Wrath of Dagon

Try not to go off the subject, identical twins happen when a fertalized egg splits, what's so unlikely about that? OK, forget it. Either restate what you're trying to prove, or which exact stament of mine you're disputing and why. I'm not sure what we're arguing about right now. For my part I'll just restate that the odds of some person in the world winning a lottery are much better than the odds of a specific preselected person winning the lottery.

Elaborate. How am I not picking a unique individual? You are picking a unique individual, Chuck. What you have to be talking about is some person in the world who plays the lottery.

Actually, that's pretty much EXACTLY what you have said multiple times in this thread. E.g.: No, what I said was the odds of a specific person winning are impossible, not the odds of someone in the world winning.

Indeed? But if that is indeed what I did (I didn't, but let's pretend that I did) then the probability my calculation returned should have been considerably smaller than the correct number, which you are still insisting is 1 in 100 trillion, correct? Because the odds of specific person winning must be considerably smaller than the odds for anyone winning. Right? So, are there any other criticism of the methodology? (Let's leave your assumption that I calculated incorrectly for later. That's easy to deal with.) Your odds are smaller because you applied the binomial theorem incorrectly, as I've already stated. And again, I can't critisize your methodology until you show me your exact calculation.

It's really simple, Every pregnancy is a result of a 1/200 million (best odds) of a race/lottery. Actually longer if you include natural relationships rather than just a pitri dish version from a single coupling. No, getting a particular sperm would be those odds. Getting one of them is actually quite good, like 1 in 10, otherwise no one would ever be born.

Yes, and that's the point. And actually why I liked you picking the square root of 1 million because it saved me time. Since the odds of winning this lottery is 1/1000. You admit that it is possible for someone to win a lottery at 1/1000. Since winning a lottery is an independent event, the chances of someone winning a lottery that has already won one is also 1/1000. Since 1/1000 is an acceptable probability that you concede is possible, therefore it is possible for someone to have already won the lottery, to win it again. This is because the odds of winning a second lottery, having already won the first lottery, is still 1/1000. The odds of any individual winning 2 lotteries is, as you state, 1 in a million (1/1000 * 1/1000). However, since you definitively state that winning something with 1/1000000 odds is impossible, you then paradoxically must be concluding that the odds of someone winning a second lottery having already won 1 lottery MUST be 0. Not 1/1000. In your world, since winning two lotteries of these odds is impossible, you must believe that anyone that has already won the lottery has a 0% chance of winning another lottery. 0 != 0.001 I said 1/1000 is a reasonable probabilty, 1 in 1 million is not. Don't confuse a probability not being reasonable with it being 0. I'm not saying the odds of someone winning two lotteries are impossible, I'm saying the odds of a pre-determined person winning two lotteries are impossible. Until you understand the difference, we're not going to get anywhere.

I didn't understand any of that except that Calax likes to talk about sperm. Don't read it if you don't like it.

If you're claiming I'm under a misconception, you better state why or shut up.

It is directed at me since I made the statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alia_Sabur Anyway, back to probability! Pidesco's right: we wouldn't want to knock the thread off topic. It's not that you know her, it's that you know of her. You could use the binomial theorem, but you'd have to apply it correctly. The biggest problem with what you're trying to do is you're trying to calculate odds for a specific person winning, instead of the odds of someone in the world winning. And when, exactly, did I do that? When you called my posts asinine. You're right, I am. He has a probably of doing so at 1/1000. This is an event that you yourself agree is possible. Since it's possible for him to achieve this event, I'm not assuming that anything impossible has happened. My reason for doing so is that you stated definitively that it is impossible. I'm demonstrating that it is, in fact, possible. The only way winning subsequent lotteries would be impossible would be if the chances of you winning a lottery was dependent on whether or not you won a previous lottery. It is not. You have to multiply the chances of winning the lotteries though, so the chance of him winning 2 lotteries would be 1000x1000 i.e. 1 million, do you disagree with that?

You started ad hominem attacks, remember? And I never do it unless I'm answering one.

Sure you do.

Well, I am capable of understanding Fourier analysis. Have you ever considered the possibilty that it's you who's not understanding anything, possibly due to your drug habit, and thus whatever I say seems incomprehensible to you, just like a particle physicist trying to explain something to a 5th grader, in other words someone like you, would be completely incomprehensible?

@krezack No, what's safe to say that no one in this thread except me seems to understand how probabilty works. Which really isn't surprising, I remember in my signals and systems class almost no one could understand Fourier transforms, even though everyone was at least in the top 5% of students worldwide.

@ alanschu The problem is you're assuming he already won the first lottery. All I conceeded was that it was possible for him to win, not that he's already won. You can't just take a 1/1000 chance and then split it into 3 1/10 chances and then claim it's all the same because you're already assuming he won the first 2 because the chances are so reasonable.

I already said it is.

Odds of 1 in 1 million are certainly not impossible. If you'd like, I could do the exact same example with 1/1000 odds. It'll just take me more message board posts to accomplish it. Go ahead.

Let's try this: Chuck just won a lottery. This lottery has a chance of winning it of 1 in a million. What is the probability that Chuck wins this lottery again? If he buys one ticket one time, 1 in a million. Don't distract yourself with "one ticket" stuff. I have fixed the odds to control for it and simplify situation. The odds of winning this lottery is one in a million and is static. I will assume that you feel that the odds of chuck winning another lottery is possible. Chuck wins this lottery (an event that can possibly happen). As a result, he has now won two lotteries. What is the probability that Chuck wins this lottery again? Your assumption is wrong. Odds of one in 1 million are impossible, Chuck will never win the second lottery. I can believe may be odds of 1 in 1000, but not 1 in 1 million.

Sorry, but you've been pawned by funcroc. But anyways, yeay!

She won it twice on the same day. The odds of this happening are roughly 1 in 23 trillion. Nope, they're not. That article doesn't know what it's talking about, just like the 4 time winner article I posted was claiming odds of septillions, which is entirely bogus. Since the lottery probably happens once a week, the odds of winning two in the same day are 52 times greater than the odds of winning 2 in a year, etc.

Let's try this: Chuck just won a lottery. This lottery has a chance of winning it of 1 in a million. What is the probability that Chuck wins this lottery again? If he buys one ticket one time, 1 in a million.

Yep, including hard/ recruit and hard/ no ranged weapons. To be clear though: I did hide behind things, I just didn't use them as formal-spacebar-press cover. Well sure, I did that a lot too, out of necessity. But you can't do crit shots from cover that way, or see and aim properly sometimes, or in general play the game the way it seems to have been designed.

You insist bringing this number up despite it having been shown to be nothing better than a guess. You said you were trying to estimate the order of magnitude, but nothing in your methodology fills me with confidence that you have anywhere close to the correct probability, or even order of magnitude. Earlier in this thread I demonstrated the correct method for solving this kind of problem, which you declared to be "completely wrong for reasons you are too lazy to explain". I must know insist that you explain what exactly was wrong in my math, other than that it disagreed with your made-up number. To make a decent estimate for the probability of this event, you need to have estimates for a single ticket winning, and for the amount of tickets the lady has purchased over her life. The only doubt I had about my derivation is whether you have to divide by the amount she spent once or several times. After thinking about is some more, I'm now confident it's only once, since she'd have to spend that money to even be in the pool which could likely win the lottery the second time. As far as your calculation, you'd have to show me the exact calculation you used since I can't tell what you're doing. You seem to have forgotten to include the factorial in the binomial theorem. I'm not sure I follow here. I just want to make sure we're clear: are you saying that after someone wins the lottery, the chances of them winning another lottery is less than the chances of some other unique individual winning the lottery? My next post depends on your answer. No, I'm saying the potential pool of people who have already won the lottery once is a lot smaller than the potential pool of people who can win the lottery for the first time. That has already been posted. She only won the lottery twice, with the second one being a relatively high chance lottery. I already said it's possible for someone to win the lottery twice, there are several people who have done it, and the odds say it will happen every few years.

How about this? Or this? Or this? Or even, given the probably of a group of atoms occupying any specific quantum state at a certain time is remote, some magnetic phenomenae occur that rely on the existence of certain quantum states. All of those probability claims are obviously bogus, you'll note they don't even show derivation. And how, exactly, is this about feeling better? This is about you getting math wrong and making asinine claims, nothing more and nothing less. You're the most asinine around here, I'm tired of trying to dispute your stupidity.