individual odds are not 1 in a million, for example if each spends $100,000 playing, the odds go from 1 in a million to 1 in 10.

Which math is that? The one you just invented?

Well, I'd like to see an example of something incredibly unlikely happening on the first trial. And we're going back to the same argument. Yes, it's just as likely to happen on the 1st as on the millionth, but it's hugely more unlikely to happen on one specific one (1, 2, 1000000) than it is on any of the million attempts. Edit: Probability is about prediction. I can confidently predict if will not happen in one trial. I can confidently predict it will happen in 100 million trials, but I can not predict on which one.

Yes, but what I was saying if an event has a 1 in a million chance for all practical purposes it will not occur in a single trial. However, it will almost certainly occur in millions of trials. I understand some people believe it can still occur in a single trial, but I don't, and this thread illustrates that it's useless to argue about.

If you're saying the chance of "you" winning is worse than the chance of "not you" winning amid players of the lottery than that's true. Yes, that's what I've been saying for more than 20 pages. I keep making the distinction between a specific individual and someone at all in the entire group, but it just doesn't seem to be getting through. Oblarg is right, except I don't understand why that's irrelevant. But may be it's best not to get into that again. @Wals: My point for this thread was to come up with a solution for how someone could've won the lottery 4 times. I think I showed a while back that the chances of someone winning are not as great as I previously thought, but could plausibly be quite reasonable. If there's some other point I'm missing, please explain what it is.

No, that's what you're saying I'm saying. I don't know why you insist on arguing about something you clearly know nothing about.

That's not what I'm saying at all, I don't even know what that means, you're talking gibberish again.

Even in that contest, the chances of someone winning (since there are like millions of people playing) are much better than the chances of a specific individual (you) winning. And no, it's possible for no one to win the lottery, so chances are not 1. The chances approach 1 as more and more lotteries are played, but technically never become 1. (Of course, once someone wins, the chance that he won is 1, as I said before).

IMO they stretched the idea as far as it would go, nothing would really be gained by a sequel, unless they made a completely different game.

OK, what are your chances of winning the next lottery? Not very good, right? What are the chances of someone in the world winning the lottery? People win somewhere every day, right?

I'll refute anyone who's wrong, and I'm not necessarily refuting him, just saying he wasn't asked the relevant question.

Again, it's not her chance of winning that matters, it's the chance of someone in the world winning. Also your professor is assuming she's spending 1 dollar in each lottery, the more correct statement would be she spend a total of $100 playing, not that she's played 100 times, but that's a relatively minor point. Also the probability of an event that already occurred is 1, either you misunderstood each other, or he doesn't know what he's talking about there.

Too late, already read it. But it was mostly meant as a joke, and you're wrong on both counts, but feel free to believe whatever you like. Edit: Btw, you won't sink to my level, but wasn't your changing your avatar meant as an insult to me? Not that I mind much, just find it ironic.

Hmm, someone went to town with photoshop. The Darkspawn don't look like Ninja Turtles any more, so I guess that's progress.

KOTOR2 had some of the most creative quests I've ever seen. Too bad no one mainstream does those any more.

I like the dialog wheel when done right. And no, I wasn't trying to start a bash, but I do enjoy it on occassion, like a fine cigar.

But she couldn't do it if Michael's goals weren't the same, it's not like she tricked you in any way. And there's no indication she wouldn't have saved you regardless, after all she hates it when you kill civilians (even whores on a gangster ship, what's up with that?)

Man, those dungeons are going to be endless! Hopefully it doesn't mean that... Longer dungeons are definitely not something needed. Yeah, but that would require Bioware to be creative. Which we all know is strictly forbidden by their corporate charter.

How is she responsible for you going rogue? After AP tried to kill you, you had no other choice, right? It's not like you could just go on working for them.

Man, those dungeons are going to be endless!