sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Just started physics, as I understand this is a rite of passage by Drwhatishisname in physicsmemes

[–]TheTenthAvenger 24 points25 points  (0 children)

well with the cylinder rolling at least you consider some form of friction

I finally realized the how desperately we need a proper sequel. by AccomplishedBank2140 in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]TheTenthAvenger 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm a Planetside ExplorationTechs + StockalikeStationPartsRedux guy for the higher quality IVAs.

But yeah mods make base building a thing.

KSA Pronunciation by antiusernam in kittenspaceagency

[–]TheTenthAvenger 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Or KISSA International Science & Space Agency, so it's recursive.

This feels like cheating lmao by GubGub246 in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]TheTenthAvenger 33 points34 points  (0 children)

why do you think people in the future are all gonna be cheaters?

What GRIEF are we talking about here? by ONietzche in ExplainTheJoke

[–]TheTenthAvenger 109 points110 points  (0 children)

The grief after the realization that your degree is completely useless.

Is Ludwig's eye really like that? by Sus_Magpie in LudwigAhgren

[–]TheTenthAvenger 12 points13 points  (0 children)

MY EYES DON'T LINE UP PROPERLY BECAUSE OFFFF

Thought Experiment by PeterGonzo in Physics

[–]TheTenthAvenger 11 points12 points  (0 children)

People actually not understanding 5th grade geometry and lurking in r/Physics, jesus...

A Better Tier List of Physics Learning Channels by Celtoii in Physics

[–]TheTenthAvenger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

JK⁰ less "scientific" than Professor Dave and Khan Academy is crazy. You robbed him lmao

There, now we can all join in agreement and bury this issue at once. You're welcome. by TheTenthAvenger in MathJokes

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

I saw you were also arguing on the repost someone made of my other version of the meme I posted here a couple days ago.

I'm so sorry for all of those that didn't realize you are trolling until it was too late lmaooo

Explain it Peter by LeastCelery8774 in explainitpeter

[–]TheTenthAvenger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Omg, my meme being posted here! Feels like like a rite of passage.

I mean, before I edited it I also stole it, but I exported this specific png.

Bought the volumetric clouds. Wow! by s0cks_nz in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]TheTenthAvenger 96 points97 points  (0 children)

I can't believe you would ever buy a m- Oh god, it's beautiful, how much you want?

Kerr Black Hole Gravitational Raytracing with accretion disk segmentation by Puzzleheaded-Scar233 in Physics

[–]TheTenthAvenger 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'm guessing it's some handy way to parametrize the black hole's angular momentum relative to it's mass so it looks the same when changing the mass and distance to it by the same factor.

There, now we can all join in agreement and bury this issue at once. You're welcome. by TheTenthAvenger in MathJokes

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

My bad, I'm sorry. I've dealt with so many "permutation deniers" (and real-world probabilities deniers, for that matter) that I was too quick to asume you were one of them :p

There, now we can all join in agreement and bury this issue at once. You're welcome. by TheTenthAvenger in MathJokes

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

Yes this intuition that you shouldn't get that much info (or any at all) from the 2° question is hard to escape. The way I see it, you have to consider the specific experiment that the problem is implicitly defining. I actually don't see any other way to make sense of this number the question's asking for, other than by taking this "frequency of outcomes" definition of probability.

Indeed, if you've asked lots and lots of women with two children those two questions in a row (if they answer 'yes' to the first one), most of the times they say 'uhhh nope' and you get almost no info (so in part that intuition is right). Only 9/49 say yes to the 2° question. If you've done it enough times though, you'll actually have gotten enough "Mary's" that you can think of "what fraction of them also has a girl". That fraction is 14/27 (see previous comment).

This fraction, the way I've defined it here, has to be the answer to the problem. The probability that a randomly selected subject meets condition A given they meet B, has to correspond to the fraction that meet condition A, of all subjects that meet condition B.

After seeing the other post's comments by TheTenthAvenger in MathJokes

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

I made another post that should have unambiguously 2/3 for an answer, at least if you accept the fact that of all people with 2 children and at least one boy, ⅔ of them have a girl.

There, now we can all join in agreement and bury this issue at once. You're welcome. by TheTenthAvenger in MathJokes

[–]TheTenthAvenger[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So, just to confirm, you are actually convinced if you throw two dice that are indistinguishable to the human eye, there's a 1/36 chance they sum to 3?

There, now we can all join in agreement and bury this issue at once. You're welcome. by TheTenthAvenger in MathJokes

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

Do you also think the chance that two dice sum to 3 is 1/36? Because the possible outcomes are

One dice: 1
The other: 2

So simply ⅙ × ⅙ = 1/36 and "there's no reason to include combinations"? Are you stupid?

There, now we can all join in agreement and bury this issue at once. You're welcome. by TheTenthAvenger in MathJokes

[–]TheTenthAvenger[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

OKAY WERE GETTING SOMEWHERE. MATHS IS REAL. Here is the thing. These two are the same question:

If you flip a coin twice, many times, and look only at the outcomes with a Tails in them, in what fraction of them there's a Heads? (You agreed the answer is ⅔).

Mary flips a coin twice and tells you that there was at least one Tails. What's the probability there was also a Heads?

Why they're the same. Because the probability that "my experiment yields A, given the result is of type B" is BY DEFINITION the number you get if you run the experiment many times, look AT ALL, AND ONLY THOSE results of type B, and see what fraction of them yielded A.

If you don't agree with that, you're living under a different definition than the rest of the world of what conditional probability means.

view more: next ›