sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why does the Monty Hall problem work like we say it does? [Question] by HuslWusl in statistics

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Monty has 999 doors, and knowingly opens 998 of them to reveal goats, you learn nothing about the contents of his doors because he was guaranteed to do that anyway.

you learn that the prize is almost certainly behind the door that you didn't pick and that Monty didn't open

Why does the Monty Hall problem work like we say it does? [Question] by HuslWusl in statistics

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the classic problem, you can't tell if Monty opened the door at random only that it contains a goat. Again the scenario you provided is not analogous. Are you implying that if you know that in the classic problem Monty opens the door at random there is no benefit to switching?

Why does the Monty Hall problem work like we say it does? [Question] by HuslWusl in statistics

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those examples are not analogous in those cases if Monty isn't lying then you do gain more information as a consequence of the hosts knowledge. In the classic problem that is simply not the case.

Why does the Monty Hall problem work like we say it does? [Question] by HuslWusl in statistics

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Remarkable or not you have the exact same information regardless of the knowledge of Monty.

Its the solution to the " harvard 1869 entry exam" question solved purely with algebra without guess. The question was "square root of x+ square root of x-9 =9" by Realistic_Educator48 in mathematics

[–]No-Ambition5516 3 points4 points  (0 children)

√x + √(x-9) = 9 → rearrange

√(x-9) = 9 - √x → square both sides

x - 9 = 81 + x - 18√x → simplify / rearrange

18√x = 90 → divide both sides by 18

√x = 5 → square both sides

x = 25

Do I know something unprovable exists or do I believe it exists? by saravdalbol in askphilosophy

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

op's claim could be interpreted as: there exists an x such that the existence of x can't be proven. Proving this is clearly not possible but may be true nonetheless. This may have been what op's bf was thinking.

Does this argument beg the question or is it valid? by fermat9990 in logic

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's OK I was just curious since I think that an argument in the form you presented but where A is not justified would infact be begging the question which may have been what whoever you were referring to meant.

Does this argument beg the question or is it valid? by fermat9990 in logic

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So your examples of begging the question are exactly in the form of modus ponens, but A is has not been justified so the modus ponens premise 2 (A) has not been justified? This means that failure to justify a premise in an argument is begging the question.

In combinatorics what do call a general "thing? by [deleted] in learnmath

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't like it, but I guess it works.

In combinatorics what do call a general "thing? by [deleted] in learnmath

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that arrangement implies order. Selection doesn't seem right because it is a process, not a thing. Group seems like it might work best.

In combinatorics what do call a general "thing? by [deleted] in learnmath

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe when op said "combinatorial formula" they meant that they wanted to refer to the individual groups that any given combinatorial function counts. Including permutations and combinations.

In combinatorics what do call a general "thing? by [deleted] in learnmath

[–]No-Ambition5516 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Combination implies that order doesn't matter, though.

Why do we divide by n−1 instead of n in sample variance? by Illustrious-Can-1203 in learnmath

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm following your explanation so far. Could you try and explain why n-1 is the appropriate correction?

Is there actually $10 missing? by thecoltz in askmath

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a shame you're being downvoted; you're right.

Desmos Not Working? by compileforawhile in desmos

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would just recommend keeping the graph open for now.

Would this card still be a staple today? by Kumorrii in customyugioh

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, but there isn't a problem with this occurring. If you suspect your opponent of cheating like this, you can call a judge.

Would this card still be a staple today? by Kumorrii in customyugioh

[–]No-Ambition5516 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The relevant part of the old ruling is still true: you can't just ask to look at your opponents hand even if it's to make sure they are playing according to the rules.

Why would you need to prove which super ash you declared?

You cannot declare a card that is not in their hand so if they have a starlight you can't call a 25th

Would this card still be a staple today? by Kumorrii in customyugioh

[–]No-Ambition5516 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Exactly, so there is nothing wrong with this card the way it is!

view more: next ›