Meta-language is language about language

  • Thread starter Thread starter wittgenstein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Language
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on determining when a series of coincidences becomes statistically significant enough to warrant investigation. A common statistical benchmark is the 95% confidence level, suggesting that events occurring with a probability of 5% or less should be examined further. However, it is crucial to consider the broader context, such as the expected frequency of similar occurrences over an extended period rather than just a single day. Additionally, the analysis should account for various potential coincidences and their cumulative probability. Overall, establishing a mathematical framework for assessing coincidences requires careful consideration of multiple factors and statistical principles.
wittgenstein
Messages
222
Reaction score
7
Suppose that I open the newspaper and read that a truck full of tomatoes crashed and spilled all over the freeway. At that moment my wife approaches me with a bowl full of tomatoes , trips and they all land in my lap. Ten minutes later, after I am all washed up, my wife tells me that her friend Mary just bought a store. Immediately the phone rings and it is a wrong number asking for Mary ( not the Mary my wife referred to) . Now, obviously these are just weird coincidences. However, suppose that every ten minutes another coincidence occurs and every ten minutes after that. The coincidences are unrelated to each other. It would seem safe to assume that if such coincidences happen every ten minutes for 20 years something is going on. My question is, is there a mathematical way to determine at what point the amount of coincidences become worthy of investigation?
Note that I am not asking for the probability of a particular coincidence, I am asking for the probability that a certain amount of coincidences will happen. Just as meta-language is language about language, this could possibly be described as meta-probability.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org


wittgenstein said:
My question is, is there a mathematical way to determine at what point the amount of coincidences become worthy of investigation?

The standard usually used in statistics is the 95% confidence level. If you experience events that would, by chance, only happen 5% of the time it's 'worthy of investigation'.

But you need to be careful in what you consider before doing the calculation! For example, consider the expected number of such occurrences over the last five years, not over just that day; consider not just the particular event that happened but others that you would have also considered coincidental. The chance of rolling 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 in six consecutive dice rolls is only 1/50,000 or so, but what other combinations would you have considered strange -- and how many dice do you roll? How many names do you hear out of the blue, and how long after an occurrence like that would you consider it strange? Etc.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top