We had so much fun the first thread, he's part 2Previous>>539284733
You have two balls.What are the odds that OP is a faggot?
>>2470095242
>>24700952This is just the monte hall problem.trash thread, go back to fb
>>24700955It's not. That proves what a dumb faggot you are
>>24700956You're right. However, you misspelled nigger.
>>24700957Dammit
Eliminate the two silver box.All that's left are two boxes, and the one you picked from either has a silver ball or a gold ball left.It's 50 percent.
>>24700952I AM NOT DOING THIS SHIT AGAINITS 50% 50% NO IFS BUTS OR TITS1/2 CHANCE IS DICTATED BY BOX PICKINGNO DEBATE
>>24700960Screaming doesn't make you any less wrong. Stop behaving like a nigger and think about it properly.
>>24700956It actually is. 66% chance or 2/3. Kill yourself
>>24700952Looks like I'm the only one who passed.
>>24700963snitches and stitches
>>24700959Yup. It doesn't get any easier than thisI don't think the 2/3rds crew actually read the question. Some think SILVER is an option for the first pick. It clearly says first pick is a GOLD ball. Some don't read that you have to pick from the same box with one ball left in it. They think you have an option of 3 balls to choose from. Some think you need code to simulate the results. Others find it helpful to change the question to a million balls.This has left me with little faith in the next generation.
>>24700952>what is the probability that the next box>prior set subsequent setthis is Bayes Theorem in essence right there you stupid faggot you cannot flatten the events and sets
>>24700952Write a simulation Randomize boxes Randomized balls in boxes Remove ball and ask if it's the same as the remainderCount how many times this happen and it will conver to 66% not 50%
>>24700965It would be easier to simply replicate the thought experiment in real life.Every time you randomly choose a gold ball first, just keep track of the times the second ball you choose happens to be silver.And vice versa I guess, silver as to silver.That way you get two data sets to compare.
>>24700952brain says 50 %conditional probabilityif 1st ball gold it was box A or B, so left ball is either gold or silverheart says jews already stolen all gold and changed for fake lead balls; remember wtc7
>>24700952There are 1 million boxes.Each box contains 2 balls One box contains 2 gold balls. One box contains one gold ball and one silver. The rest contain two silver.You grab ball and it's gold. What are odds the other ball is also gold?50/50 between your 1/1000000 being the two gold balls, and the gold ball + silver ball box. Therefore Any answer other than 50/50 is a jew lie.
>>24700965If you claim 50% then if you choose gold you will 50% of the time reveal silver as the last ball in the box right? However there's only 1 silver in both boxes so clearly this is impossible, more like 1/3 probability right?
>>24700965Or, rather, we know it is 2/3 because we studied basic probability theory and we read the question. The point about a million balls experiment and also the point about coding a simulation is just to try to demonstrate the truth to people who still mistakenly think it is 1/2.
>>24700968>Every time you randomly choose a gold ball firstThere is no dataset. The first ball is always GOLD per the instructions. It then says at the end "ALSO BE GOLD" It can never be SILVER.Once GOLD is locked for first there are two options. Was it drawn out of box A or box B. You then HAVE to pull from the same box again. There aren't 3 choices left, there is ONE ball in the box, either SILVER or GOLD. the 2/3rds'ers are trying to add to the question to make it more complex. It is very simple.
I'm OP of the last thread. like 3 people actually responded to my actual question so I 1pbtid'd it
>>24700962>>24700967>>24700972Posting a hint for the people with poor reading comprehension
>babby's first conditional probability question>always 400+ replies on any board>always full of angry idiots who can't understand a "given that" statement and think it's 50/50
>>24700964You won't do shit.
>>24700976>>24700975>British intelligenceThe keyword is "next"
>erm um aschually according to math principal xyzNo one cares fags. It can't be the two silver box so you have a 66% chance.
>>24700963>announcing or reporting a sageGOTCHA BITCH
>>24700975Yes but you are claiming 1/2 probability so if you run this experiment 100 tines you would expect roughly silver 50 times and gold 50 times. Right?However that's impossible as there's only 1 silver in both boxes ergo that should be an enormous clue you were wrong
>>24700978You can't ignore the probability that led up to the question. Any trial in which you picked the second box and the silver ball has already been eliminated, so it's half as likely that you're holding that box rather than the first box.
>>24700971You're retarded. 2 boxes with a gold ball. You took a gold ball from 1 box. So you have the gold gold box or the gold silver box. You are going to draw a gold ball or a silver ball. That 1/2 or 50%.
>>24700979>a fucking leafWrong again, fucko
>>24700971When you get a GOLD as the first ball you have chosen box A or box B. SILVER SILVER cannot be an option.You have already taken out one GOLD ball. So if it came from box A there would be another GOLD ball left. If the first pick came from box B, then there would be a SILVER left. You have to pick from the same box, there is only one ball left to pull. Don't need to simulate. Making it one million balls changes the whole question.
>>24700952not politicalthis shit stayswhen i post quality incel threads asking for a solution i get banned and thread gets nukedwhy jannies refuse to change their incel ways?is it really that important to moderate 4chan for free?
>>24700984There are 2 gold balls remaining and only 1 silver. Common core has rotted your goblina gene brain mutt.
>>24700981There's also only 1 gold in either box after you pull the first golden ball, hence the word "next," you pretentious failure. So its clearly 50%
>>24700982Yes you can because it is meaningless to the probability of the remaing ball. It's a trick question and you got tricked. Don't blame me for not understanding the problem
>>24700972Also, if any people actually think the answer is 1/2, I would gladly arrange the experiment in real life and run a thousand trials with you. For every time the second comes out silver after the first came out gold, I will give you $1100, and for every time the second comes out gold after the first came out gold, you have to give me $1000.If you actually think you're right with your demonstrably absurd 1/2 assertion, it's a bargain, right?
>>24700952The issue was that the problem was worded ambiguously, leading both sides to be correct depending on interpretation.
>>24700978you're pulling a 2nd ball out of the same box you pulled the gold ball out ofhow could it possibly be 50/50 if you're 2x as likely to have randomly chosen the double gold box over the mixed box
>>24700987Lmao Jesus Chris dude. You dont understand the problem
>>24700981Two boxes eligible that a GOLD ball was pulled. One would have a GOLD ball left - GOLD GOLD box and one would have a SILVER ball left - GOLD SILVER. In the second pick there is only one ball left - YOU HAVE TO PICK FROM THE SAME BOX - you aren't choosing out of 3 balls left. People aren't reading.
>solved since 1889https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_box_paradox
>>24700993>10 posts by this idFucking retard lmao
>>24700990Cool hypothetical on an anonymous board, disingenuous faggot
>>24700988Tell me how many times will you reveal silver with a 1/2 probability of revealing a second gold?You run this experiment 10 times. How many silvers instead of gold are revealed?
>>24700991It really isnt worded ambiguouslyThere's just a lot of people making assumptions or failing to read the problem
>>24700998On the second ball, it will be ~50%. No one is factoring the first gold ball into the probability
based modsquestion can be equivalently reworded as >you pick a ball at random from a random box>it is gold>what are the odds that you drew it from the first box?(2/3)
>>24700975We have all read that. We understand that sentence fully. There is no "gotcha" in the wording of the question. It literally is just question that separates people who understand the absolutely basics of probability theory and those that do not. You do not. That's your issue.
>>24700997There's nothing disingenuous about it. If you want to agree with it, I will then post here an email you can send to and we can arrange it. I will gladly take your money.
>>24701016Not even close to the problem but thanks for proving your idiocy
>>24700981Learn to read jeet. You allready picked a gold ball and the next ball comes from the same box. There are only 2 boxes with gold ball(s). The chance calculation starts at this point. You pick a silver ball if you have the gold silver box and a gold ball if you have the gold gold box. Chance is 1 in 2, 1/2 or 50%.
>>24701016Yep and the odds of drawing a silver instead of a gold after choosing a gold is 1/3 >>24701035None of you retards will answer a simple question. If the you think it's 1/2 probability then tell me how many times silver is revealed instead of the second gold. Will you have around 50 silvers after doing this 100 times at 1/2 probability yes or no
>>24701035They will never never understand. The worst are the ones that like to post "programing" language to prove their point even though they've calculated the problem incorrectly. These people drive......
>>24701066Obviously
>>24701072It's impossible to get 50 silvers if you run this experiment 100 times because there's only 1 in two boxes. This should set off alarms somewhere in your head
>>24701103Prove it. You won't. You'll just spout theory and fail. Its fine. I dont need to prove to you how dumb you are. Its proven here
>>24701069Show the error in the programming then.The programming examples are just to show you what is happening to help convince you. If you think they're programmed incorrectly, then program one yourself.The result follows from basic probability theory: A box is picked at random. So it's a 1/3 chance of picking the GG, box, 1/3 chance of picking the GS box, and 1/3 chance of picking the SS box. Then a ball is picked at random from that chosen box. It is a gold ball. There is a 0/3 chance it came from the SS box. There is a 1/3 chance it came from the GS box. There is a 2/3 chance it came from the GG box. So given that the first draw was a gold ball, then there is a 2/3 chance the next ball will be gold. That's the conditional probability. It's just that simple. There is no trick wording or anything. It's just understanding the basic principles.
>>24701113>>>/g/109326302
>>24701069>program proofyupI can even render a 3d ball scenario to show you but probability isn't proven by vivid stage but by large trial behavior because probability is abstract geometry
>>247009521/2 Is this a joke because it's extremely simple?
>>24701111It was alteady proven 100+ years ago by the same contradiction. There is only 1 silver in both boxes therefore impossible it is chosen with 1/2 probability since you claim gold is chosen with 1/2. Probability adds up to 1.
Let's break it down, maybe it will make it easier to follow.Recap:>one box with 2 gold balls>one box with 1 gold ball and 1 silver ball>one box with 2 silver ballsYou pick at random. You get a gold ball, which obiously rules out the third box: you might have drawn from the first or the second, you have no idea.At this point you might be inclined to say:>"well, I'm picking boxes, so the first two are just as likely obviously, because I can only pick gold from TWO out of the three boxes: since one still has gold and the other not, it's equally one or the other."so you say 50%.But you went too fast and fell into the logical trap (the trap is that there's boxes at all).Go back for a second, at the picking time: yes, we do know you'll pick gold (and gold balls are all equal, yes), but let's evaluate all the possibilities first, for fun: don't worry, we'll immediately remove the useless ones anyway.Here's all the possible results of the first pick:>Gold A from box 1 [ok]>Gold B from box 1 [ok]No matter which one you keep here, you'll keep going with the game.>Gold from box 2 [ok]>Silver from box 2 [X]Here you will only keep going with the game if you pick gold: if you picked silver first, it would be irrelevant, you would reshuffle and play the game again with no past memory. Discarded.>Silver A from box 3 [X]>Silver B from box 3 [X]Both irrelevant, you reshuffle and play again with no memory. Discarded.So only three possible events that may have happened remain:>you extracted gold A from box 1>you extracted gold B from box 1>you extracted gold from box 2How many chances of picking another gold in this situation, now? 2 out of 3.Yes, you will not be able to PERCEIVE the difference between the first two possible cases (gold A or B), but the fact stands that if you pick from box 1 all of its chances will be "saved" at the picking time, while for box 2 half of them will be flushed, leaving only one chance.Box 2 weights half of 1, statistically.
The question comes down to where you believe the probability begins based on the wording of the question. The 1/2 crowd go from you have a GOLD ball as a start. The 2/3rds crowd would say you were already 2/3rd as likely to have that GOLD ball from the GG box.
>>24701139
Sounds like it cancels out the box o silver balls. Gonna go with the Monty Hall 2/3... especially considering that the number of balls left in the realm of possibility are 2 gold out of 3 total.
>>24701228That's exactly right. And that's what the question says: "You pick a box at random. You put your hand in and take a ball from that box at random. It's a gold ball." So that's given.
>>24701238It is different than Monty problem because the odds change after the first pick.In this case you chose a box, then chose a coin and you picked gold. You are 2/3rds as likely to have chosen the GG as opposed to the GS - 2 golds versus 1 gold. So, if most of the time the GG will come up, there is a higher probability that the next coin will be another G.
>>24701228But the wording it's clear: it states that the situation is a result of a RANDOM pick from the boxes, which just so happened to be gold. But it order to be a random pick from the boxes, it must come from the sample space of the boxes. i.e. it must only happen in the ways described here >>24701188 , while clearly removing the "I picked silver" events. But it MUST stay a random pick. That's what it tells youOtherwise you would be reasoning about a whole other different problem, in which the first golden ball does not even exist.But since words have a meaning, the situation must be the fruit of what statistic allows. Therefore, 2/3.
>>24701267The wording is a little bit dodgy. If it said, what are the odds you pull 2 Gold balls from the 3 boxes of GG, GS, SS it would be clear.It asks what the probability is of a second pull GOLD ball with the first pull fixed as GOLD.
>>24701228The question arises after the first ball has been drawn, so the 100% silver box is automatically eliminated
>>24701282I wouldn't say so.It's surely meant to "trick" and engage you in a way, that's why it's a (slightly less) famous montyhall-like "paradox". But the way it deceives you is by making you overlook the details, it's not ambiguous at all once you learn the trick. The key is "at random".>with the first pull fixed as GOLD.Yes, but it does tell you "at random". Not "somehow". That's an instruction rulebook. You're sure the ball was not selected by anything or anybody in some shady way to test you, or stuff like that. It's a random event, which follows the rules of random.To imagine that someone or something de facto prepared the boxes for you to choose, one with 1 silver and the other with 2 golds, is just an intuitive (but wrong) mental shortcut.
>>24701288>>>/sci/17020862
>>24701288automatically eliminated in priors but posteriors are weighted in terms of priors
>>24701255That's exactly the Monty Hall Problem - showing you what you don't have (a goat... a silver ball) collapses a choice, increasing your odds to 2/3. MH involves giving the choice to switch (and if memory serves, you should to get that 2/3 - as a blind pick before a choice is collapsed still has a 1/3 chance), where this one shows you that you've made a "good" choice as you collapse the third option... but both involve the same math, as does the 3 prisoners problem.
>>24701288Yes, the silver box actually doesn't matter at all. It's just there on the riddle to further inconsciously lure you into saying it's 50-50 by showing an equal amount of gold and silver.You could even have a million of pure silver boxes and it would change nothing, as >>24700970 had already noticed.But the probability is still 2/3, because the result is not dependent on the number of boxes with gold alone, but also on the ball distribution inside. It's not like there's two boxes left so it must be 1/2, instead it's 2/3 because the remaining boxes are unbalanced in the gold distribution.You can check by yourself that changing the number of pure silver boxes does not change the outcome, and that instead changing the gold percentage does:>one box with 3 gold>one box with 1 gold and 2 silver>billions of boxes with 3 silver eachchances here are 6/8 here (3/4) after you draw gold (increased). Regardless of pure silver boxes.It would be more intuitive if there were 1000 gold in the first box, 1 gold and 999 silver in the second, and the pure silver doesn't matter.If you picked the first gold from a random box and you had to bet money, would you reeeeaaally bet that you've picked it from the second box over the first indifferently with 50% chance? Would you not rather bet that your box is the one with 1000 golds?As others said it's kind of like monty hall, except if they offered you to switch box here the correct choice would be not to, because chances force you into the best probability from the beginning.
It is either gold from box n.1 or silver from box n.2 so 50/50.
This one is always fun
>>24703848how is that fun you fucking retard?shoes are 5 eachthe cat fuck or whatever that is + whistle is 5cat fuck + 5 whistle is 13, so whistle is 2 and cat fuck is 3, shoes + cat fuck is 13 x whistle so 26fuck you
If i rest my balls on OPs forehead, what is the probability OP is a faget tries to suck my dong.
>>24703829So basilcally you can pick either nigger.1 or nigger.2?
>>24703915Niguno, Nigtwo, or Nigtrio.Nigtrio is locked out, but its swarth still looms large.
