| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
jjcote
3 thumbs up
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 3217
Location: Lunenburg, MA, USA
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: |
 #201 |
| spork wrote: |
| Otherwise I simply have to bow out. I think I've said all I can say, and all that needs to be said. |
That would certainly be fine with me. This thread was about DWFTTW until it got hijacked by this philosophical discussion about the meaning of "probability". Now it has degenerated into one of the worst wastes of bandwidth on the site, more tedious than the "powered by wind or gravity?" thread (which at least had something to do with hang gliding).
I've given up on any hope that the original thread topic will ever return, and I clicked "bury" a while ago.
_________________
H4 + various skills (only foot-launch so far)
WW UltraSport 147, WW Falcon2 170, PacAir Vision Mark IV 17
My HG wiki profile and my flying blog |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: |
#202 |
| jjcote wrote: |
| This thread was about DWFTTW until it got hijacked by this philosophical discussion about the meaning of "probability". |
I started this stupid thread, and I'll let it go wherever I want. And it was NEVER about DWFTTW. It was about trying to find interest among people here to get DWFTTW tested on "The Mythbusters". I was able to muster a certain amount of abuse from folks on the topic of DWFTTW - and just like this question, it's all abuse and no evidence. No one cared enough about it to make a single post on the Mythbusters forum. They care just enough about it to claim I'm crazy without offering a shred of evidence that I'm wrong.
Incidentally, you can claim this is a philosophical discussion if you want. But it's not. It's a discussion about math. As Eric points out, it's black and white. Someone's right and someone's wrong. I just can't for the life of me understand what would possibly have the detractors clinging to their wrong answers like their manhood depends on it.
| Quote: |
| Now it has degenerated into one of the worst wastes of bandwidth on the site |
You're familiar with how these forums work - right? You actually have to click on a topic and then read it to be annoyed by it. You're doing even more than that. You're typing out responses. Don't like it? Don't click on it. |
|
|
|
Jason
3 thumbs up
Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 7533
Location: Stapleton, Colorado
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:44 am Post subject: |
#203 |
If you accept the premise that the sum of all probabilties is 1,
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unf.edu%2F~jgleaton%2FPROBHNDT.doc&ei=fhH6SPmAPZGYsAOk69W3DQ&usg=AFQjCNERirUbXDEXuKHMUN9z_ocY-n5CZw&sig2=s78w7LqA2djfUTEGLzA6Xw
then it is impossible for the the probability of each even to be 0, it is also impossible for each event to have a defined probability >0
hence the probability must be somewhere between 0 and a number- which is infitesimially small
| Quote: |
Understanding Probability Laws
Let a random experiment have sample space S. Any assignment of probabilities to events must satisfy three basic laws of probability, called Kolmogorov’s Axioms:
1) For any event A, P(A) ≥ 0.
2) P(S) = 1.
3) If A and B are two mutually exclusive events (i.e., they cannot happen simultaneously), then P(A B) = P(A) + P(B).
There are other laws in addition to these three, but Kolmogorov’s Axioms are the foundation for probability theory.
|
_________________
TSA, DHS, NDAA and SOPA Seig Heil! |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: |
#204 |
| You guys are so sure it's not 0 - so take my bet. You name the amount. I ACCEPT. |
|
|
|
Pete B
3 thumbs up
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 713
Location: The wetlands, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:11 am Post subject: |
#205 |
Hey Spork,
Someone told me you're giving some money away?
Pete |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:18 am Post subject: |
#206 |
| Pete B wrote: |
Hey Spork,
Someone told me you're giving some money away?
Pete |
I think they mixed up the message. I'm willing to make a bet on two items at the moment.
- It's possible to make a vehicle that is powered solely by the wind, and goes directly downwind, faster than the wind, steady state.
- The probability of randomly selecting a given real number on a specified finite interval is 0
I'm happy to take your bet (and therefore take your money) on either or both of these.
A few months ago I made a $500 bet on another forum that Obama would win. How do you suppose that one will come out? |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:28 am Post subject: |
#207 |
I have a prediction to make...
People will continue to post whatever pseudo-theories and non-evidence they can come across to prove me wrong - but no one will take the bet.
Let's see how my prediction pans out. |
|
|
|
UnTuckable
1 thumbs up
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 2318
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 10:29 am Post subject: |
#208 |
| spork wrote: |
| - The probability of randomly selecting a given real number on a specified finite interval is 0 |
Not if you write them all down on separate pieces of paper and put them in a hat first, for me to pick from.
Go ahead and write them all down first, and then I'll take the bet.
What's the probability of you writing them all down?
The real problem is that one is arguing about probabilities involving real finite sets and the other is arguing about imaginary infinite sets.
/Obama/
you should have made your Obama bet when they were taking them :
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE49F4TZ20081016?
/Black Holes/
If a Black Hole has zero volume, can two Black Holes ever collide? |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 10:37 am Post subject: |
#209 |
| UnTuckable wrote: |
| The real problem is that one is arguing about probabilities involving real finite sets and the other is arguing about imaginary infinite sets. |
No one here is talking about finite sets. If they were they'd take my bet. They want to scream and rant about how I'm wrong, but apparently they don't want to take my money.
Not to mention, if anyone was talking about finite sets, they'd simply say the probability was 1/n - and we wouldn't be talking about these silly notions of numbers that are bigger than 0 but smaller than anything else. |
|
|
|
UnTuckable
1 thumbs up
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 2318
|
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 11:33 am Post subject: |
#211 |
| UnTuckable wrote: |
"ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF EVENTS OF ZERO PROBABILITY
ASAD ZAMAN1
ABSTRACT. A logically consistent way of maintaining the events of probability zero are actually impossible is presented." |
EXCELLENT. I suggest my detractors hang their hat on that - and take the bet. |
|
|
|
UnTuckable
1 thumbs up
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 2318
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 12:45 pm Post subject: |
#212 |
| spork wrote: |
| EXCELLENT. I suggest my detractors hang their hat on that - and take the bet. |
I took your bet, and I'm winning as long as you don't have the hat ready.
If a Zero Probability event occurs, then it wasn't really a zero probability.
It disproves it's self upon the event.
One / Infinity is greater than zero by one / infinity.
but using probabilities against infinite sets has zero value. |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject: |
#213 |
| UnTuckable wrote: |
| I took your bet... |
No you didn't. Nor did anyone else. But just name the amount, and we'll make arrangements. |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: |
#214 |
| Man I'm a bit dissappointed with the naysayers. There's a lot of B.S. but not much action. Whadaysay JJ? Jason? Name the price and let's get this thing settled. I really want someone qualified to tell me I'm an idiot - not that I don't trust you. |
|
|
|
BubbleBoy
1 thumbs up
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 3002
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:42 am Post subject: |
#215 |
| spork wrote: |
| I really want someone qualified to tell me I'm an idiot - not that I don't trust you. |
Hey ... I'll do that, and you know darn well I'm a qualified idiot. 
JB |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:45 am Post subject: |
#216 |
| BubbleBoy wrote: |
| Hey ... I'll do that, and you know darn well I'm a qualified idiot. |
You survived your climb!!?? (you idiot).  |
|
|
|
jjcote
3 thumbs up
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 3217
Location: Lunenburg, MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:33 am Post subject: |
#217 |
Well, Spork is right on a number of points:
1) It is possible to sail downwind faster than the wind (which some of us never disputed, or at least not since this thread was started).
2) This thread is not about DWFTTW, it's about Spork looking for people to volunteer to make the wrong side of the argument on the Mythbusters forum. It doesn't sound like he has recruited any takers (and I certainly am not going to do it since it's clear to me that it is possible). (And now it's about Spork looking to pick a fight on an unrelated topic, but I don't think Mythbusters is likely to do a show on that. Not that I would really know, since I don't even have a TV.)
3) A little web searching will turn up plenty of references for the notion that, the way the term "probability 0" is used mathematically, it is not synonymous with "impossible". As many of these references put it, "an impossible event has probability 0, but an event with probability 0 is not necessarily impossible".
(Side note: I asked the best mathematician who I know, a respected university professor, about this, and his reply was not simple and involved things like "what does it mean to 'occur'", and "a dart would not select a single point".)
4) Spork's advice about what to do if one does not like where this thread has gone is correct. The probability of my clicking on it again is arbitrarily low.
_________________
H4 + various skills (only foot-launch so far)
WW UltraSport 147, WW Falcon2 170, PacAir Vision Mark IV 17
My HG wiki profile and my flying blog |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:46 am Post subject: |
#218 |
Thanks for those observations JJ. It's refreshing to see you're flexible and that you understand. I agree with everything you said, with one very significant exception... I'm not looking to pick a fight. I started this tangent about 0 probability as a simple example that I honestly never imagined would turn into a pissing match.
The hard-headedness I've encountered has been mind-numbing. I'm simply trying to defend myself and my position. |
|
|
|
Erik Boehm
2 thumbs up
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 2430
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:30 pm Post subject: |
#219 |
| spork wrote: |
no one will take the bet.
Let's see how my prediction pans out. |
Ok, first you have to specify the terms of the bet, how is it to be decided who won the bet?
_________________
H4, Litespeed 4 w/ Mylar sail.
Previous: Airwave K2, Wills Wing Eagle 145 |
|
|
|
Erik Boehm
2 thumbs up
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 2430
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:47 pm Post subject: |
#220 |
| spork wrote: |
I have a prediction to make...
People will continue to post whatever pseudo-theories and non-evidence they can come across to prove me wrong - but no one will take the bet.
Let's see how my prediction pans out.
...
Not to mention, if anyone was talking about finite sets, they'd simply say the probability was 1/n - and we wouldn't be talking about these silly notions of numbers that are bigger than 0 but smaller than anything else.
|
Im not sure we are talking about a number bigger than zero but smaller than any other number, its more of a concept, or concept of a number that doesn't actually exist.
Just like infinity is a concept, or a concept of a number bigger than any other number. Such a number doesn't exist, but the concept does.
To me, this argument hinges on if the probability is actually 0.
You must justify your position just as much as we have to.
Prove the probability is zero.
I start with the axiom the sum of all probabilities adds up to 1. Surely you agree there is a 100% probability of choosing a number.
there are an infitite number of probabilities.
An infinite sum of zero's is still zero (note a distinction between an infinite sum and multiplying by zero).
Therefore the probability or each is not zero.
If the probability is any given number, the sequence does not converge, and the infinite sum is divergent.
We are really getting into calculus here.
The whole concept of an integral or a reiman sum, is summing infinite "quantities", which are infitesamally small, and arriving at a specified quantity (the sequence is not divergent)
Likewise derivatives - you can't divide by zero, but dividing by any fixed number, no matter how small, gives an error, you must divide by an infitesemal number.
You argue that because there are actually infinite numbers, we shouldn't speak of the "limit" of 1/n, as we have reached the limit, right?
Well, Take the sequence 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16.....+ 1/(2n), the Limit is 2. Surely you would agree there are actually an infinite number of "half the remaining" distances .
The "actual existence" of this infinity, does not mean you actually ever add 0 to the sum.
Just as the "actual existence" of infinite numbers on your specified interval doesn't mean each number actually has zero probability.
_________________
H4, Litespeed 4 w/ Mylar sail.
Previous: Airwave K2, Wills Wing Eagle 145 |
|
|
|
|
Unanswered
Highest rated...
Topics
