String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

[Revoltingest]

That too, but I work on cars and electronics. I could also throw in editing and design, which relies on math for things like lay out, borders, and other things, but I've yet to receive even a dime for things like that.

May hordes of dimes head your way.

 

[Zosimus]

That's like saying I do repairs with my hands, not with tools. Of course I use my hands, but there is no way in hell I can replace intake manifold gaskets in a car without the proper tools. Much in the same way a ratchet is an indispensable tool for a mechanic, math is an indispensable tool for science. Without math, we essentially have no science as math is how we prove our claims of science.

In that we agree. Without math, science would be even more pathetically useless than it already is.

 

[Revoltingest]

In that we agree. Without math, science would be even more pathetically useless than it already is.

So you find science useless, eh?
Just a hunch, but I'll wager you're not an engineer.

 

[Zosimus]

That doesn't address your claim, nor my subsequent refutation.

You were 100% correct for the problem you inferred.
But you weren't even close for the problem I posed.
You illustrated that probability calculations are more than crunching some numbers.
They're about understanding the problem, getting all relevant information, & using the correct method.
You didn't do that.

Sorry, but you asked the probability of flipping a coin and having it come up heads a certain number of times in a row.

The probability calculated was correct. Flipping a coin a million times simply means that a one-in-a-million chance can be realized. However, the underlying probability does not change.

 

[Zosimus]

So you find science useless, eh?
Just a hunch, but I'll wager you're not an engineer.

Actually, I studied electronic engineering.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, but you asked the probability of flipping a coin and having it come up heads a certain number of times in a row.
The probability calculated was correct. Flipping a coin a million times simply means that a one-in-a-million chance can be realized. However, the underlying probability does not change.

This again?
You didn't ask how many trials.
It's analogous to your calculating the probability of abiogenesis, ie, you didn't consider all the relevant factors.
You just picked some numbers, did some arithmetic, & whelped out an answer.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, I studied electronic engineering.

To study engineering is not the same as being an an engineer.
My wager still stands.

 

[Zosimus]

This again?
You didn't ask how many trials.
It's analogous to your calculating the probability of abiogenesis, ie, you didn't consider all the relevant factors.
You just picked some numbers, did some arithmetic, & whelped out an answer.

The chance of flipping a coin and having it come up heads 10 times in a row is 2^10. It doesn't matter how many times you flip the coin, the chance of having a coin come up heads 10 times in a row doesn't change.

 

[Zosimus]

To study engineering is not the same as being an an engineer.
My wager still stands.

Well, it depends on one's definition of an engineer, I suppose. However, most people would think that having a B.S. in electronic engineering makes one an electronic engineer.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, it depends on one's definition of an engineer, I suppose. However, most people would think that having a B.S. in electronic engineering makes one an electronic engineer.

If one studied engineering, but never practiced it, then one is a (former) student, but not an engineer.
Electrical engineering cannot be studied or performed without using science.
How is it that you found science useless?

 

[Revoltingest]

The chance of flipping a coin and having it come up heads 10 times in a row is 2^10. It doesn't matter how many times you flip the coin, the chance of having a coin come up heads 10 times in a row doesn't change.

See, you still don't understand the problem.
If I flip it 11 times, the probability of coming up heads 10 times in a row increases.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually, I studied electronic engineering.

I find that hard to believe. Electronic engineering (something I've delved into though I have no formal training or education in it) is entirely dependent upon science and math. I don't have a volt meter for decoration or just to say I have one, but because on occasion I have to do some math every now and then.

 

[Zosimus]

If one studied engineering, but never practiced it, then one is a (former) student, but not an engineer.
Electrical engineering cannot be studied or performed without using science.
How is it that you found science useless?

First of all, I did not study electrical engineering. I studied electronic engineering. There is a difference you know.

Second, engineering depends not so much on science as on math. Math is essential whereas science is kind of optional. For example, one can analyze a circuit using conventional flow or electron flow. Science assures us that electrons flow from the negative anode of a battery to the positive side, but it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference. We were all taught to use conventional flow, and my amplifiers still worked just fine.

 

[Zosimus]

See, you still don't understand the problem.
If I flip it 11 times, the probability of coming up heads 10 times in a row increases.

Wrong. If you take a coin and flip it 1,024,000 times, it will come up heads 10 times in a row, on average, 1,000 times during that trial. That's because the chance of flipping a coin and having it come up heads 10 times in a row is 1 in 1024. It doesn't matter how many times you flip it, the odds are the same.

 

[Revoltingest]

First of all, I did not study electrical engineering. I studied electronic engineering. There is a difference you know.

"Electrical Engineering" is the typical name of the department, & what we all call it, including the sparkies who deal with electronics.

Second, engineering depends not so much on science as on math.

Oh, really?

Math is essential whereas science is kind of optional. For example, one can analyze a circuit using conventional flow or electron flow. Science assures us that electrons flow from the negative anode of a battery to the positive side, but it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference. We were all taught to use conventional flow, and my amplifiers still worked just fine.

This is an utterly irrelevant example.
(I learned current flow both ways too.)
Well, even though you find science useless, I found it quite useful in engineering (aerospace, medical, civil, industrial & automotive).

I suppose that if one studies something, but never applies it, then it doesn't matter if one doesn't know the science.
For such a person, science would indeed be useless.

 

[secret2]

Wrong. If you take a coin and flip it 1,024,000 times, it will come up heads 10 times in a row, on average, 1,000 times during that trial. That's because the chance of flipping a coin and having it come up heads 10 times in a row is 1 in 1024. It doesn't matter how many times you flip it, the odds are the same.

X = "2 consecutive Heads show up somewhere in the series"

Toss a coin 2 times. The probability of X is 1/4 (HH)
Toss a coin 3 times. The probability of X is 3/8 (HHH, HHT, THH)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

X = "2 consecutive Heads show up somewhere in the series"

Toss a coin 2 times. The probability of X is 1/4 (HH)
Toss a coin 3 times. The probability of X is 3/8 (HHH, HHT, THH)

True, but each individual flip has a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. There is no real practical reason for estimating how many times the heads will show up consistently, because even if you somehow get 100 heads in a row the next flip is still 50/50, and failure to recognize that leads to the gambler's fallacy. Engineers don't deal with these things that may-or-may-not hypothetically happen, but with things that will happen on the first time the test their design. It comes down to dependent and independent events, and a coin toss is independent and the coin doesn't care if you flipped it heads or tails the last time because the next time and the millionth time the odds of a heads/tails is still 50/50. You can call what the odds are off 100 heads, but in practice that is totally and utterly irrelevant.
And do you realize that Revoltingest is an engineer? You're trying to debate someone who is bonafide is his area with points he knows way more than you do (the same goes for Zosimus)?

 

[secret2]

True, but each individual flip has a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. There is no real practical reason for estimating how many times the heads will show up consistently, because even if you somehow get 100 heads in a row the next flip is still 50/50, and failure to recognize that leads to the gambler's fallacy. Engineers don't deal with these things that may-or-may-not hypothetically happen, but with things that will happen on the first time the test their design. It comes down to dependent and independent events, and a coin toss is independent and the coin doesn't care if you flipped it heads or tails the last time because the next time and the millionth time the odds of a heads/tails is still 50/50. You can call what the odds are off 100 heads, but in practice that is totally and utterly irrelevant.
And do you realize that Revoltingest is an engineer? You're trying to debate someone who is bonafide is his area with points he knows way more than you do (the same goes for Zosimus)?

I was trying to explain to Zosimus why his "same probability no matter how many flips" point is incorrect.
I am a Physicist who now make a living out of probability and stochastic calculus.
Hence I have no idea what your reply is getting at.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I was trying to explain to Zosimus why his "same probability no matter how many flips" point is incorrect.

It is the same probability no matter how many flips. Even after a billion flips, the billionth and first flip has a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. Or you can roll a standard D6 dice a million times, and after that the chances of rolling a two is still 1:6. The belief that there is somehow a different probability based on the number of independent events is known as the gambler's fallacy. Unless I am completely misunderstanding you, you are wrong.

 

[secret2]

It is the same probability no matter how many flips. Even after a billion flips, the billionth and first flip has a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. Or you can roll a standard D6 dice a million times, and after that the chances of rolling a two is still 1:6. The belief that there is somehow a different probability based on the number of independent events is known as the gambler's fallacy. Unless I am completely misunderstanding you, you are wrong.

You are wrong indeed.
You are talking about the conditional probability of the (n+1)th flip after the first n flips (since the events are independent, conditional and unconditional probabilities are the same, but that's beyond the point). Of course that is still 1/2, assuming a fair coin. Revoltingest and I were talking about the probability of obtaining the event "n consecutive heads". Do you have any idea what is being discussed here?