/sci/ - Science & Math

Nice copy pasta faggot
SAGE SAGE SAGE

https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/image/6d23yZz7gvlq1waC0UzZKw

You have posted this before.

It is not a game of luck, it is a game of skill.
You do not just guess at the answers, you use your knowledge to make the correct choice if you know it.
If you do not know it, you take the money and leave.

Your percentage is also wrong, guessing at random gives you a 25% chance of being correct (1 in 4)

I'm going to calculate my foot up your ass if you do not take your shit back to /b/.

Let's say there are 15 questions with 4 choices each. Let's also say there are 3 lifelines: call-a-friend, 50-50, and ask-the-audience.

For each of the 15 questions, there is only 1 correct answer, and 3 incorrect answers, so immediately your chances are 1/3 = 33.34%. You can use each lifeline once. Using phone-a-friend, let's say gives you a 95% chance the person you call is correct. So 1 question is 95%. Similarly, we can say ask-the-audience gives you a 95% chance. Finally, 50-50 will remove 2 wrong answers, so you have 1 right answer and 1 wrong answer, so you basically know the answer. To recap:

Question 1: 33.34%

Question 2: 33.34%

Question 3: 33.34%

Question 4: 95% <--- ask-the-audience

Question 5: 33.34%

Question 6: 33.34%

Question 7: 33.34%

Question 8: 33.34%

Question 9: 95% <--- phone-a-friend

Question 10: 33.34%

Question 11: 33.34%

Question 12: 33.34%

Question 13: 33.34%

Question 14: 33.34%

Question 15: 100% <--- 50-50

Total: 690.08%

Divided by 15 questions = 46.00%

So basically, it's more a less a game of chance, but more than half the people on the show will lose, so it's not very fair. That show is making tons of money off of people.

Isn't it 0.25%?

>>4950699
No, that would be 1 in 400.

>>4950699
No. You have four questions with one correct answer, and three incorrect answers. You have 1/3 = 33.34%.

>>4950698
Your post makes absolutely no sense. There is so much wrong with this.
Have you even watched the show?

>>4950703
1/3 is not 33.34%.
It is 33.333...% recurring.

>>4950705
His proof makes perfect sense. Care to explain what is wrong with it?

>>4950703
>You have four questions with one correct answer
So then there is a 1 in 4 chance that you guess the correct answer?

>>4950716
There is one good answer from a group of four possible answers. That's 25%

>>4950717
This is beyond basic arithmetic. It's 2nd grade maths. It is 1/3, where did 1/4 come from?

>>4950729
Are you retarded?

>>4950733
>>4950735
10/10

>>4950716
Fine.
There are 12 questions, not 15.
There used to be 15, but they changed it to just 12.
Moving on, you should use the probability as correct answer/possible answers
which is 1 in 4.
You do not do correct answer/incorrect answers; this is incorrect.
As an example, if you flip a coin, and want heads, the chance of a heads is not 1/1, as this is 100% and 100% means a certainty.
Even if it was 1 in 3, this does not come out to 33.34. Why did you round upwards?

Moving on.
>Using phone-a-friend, let's say gives you a 95% chance the person you call is correct. So 1 question is 95%. Similarly, we can say ask-the-audience gives you a 95% chance
You can not just assume this, and it is not a question of probability, because it depends who you call, and whether they know the answer or not. It varies from person to person, you can not just guess at a random probability for this.
Similarly, the audience varies from show to show.
>Finally, 50-50 will remove 2 wrong answers, so you have 1 right answer and 1 wrong answer, so you basically know the answer.
What?
This still leaves you with the right answer and one remaining wrong answer. This does not mean you know it, it just means that if you choose to guess, you have a 50% chance of being correct.

Why did you say that they ask the audience on question 4, use the phone a friend on question 9, and use the 50 50 on question 15?
Lifelines can be used on any question, you use them whenever you need them, and you can even use more than one lifeline on the same question.

The entire post is silly because this is not even a game of chance at all.
You use the lifelines to help, but if you do not know the answer, and are not willing to gamble your money on a guess, then you take the money.

Is every multiple choice test ever made a game of luck?

>>4950733
How the fuck is it 1/3? When you flip a coin is it there a 100% chance you get heads? No because there are 2 possible outcomes and heads is 1 of them. Just like there are 4 answers and 1 is correct. Therefore a 1/4 chance that you guess the correct answer.

>>4950743
Holy fuck you are stupid

You should go back to the 2nd grade because you clearly fail at arithmetic.

>>4950711
The most advanced calculator in the world says otherwise

>>4950747
>The most advanced calculator in the world says otherwise
No it does not.

>>4950745
How old are you? This is a beyond trivial result.

>You do not do correct answer/incorrect answers; this is incorrect.
Please explain without applying circular logic.

>which is 1 in 4.
That's wrong.

Your understanding of the proof in >>4950698 is very wrong.

>>4950753
Do you think that the probability of rolling a 6 in a regular playing dice is 1 in 5?

ITT : fag using fallacious statistics to make other fags rage

>>4950757
You do not understand the proof. WTF is wrong with you? Why can't you into math?

>>4950753
I am 21.
Not that this is relevant, someone a lot younger could also see the flaws in this.

>>4950762
You are a troll. Your troll tactics of making me waste my precious time are malicious, but not very sophisticated.

>>4950767
Your understanding of the proof is still wrong. The correct probability is 1/3 = 33.34%, because that's reality.

>>4950765
That is not a proof.
It makes bogus assumptions, does not calculate probability correctly, does not round 1/3 correctly, and does not understand that this is not even a game of chance.

I sincerely hope this is a troll.
And as I said, we have had this thread before.
You do not need to keep posting it.

I don't see how a question with 4 possible choices, where 1 is correct, and therefore 3 are incorrect, and where the answer is selected at random, doesn't create a 1/4 chance of picking the correct choice, either.

You'll have to explain this or I'll assume you're trolling.

>>4950780
He is a troll. Best to stop bumping this thread

>>4950780
Its basic math, go back to 2nd grade your a cunt.

>>4950775
You are still not rounding correctly.
Do you disagree with Googles calculation of this?

>>4950747
>most advanced calculator in the world
>doesn't know how to denote an infinitely repeating decimal
lel

>>4950791
>Its
>your
I see clearly now. Moving on.

>>4950777
>That is not a proof.
Yes it is. It was proven by the poster. It is nothing but an application of logic.

>does not calculate probability correctly
Wrong. It does calculate the probability correctly. Don't change definitions for your needs.

>does not round 1/3 correctly
We are not dealing with approximations here. The accurate result is 33.34%. The proof is similar to the one for 0.999...=/= 1. You should be able to figure it out by yourself.

>and does not understand that this is not even a game of chance.
It is. This was proven in the post.

>>4950780
It was already explained in >>4950698. What more is there to add? You are making fallacious claims

>>4950792
Unreliable source for mathematical calculations. Please use a real calculator.

>>4950801
If you think that choosing 1 from 4 yields a probability of 1/3, then you must think that choosing 1 from 6 yields a probability of 1 in 5.

This is not correct. The chance of any roll on a dice is 1 in 6.
Guessing at a question on 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire' is 1 in 4.

>It is. This was proven in the post.
No it was not.
Where do you think the 'proof' was?

>>4950794
The infinitely repeating decimal is an approximation. The actual result is 33.34%. This is second grade maths.

>>4950810
It explains nowhere how he turns what is intriniscally 1/4 to 1/3. You do know there are 4 possible answers, yes? And only 1 is correct?
>>4950801
Except 0.999 does equal 1.

>>4950826
0.999...*, rather.

this is fucking pathetic! wtf is this, like 40 posts!???

my god, you guys are so retarded!
STOP BUMPING THIS!

>>4950813
Google works as a real calculator. It is not wrong, I know what 1/3 is.
Google has never given me an incorrect calculation.

>>4950830
>my god, you guys are so retarded!

That's exactly what comes to my mind whenever I see EK posting.

>>4950820
No, you do not. You are making mindless assumptions.

>Guessing at a question on 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire' is 1 in 4.
Poor troll attempt. The correct probability is 1 in 3. You have four questions, three incorrect, and one correct. You logical inference is warped.

The proof is in there. I'm not trolling. Read it and realize it's rigorous and correct.

>>4950838
fucking look at this you dense shit!
>>4950694

you see how many times this has fucking been posted!???

and yeh, you see how ALMOST ALL of these threads have expired before their time?
BECAUSE ITS FUCKING SPAM and the mods remove it!

FUCK YOU!

>>4950836
Google is not a reliable source for mathematics or any other inquiry for that matter. Even more so now after you managed to find wrong and fallacious "calculations" in the search engine.

>>4950850
You're far worse than this thread.

>>4950847
I know for a fact that you are wrong, and I have explained it as best I can.
I suggest you talk to a mathematician about this if you are still confused.

>>4950826
>It explains nowhere how he turns what is intriniscally 1/4 to 1/3. You do know there are 4 possible answers, yes? And only 1 is correct?
The result is trivial. What more is there to add? Are you really that stupid?

>>4950850
Look at this:

https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/?task=search2&ghost=&search_text=&search_subject=&
amp;search_username=EK&search_tripcode=&search_filename=&search_datefrom=&search_dat
eto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search
_res=post

Do you see any science posts in there? That's right, me neither.

>>4950826
>Except 0.999 does equal 1.
No. Prove this to me in a rigorous manner.

>>4950830
>>4950850
This is a real problem in measure-theoretic probability theory, you stupid dumb cunt.

>>4950864
1/3 = 0.333...
0.333... * 3 = 0.999...
1/3 * 3 = 1
QED

>>4950857
>I know for a fact that you are wrong
You have yet to provide a logically conclusive argument to demonstrate that >>4950698 is wrong. Your posts involve fallacies and the abuse of definition. You are a horrible troll.

>>4950869
>1/3 = 0.333...
Wrong.

>>4950869
Just die in a fire, you retarded piece of shit. This circular reasoning troll "proof" is the worst copypasta of the entire internet.

>Therefore a 1/4 chance that you guess the correct answer.
Dude. There are 3 answers that are incorrect. So 1/3 chance to get it right.

...And you would've thought the education system covered this.

>>4950856
if thats what you actually think, then you're FUCKING RETARDED!
and i dont give a shit about your bullshit opinion, cunt.

>>4950863
math count?
https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S4948597
and fuck you, theres no science in this thread at all!

>>4950866
fuck off, troll.

>>4950886
Says the fucking retard who cannot even do basic high school calculus.

>>4950886
Solving the math homework of an 11 year old does NOT count as quality contribution to /sci/. You are a mentally disabled cretin.

>>4950886
>fuck off, troll
You are the troll. You are unable to even complete basic calculus problems. Please consider making informative comments in this thread instead of shitposting.

For Who Wants to be a Millionaire, we have a metric
<div class="math">g(v,w)_{s}:=E_s(v(\mathrm{log}~s)w(\mathrm{log}~s))</div>
where the vector fields <span class="math">v[/spoiler] and <span class="math">w[/spoiler] are part of the tangent bundle of a the 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire' measure space equipped with smooth structure.

We need to find values of the function <span class="math">x\mapsto v(\mathrm{log}~s)_x w(\mathrm{log}~s)_x[/spoiler], which is on <span class="math">X[/spoiler], under a measure <span class="math">s\in S[/spoiler], <span class="math">E_s(\cdots)[/spoiler].

>>4950897
That is not very nice, and agitating her is not helping.

>>4950906
Fuck off Harriet

>>4950906
Fuck off, Harriet.

i am so fucking done with this
enjoy your fucking bullshit troll/retard circlejerk you morons!

camady guld!!~~~~~

>>4950924
Fuck off, Blackman.

>>4950928
This is not a troll.

You are both a retard and a circlejerking tripfag, even more so. You bring retardation to a whole new level. Words like, "stupid", "dumbfuck", and "retard", don't even cover the kind of mental defect you have.

You contribute nothing to the quality of the board.

>>4950928
Victory

>>4950938
>Words like, "stupid", "dumbfuck", and "retard", don't even cover the kind of mental defect you have.
That really is horribly insensitive.
You should not have posted that.

>>4950953
You should consider taking pills for your autism, Harriet.

>>4950953
And you are horribly deficient.
You should not have been born.

troll thread.

it was pretty obvious... then the 33.34% thing made it very obvious.

lucky for you most of /sci/ is highly autistic and can't recognise obvious trolling or even understand the concept of a troll.

>>4950958
I am not autistic.

>>4950969
Yes, you are. You are mentally and socially retarded.

>>4950965
This is not a troll, and 1/3 = 33.34%

Where do you disagree?

>>4950969
i fucking new it was you.
you've probably been feeding the OP you dumb bitch. you should recognise this as a FUCKING OBVIOUS troll by now
go to bed

>>4950978
Stop talking to yourself.

Why does this abysmal abomination of doltish foolery get 80 replies?

>>4950978
>says it's leaving with extra buttmad
>stays around
lel

>>4950984
Verbose English major language does not make you more/less right.

There is nothing wrong with this thread. It is a legitimate unsolved problem in probability theory.

>>4950976

When you do probability, you take the PART out of the WHOLE.

Therefor, for this problem, it is 1 CORRECT ANSWER out of 4 POSSIBLE answers. 1/4 = 25% chance of getting the right answer due to randomly guessing. 75% chance of failing, because there are 3 WRONG choices out of 4 POSSIBLE answers.

In short, you're a complete fucking idiot and should die in a fire.

>>4950978
Why are you still here? Didn't you want to kill yourself?

>>4950991
Fuck off, RedCream.

>>4950976
> This is not a troll, and 1/3 = 33.34%
> This is not a troll
> and this is a troll

Bro we both know you're trying to induce rage by rounding up instead of down and using 1/3 instead of 1/4 in the first place. It ain't happening dude, learn to realise when your attempted trollee isn't severely autistic and move on to one who is.

>>4950991
Now you insult those who are actually right. Unjustifiable. You start to lose a debate and your only reaction is coming up with insults and strawmen. I think there is still a lot to learn for you.

>>4950976
If you're not a troll, you should immediately see that this involves a question with 4 possible answers.

>>4950999
If I said oranges are orange, everyone would agree, as they can see for themselves that it is obviously correct.
Now you jump in, trolling as hard as you can and say oranges are blue. Isn't it your burden of proof, since you are the fallacious troll here? Your statement is the absurd one that requires evidence. Well good luck then finding some evidence that is not made up of further fallacies.

>>4951004
Right, which makes three incorrect answers, and one correct. Therefore 1/3 = 33.34%.

>>4951008
Your effort invested to rage obtained ratio is awful.

>>4951001

No. I proved you wrong, and then afterwards I called you a fucking retard.

BTW, not responding to the "me proving you wrong" part and responding to the "calling you a retard" part makes your post a strawman arguement.

GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR.

>>4951022
Nobody is raging here, or investing effort. It's basic elementary school math. Everyone is just laughing at those who are incapable of doing it.

>>4951023
You have yet to prove anything without strawman, abuse of definitions, and circular reasoning.

This thread is hilarious.

>>4951018
0.00333333 recurring is closer to 0 than 0.01, therefore 33.333333 recurring is rounded down to 33.33.

Wait if there are four options, and one is the correct answer, why is it not 25%?

>>4951034
It's been a constant battle, yet no one has offered to help start a solution to >>4950904

We know the Radon–Nikodym derivative of measures from the actual PROOF given in >>4950698 will produce a value of 33.34% on individual questions, and 46.00% on the entire measure space, yet we continue to argue over the validity of it.

Very disappointing that we have this many trolls on /sci/.

>>4951043
The radon-nikodym derivative with respect to what measure?

>>4951035
You are lacking fundamental understanding. The first step of improvement would be to admit that you were wrong. You can do so now or troll on. 1/3 is not 0.333...., you are abusing definitions.

>>4951029
Didn't read. Ratio falling even further.

>>4951030

Fine, lets use your own logic.

Assume it is a True or False question. There is 1 right answer, and 1 wrong answer.

So, the probability of getting a right answer is 1/1, because there is 1 right answer and 1 wrong answer.

So there is absolutely no way to be wrong, since 1/1 is 100%.

So unless I'm just getting fucked by my professors when I take tests that have true/false sections, when I should be getting them all correct, you're wrong.

>>4951056
There aren't 2 answers there are 4 idiot

>>4951042
You want to see >>4950698 for an explanation, or you can jump on the troll bandwagon.

Answer my question, you shit eating semen receptacle.

>>4951050
The integral over the subspace of X containing one question, and the integral over the subspace containing all of the questions respectively

>>4951059

Right, but since he's using the 1 RIGHT answer out of 3 WRONG answers instead of RIGHT out of POSSIBLE, the True/False example shows that this logic is wrong.

>>4951068
> attempts to troll
> makes himself mad

>>4951056
You are strawman yet again. Stop attacking, and provide proof to your claims of some fallacious "1/4".

[spoiler]You can't[/math]

>>4951069
> using integrals for discrete quantities

you're not impressing anybody.

>>4951061
Yeah but >>4950698 claims that
>there is only 1 correct answer, and 3 incorrect answers, so immediately your chances are 1/3 = 33.34%

1+3 is 4, and if one person was to pick randomly from those four, wouldn't it be 25%?

This post >>4951056 has a point. Don't all the options just add up?

>>4951056
Nigga please, you're too obvious

>>4951071
>implying I'm OP

>>4951070
It doesn't demonstrate anything. It demostrates that you are incapable of doing remedial elementary school math, and cannot bow down to the burden of proof on your end.

If you don't see how it's 1/3, you need to head back to Primary School.

>>4951076
The measure space, as stated already, is smooth. It is not discrete. There are theoretically an infinite number of possible questions.

>>4951083

Please tell me how probability works.

>>4951069
That's not even an answer. I asked you what fucking measure.

>>4951077
There is a 33.34% chance of getting a wrong answer, but that's only if you omit the correct answer.

For fuck's sake you autists, OP has failed at subtle trolling and has now fallen back on not-even-trying-to-hide-it trolling, stop fucking responding.

>>4951077
No, it does not. It is a fallacious proof. Reread the original >>4950698 again, and I assure you that you will eventually recover your intuition on the matter.

>>4951087
no there aren't. there are 4.

stop typing irrelevant shit which would only confuse a beginner in an attempt to prove how smart you are. don't you realise how arrogant and stupid that actually is?

>>4951101

Please tell me how probability works.

>>4951101
>For each of the 15 questions, there is only 1 correct answer, and 3 incorrect answers, so immediately your chances are 1/3 = 33.34%

ONE correct answer, giving us a total of 1 (one); along with THREE incorrect answers, giving us a total of 3 (three). This gives us a GRAND TOTAL of 4 (four).

If someone was to randomly pick from these 4 (four), they have a 1/4 chance. In this case, 25%.

How in the world can four options result in a 33.34% chance of landing on the correct one?

>>4951092
Do you not know the definition of measure? We have a smooth manifold <span class="math">X[/spoiler], the Who Wants to be a Millionaire measure space. The measure over the subspace containing a single question will produce 33.34%. We are trying to find the measure.

>>4951104
see
>>4951106

>>4951106
Your logic is horribly flawed, and that is not a proof. You are again abusing definitions.

>>4951107
You just told me that you already know le measure. You seem to be le confused.

>>4951111
There is no way you are serious. Please show me the flaws in my logic.

>>4951111

Please tell me how probability works.

>>4951113
It was stated in >>4950904 that we are trying to find the measure. You asked what the measure is, I stated we know what it will produce.

>>4951116
>>4951115
Go get an elementary school book. The proof is so unbelievably trivial that I cannot believe you are asking for it.

>>4951123
What more do you need to know? Is this some philosophical qualia shit?

Everybody replying to the OP:

You are not intelligent.

Presumably you think you're pretty smart. Here's a message from reality: you're not. You're stupid. In fact you're quite a lot more stupid than the average human being, who would easily have been able to recognise that the OP is just trolling by pretending to be an idiot and that there was therefore no point in answering.

You fail at having basic knowledge about reality and therefore you are stupid. The end.

>>4951125

Please just show me how probability works, I want to learn.

>>4951125
Alright then.

So if I get you four cups, flip them over, and put a ball under ONE of these FOUR cups, you're telling me you have a 33.34% chance of getting the right cup? Is this what you are telling me?

>>4951135
>>4951134
forget it guys there's no way someone on /sci/ is this fucking stupid

just some shitposter from /v/ or /mlp/ trying to rustle jimmies

sage and ignore

>>4951127
We are trying to recover the full blown information metric, if you read clearly, that will produce values in >>4950698.

>>4951135
You are again abusing definitions. This is only valid for Who Wants to be a Millionaire.

>>4951140
>trying to rustle jimmies
>'trying'
>implying they're not succeeding impressively using only old copypasta and blatant trolling obvious to anyone except the autistic

>>4951134
Get a book. It's really simple. You can find many online.

This is like when people tell me that if there were three boxes and one of them had a ball in it, that opening an empty box would give you a 66.7% probability of getting it right the next time.

They just don't give up. Probably something carried over from shitty teaching.

>>4951147
This is not copypasta, this is an unsolved problem in probability theory. The traditional formalism with \bb{R^|X|} is not compatible because of the proof given in >>4950698.

>>4951150

Do you have a recommendation?

>>4951156
It's that same method of flawed logic that led to the opening of casinos in the middle of the Nevada desert.

>>4951160
Any published text by a credible mathematician will do.

>>4951156
This is not applicable to this situation. Please provide a proof demonstrating that >>4950698 is wrong.

>>4951172
Proof was provided by >>4951135 and >>4951106
. According to your method of thinking, a one in four chance is equal to 33.34%.

>>4951168

I'm sorry, I just want to be sure that the mathematician is credible.

Please tell me a credible mathematician.

>>4951177

>>4951106 is blatantly wrong

>>4951135 is making outrageous assumptions and abusing definitions

Neither are applicable to the Who Wants to be a Millionaire case, but please prove either one. You are defining things, but not providing proof.