studiot Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 Thanks for your tip. Try green coffee extract (400 mg/day before your meal), it (=the chlorogenic acid, .. helps, &) burns fat for more energy (Joules, but that's biochem). (You'll have to toss a many coins away for it's price. ) +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capiert Posted May 9, 2017 Author Share Posted May 9, 2017 (edited) +1 +1 (=Thanks) Edited May 9, 2017 by Capiert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Antares Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 I disagree (but I'm only saying that to prevent confusion). But you are wrong. It's made of 2 decisions: a toss, & then specifying which. ??????? You have a roughly 1 in 6000 chance of landing the coin on its edge on the first toss, as well as any other toss of your choosing. 6000^2 is incredibly wrong. I agree. That is the 1st decision. It is biased (so to speak) to find "any" stander. If we collect data that's what we get. (Let's say we've tossed for multi_billion times, as rediculous as it sounds, so we have enough stander counts.) However if we become more biased (please remember we have (biasedly) selected for (any) edge_standers; because heads & tails have been excluded (by our bias=decision(s) rules), we can take that "same data" & ask how many standers happened only on the 1st tosses. (=That is more bias, &) we will find that new number is much less. How do you explain that difference in those 2 numbers? It's quite significant. This makes no sense to me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's a language barrier. It's ok, (maybe my wrong (informal) vocabulary?) you just need a bit of time (to let things settle & clear) to understand because you are logical you will find the answer. But as you see it is not because I have a different perspective than you. But I'm confident you will get it. No. You need to understand. I appreciate that you think I'm logical but you must understand that I am using actual confirmed mathematics. What you are saying either makes no sense to me or it's just plain wrong. (1/6000)*(1/6000) is for a selected toss of "your" choice; & you can choose from all possibilities within the 6000 (virtually speaking). NO! 1/6000 is for a specified toss of your choice and for a random toss as well. You choosing a specific toss has no impact on the outcome. Whether you choose a toss or not, the yielded result will always have been 1 in 6000. This is what you need to understand. Have you at least understood that the results are from a selection (=choice, bias) (of (the total) data)? I.e. a specific percent (that had selection rules). No selection rules means all the data (E.g. multi_billion 100%; but (uselessly) NOT sorted into H, T, E.) Completely (=100%) neutral means you weren't looking for anything, & found everything that told you nothing but the tossing's grand total. Doesn't that ring a bell? How do you show that mathematically? Answer: with the extra *(1/N). No, that makes no sense. There is no need to multiply anything. You would destroy mathematics with your ways. Specifying a toss will ALWAYS have a chance of 1 in 6000. To put it as simply as possible: Let's say you have just one toss and you need to choose either heads or tails. There will always be a 50% chance for either heads or tails, regardless of whether you specify which. You must understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now