Aahz

While it could mean infinitely small it could also mean infinitely large. Such an assertion as the one quoted is sloppy at best. In probability theory there is also the notion of infinity meaning large. Not as a probability, but say in terms of the number of times an experiment is repeated. Or to be concrete one definition of probability is:

P(a) = limit m(A)/n as n goes to infinity.

In this case m(A) is a measure for event A and n is the number of times a particular experiment is performed. Seems almost idiotic to consider n going to a really small number. In fact, if that were the case the limit would not be to infinity.

Sorry Mr. Sammi, your statements are at best sloppy and at worst incoherent.

Arrowman

Mr Sammi A quick tutorial session for you....

The "probability of an event occurring" has indeed been factored in - it was specified as 1 for each event - each event will occur at some time during the specified 7 day period. If this were not the case, there would be no sensible answer to the question. Each of the people who have given answers, have correctly assumed this.

You might like to reflect that it was "premature" for you to assume that the "initial probability" is unspecified, without re-reading the question more carefully (not to mention sloppy to use language like "assign ... a ... probability to so unknown a cause" in a discussion of probability).

I do not understand this sentence. In particular, what are the "highly insignificant events" to which you refer?

Even if the probability of the events occurring was not 1 for each event, this would not make the answer "infinity" [sic] - it would reduce the probability of the events occurring on consecutive days to a lower but still finite value.

In any case, I believe the term you are looking for is not "infinity" (a very large number) but "infinitesimal" (a very small number). I will stand corrected if a person who has studied probability theory more recently than I have will confirm your usage as correct, but I do not recall "infinity" ever being used to describe a vanishingly small value.

It is the sloppiness of this sentence which leads me to believe that your assertion is without foundation. No-one who has [successfully] studied probability theory would refer to "a probability so small that you could have never guessed it". Unless, that is, you studied at a Post-Modern school.

I suspect that the reason tron is "repeating certain structures from within [his] mind" is that these "structures" are the proven tools and techniques of probability theory. I further suspect that any "probabilistic tension" exists in your mind, and not his.

tron's proper position on "philosophical matters" is neither here nor there. This is a discussion on mathematics and probability.

On the other hand, a Post-Modern education in probability theory would explain this too. Since [I think] every respondent to this thread has been male, I'm surprised you haven't accused the calculations of carrying a gender bias.

Be careful what you wish for. It might come true.

I think the term you are looking for is "independent" events. (I took this to be implicit in the Friar's framing of the question "Seven seperate events...") Independent events are those for which the probability of each event is not affected by whether or not the other event has occurred (eg successive throws of a die). "Mutually exclusive" events are those for which the occurrence of one event precludes the occurrence of another.

If you are indeed an adult, then it appears you have not yet learned a very important lesson from teen and early adult years.

You don't know everything. You will often meet people who know more about a given subject than you. You will often make assertions which others can show to be incorrect, based on their superior knowledge of the subject matter. Using condescending language to those people and refusing to acknowledge your own errors is not only rude and graceless; it also shows you to be a fool.

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

abe smith

um....The likelihood is ONE for any/all combinations; as long as nobody's mucking w/ the process.

Mr. Sammi

Anywhay I am not a school boy. My answers stand and those who wish to interpret them can.

Never have I heard the stupidity of a random event being probable as it is being predictable. What was constructed here was an ill-worded, ill-concieved student mathematical question which needed to be stepped on.

I stepped on it, and the rest follows.

The brain teaser in my mind was the validity of such a question - My interpretation. Those who wish to follow blindly into the fires of Mars, do so at their own cost, but nit I, as I will question and point out the flaws of propogating such unwarranted applications of probabilistic determination.

Sammi Na Boodie (sorry fellas)

Mr. Sammi

Aahz, in using the term infinity, one casts asperations on the outcome. It will never happen. The sloppiness of my incursions into mathematical grammer is a reflection on your inability to grasp the point, especialy if it is not spoon fed to you. In colleges and universities one may have to please a professor in utilising the grammer of the moment, however I do not. For the learned few who may read, should certainly comprehend the sloppiness of my methods. It is in such a manner I wish to act.

In infinity theory, infinitely small and infinitely large, have no bearing on the crux of the result. It aint't gonne happen.

Perhaps a more suited example should have been chosen to examplify the applicability of permutations in probability theory.


Sammi Na Boodie (ha)

petrachor

So its everyone else's fault that you are incomprehenssible? Maybe you should take the time to actually craft a moderately thougth out post before you start flaming people.

Abacus

I'd like to reply to Mr. Sammi, but I can't figure out what he is saying. The individual words are in english, but his posts appear to be pure gibberish. Very strange.

tronvillain

So, in other words you just didn't like the "realism" of a problem which depended on seven independent events having a probability of one spread equally over seven days, and you blame other people for your own vagueness and mistakes.



Really, does he deserve anything else?

Clutch

I'd like to inaugrate the "Sammi Inference", as it might henceforth be known:

1) Everyone else, especially everyone with expertise, understands this.

2) I don't understand this.

Therefore,

3) Everyone else, especially everyone with expertise, is an idiot.


Unfortunately, this rendition of the absurd inference, being clear and readily intelligible, is not a fitting approximation of Sammi's word-salad.

Undercurrent

But where does the purple penguin store its MPEGs? In your Medula Oblongata without fear. Only the alcoholic fish truly understand the difference.

Just becuse the birdcage is painted yellow, doesn't mean that it can't also eat an overripe cabbage from time to time. The cyan truth can't escape that easily.

For perfect number one wash, use mister sparkle!

m.