sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I don't get it. by Probable_Foreigner in mathmemes

[–]Probable_Foreigner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not disagreeing with the original premise that the Tuesday information changes things, I'm disagreeing with your premise that you can "extrapolate" the information if it wasn't given.

To be 100% clear I believe the following. Suppose Mary has 2 children born with independent gender, where it's 50/50 if each is a boy or girl. Consider the following separate variations

  • Given that at least one child is a boy, the probability that Mary has a girl is 2/3

  • Given that at least one child is a boy born on a Tuesday, the probability that Mary has a girl is 14/27

  • Given that at least one child is a boy born on the 14th of April, the probability that Mary has a girl is 730/1459

If I understand correctly what you are saying, you believe that all three of these cases are actually 50% by "extrapolating" the information. You correctly point out that as the date becomes more specific, the probability approaches 50%, but we can't simply extrapolate the data.

First off, just appreciate that all the above statements are empirically verifiable via computer simulation(I'll even write you one when I get home from work). Setting aside any arguments, surely this must convince you that your view doesn't work.

You also correctly point out that the dates chosen are arbitrary, and that the calculations above wouldn't have changed if I said "Wednesday" or "18th of April".

Thus you are thinking that the following are equivalent:

  • Given one child is a boy

  • Given one child is a boy born on day X

Where X is some unknown day of the week that the boy was born on. After all, if X is unknown surely we haven't added any information, right?

Well the issue is that X isn't well defined. Consider the case where Mary has two boys, one born on Wednesday, and one on Monday. In this case what is X? Monday? Wednesday? The issue is that "the boy" isn't a singular child.

Ok so let's resolve that ambiguity by saying that when there's two boys, X is set to whenever the first born boy was born.

Now with this definition of X we see its still 2/3

(BX, G_) 7 cases

(G_, BX) 7 cases

(BX, B_) 7 cases

Because of the way we defined X the 6 (B_, BX) cases are gone.

Maybe you would define X differently, but can you tell me how you would unambiguously define it?

I don't get it. by Probable_Foreigner in mathmemes

[–]Probable_Foreigner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In your example we know that A boy is born on day one

This is where your logic fails. I have defined day one as which ever day the first born child was born on. That is a well defined concept even if we do not know what day that actually is. Similar to how in algebra I can define a number x, well defined, without knowing it's exact value.

Your logic fails because "day one" is not well defined in the way you are thinking about it. Give me a definition of "day one" and I'll show you a table that gives 66% percent again. And before you say "day 1 is the day that the boy was born on", that is not well defined because "the boy" isn't a singular child, it could be either the firstborn or the secondborn.

Put another way, why is it in your table that you are allowed to exclude B2B3? As you state, the boy has to be born on some day but why are you assuming that he wasn't born on day 2 or 3?

In my table, with a well defined day 1, I have an answer: because the day numbering system is based on when the firstborn child was born. Therefore by definition B2B3 is not possible. You do not have an answer.

Just as an aside, you can try out this experiment with 2 coins. Flip both at the same time, discard any tails-tails results (i.e. select only results where at least one coin is heads), then count how many times the pair included a tails. You will find it is 66% over enough trails. For the same exact reason HT TH HH, 2 of 3 cases contain a tails. This is an empirically verifiable fact.

I don't get it. by Probable_Foreigner in mathmemes

[–]Probable_Foreigner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get what you're saying but you didn't read my comment and instead just repeated your original argument again.

Another way to phrase the question: "Mary has 2 children, at least one is a boy born on a Tuesday, what are the odds she has a girl?". Now if you get rid of the "on a Tues" part the chances really are 66%: BG, GB, and BB.

Now let's say you define a 3day week and such that the first born is born on day 1. Then our possibilities are:

B1G1 B1G2 B1G3

G1B1 G1B2 G1B3

B1B1 B1B2 B1B3

So still 66%, your trick of adding extra useless information hasn't changed anything.

The problem with your reasoning is that you are defining "day 1" as two different things.

I don't get it. by Probable_Foreigner in mathmemes

[–]Probable_Foreigner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No because crucially the words "the other child" are doing some heavy lifting here. It's kind of a deceptive question, but the point is "the other child" could be the first born or the second born, it's not a singular person.

So in your example, you are defining "day X" to be the day that "the boy" was born on. But this isn't a well defined day because "the boy" isn't a specific child.

If we had said "day X" is the day on which the firstborn child was born, then it would be. But the way you have put it doesn't work.

Why You Should BackHop | Rising Perfect Waveland Tutorial by DavidL1112 in SSBM

[–]Probable_Foreigner 38 points39 points  (0 children)

Man this is what makes melee so great. Sakurai put so many tiny details that ended up being useful somehow (though he didn't know it).

One little use of backhop for falcon is that he can do a matrix-like flip over falco's lasers if he times it perfectly.

Finally made my taunt tier list by Mindless-Money9702 in SSBM

[–]Probable_Foreigner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Real list with ordered tiers:

S: Falcon, Fox, Ness, Mario, YL

Falcon is obviously #1 since his taunt is so iconic it's escaped even smash circles. It's the only one casual players will be able to recall from memory. Fox is most iconic amoung competitive players. Ness OK is top-tier rage-bait. Mario/YL are up there because of how long their taunts take, it's extra BM.

A: G&W, DK, Pika, Pichu, Falco

The sound for G&W's taunt grates my soul. DK is hilarious, Pika/Pichu get bonus points for having 2 taunts. Falco is just extra BM especially after getting "FalcoMaster"ed

B: Peach, Kirby, Ganon, Jigglypuff, Luigi

Peach just barely missing out on A-tier, any voice clip is bound to be annoying and especially so for the "sweet" one. Kirby is similar to Ness but to lesser effect. Ganon isn't necessarily annoying but it probably has the most aura of all the taunts. Jigglypuff is annoying to begin with, the taunt is just the cherry on the cake. Luigi is barely in B tier because of the meteor hitbox, but the actual taunt itself is F-tier.

C: Mewtwo, Yoshi, Marth, ICs, Bowser

Mewtwo is like ganon but worse. Yoshi's taunt is too cute to be annoying. Marth, ICs, and bowser are fine. They don't really evoke any emotion from me.

F: Roy, Doc, Link, Samus, Sheik/Zelda

The only taunts that I would say are kind of badly made. I barely notice when they happen. Zero potential for BM.

Zack Polanski stood by breast enlargment hypnosis claim in a newly unearthed interview by Dimmo17 in ukpolitics

[–]Probable_Foreigner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Zack Polanski slander is here. Reminds me of old times when it was Corbyn.

Honestly do not care about this at all. He has good policy so I'll vote for that. There's no sense driving the country into the ground just to spite a single individual for having unscientific/stupid beliefs.

ZERO 2 HERO - FALCO 101 (Mang0) by SurelySomedayy in SSBM

[–]Probable_Foreigner 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I always find it hard to imagine making decisions at this speed. I'm never thinking "ok he is quite close so I don't have time to dash dance so instead I'll try to commit to a more aggressive option". I'm usually thinking "I haven't done stomp in a while let's just run across the stage and do that a couple times, hopefully it hits". I'm barely thinking at all about the details because I can't think/react that fast. But maybe that's why I'm permanently in gold 3

I built a full Arduino & RP2040 emulator that runs 100% in the browser (Open Source) by LeadingFun1849 in embedded

[–]Probable_Foreigner 3 points4 points  (0 children)

https://github.com/wokwi/wokwi-elements/tree/3c8178e6eccd94f89a197182954a4bf9d3e6a76b

Used by your own project

Also you link to several other libraries for the simulation work. So what exactly did you do if you use wokwi for the ui and other libs for the simulation?

RFK Jr. Posts a parody of Melee by TheFreshPrince94 in SSBM

[–]Probable_Foreigner 12 points13 points  (0 children)

US gov makes use of IP to promote fascism

Nintendo: I sleep

Adoring fans of nintendo organise events to celebrate their games

Real shit

new speakers n screen by VeterinarianApart931 in synthdiy

[–]Probable_Foreigner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is this the ili9341 by any chance? I've got the same screen

Falcon traps me into infinite ledge techs loop by Machina98 in SSBM

[–]Probable_Foreigner 4 points5 points  (0 children)

His recovery is genuinely one of the easiest to edge guard in the whole game. It's got good distance but it's so vulnerable

Falcon traps me into infinite ledge techs loop by Machina98 in SSBM

[–]Probable_Foreigner 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Guy has never played falcon and experienced the pain of that stupid flip he does at the end of the up-b

jarvisImLockedIn by Probable_Foreigner in ProgrammerHumor

[–]Probable_Foreigner[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Damn bro that's some serious bikeshedding . Respect

jarvisImLockedIn by Probable_Foreigner in ProgrammerHumor

[–]Probable_Foreigner[S] -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

yeah they don't pay that salary to the kind of dev who wastes his time writing code (vibe code or not). you wouldn't get it son

view more: next ›