
#19
Oct2903, 12:53 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,226

I despair, in your 'idea' it should either be impossible or there should be less probailty than the expected and observed probailty of getting a sequence of all heads.



#20
Oct2903, 01:07 PM

P: n/a

You still haven't look at the graph, have you?
A (long) sequence of all heads or tails is indeed possible, indeed probable, but then eventually the number of tails would outnumber heads eventually so that somewhere down the continuim of infinity a 50/50 balance MUST occur if the true probabilty is 50/50, regardless of where on that continuim you start. Is that not correct? As HalsofIvy pointed out in his? response, although future tosses may "favor" one outcome, eventually, you must return to 50/50. So if at the beginning of your sequence on the infinite continuim you get 10,000 consecutive heads, sooner or later you will get 10,000 more tails than heads to get back to 50/50 overall, for a string of consecutive heads cannot continue indefinitely. 



#21
Oct2903, 02:10 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,226

Firstly, a string of heads can contiune indefintely, as however many tosses there is always a nonzero chance of obtaining all heads (given by 2^{n}). As I said it gets complex when you start considering an infinite number of tosses and there's no agreement on this, indeed there was an article in either Scientific American, Nature or a simlair journal (I forget) discussing probabilty after an infite number of trials and whether a probailty of zero corresponds to an event that can happen.



#22
Oct2903, 02:11 PM

P: n/a

I just responded to what I subcribed too, so it is good to see that you actually did in create a thread. This issue you are bringing forward is a problem with me as well? That I don't undertand how we could not percieve a issue lets say like strings and consider the relevance of current advancement of thinking, and not seen the theory has answered some of these questions. Boltzman. So the understanding unpredictablity has to bring forward the issue of how such probabilties might have be ascertained in considering strings, and its related issues as a value in gravitational consequuences. The energy value is directly related to what gravity will do? Probabilty does not know the shape yet it does know that is must follow the issues of movement in terms of what gravity will do? So for instance the idea of energy is fuzzy, yet on a graph it lets us know with certainty that it will have been defined in a peak. A a BEC condensate such imaging will let us know. Look at images of soliton and Bec configuration in three dimensional graphs and what is it we undertand? Greg Egan and his graphs, soliton configurations, will help you formulate. This is a guess and I would apologize for sending you down this road if the perspective is wrong. I believe you are direct challenging current thinking and I will wait and see how they will respond to the real issues in light of the math that is being spoken too. Good for you. Sol 



#23
Oct2903, 02:18 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 10,424

Man, the moderators really need to sweep this place up.
 Warren 



#24
Oct2903, 02:27 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,226

Think of it this way:
I decide to test the probailty and by an amzing (yet possible) fluke on my first 50 throws I get all heads, being a bad experimenter I decide to ignore these first 50 throws and carry on my experiment, now does the 'pressure' act on only those throws after the first 50 or act on all my throws including the first 50 that I decide not to include in my sample to bring the value to 0.5? Both samples (the one with and the one without the first 50 throws) are equally valid yet I know that I will always get a different value for the ratio of H:T from the two samples. 



#25
Oct2903, 02:29 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,226




#26
Oct2903, 02:45 PM

P: n/a

Finally, some discussion.......
I propose that anywhere along the probability continuim you begin you will be subject to Probability Pressure (PP). Imagine you are dropped into an ocean. You are then immediately on some point of a wave, perhaps a large wave, perhaps a barely perceptible wave, but a wave nonetheless. You have no way of knowing if the 50 straight heads are at the crest, valley, going up or down, but sooner or later you will peak and head in the opposite direction. The middle of the wave is 50/50. Now this wave is not perfectly linear, it has bubbles and ripples on the surface, but none the less, you will get to another crest and valley, as indicated in my graph, and your graph if you do one. Is it perhaps this attempt to reach an equilibrium, and the bubbles and ripples that prevent a constant HTHTHTHTHTHTHT, for probability, like forms of energy is a waveform. Once you can perceive probability as a waveform, the trend towards 50/50 despite long consecutive "favor" for either heads or tails is easy to understand. I am not a mathmatician, formulas are admittedly not my strong point. Objective observation and interpretation outside of the box is my forte. Again, LOOK at my graph to truly grasp what I am proposing. 



#27
Oct2903, 02:52 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,226

I do understand what you're saying but you're just wrong. As a said in my post before last you can have two equally valid samples which cannot both be 'acted upon by pressure' to return a ratio of 50:50.




#28
Oct2903, 02:54 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 10,424

Maybe the moderators need to do some sweeping here, too.
Thanks for holding down the fort jcsd. I got tired of arguing with him.  Warren 


#29
Oct2903, 02:57 PM

P: n/a

Go ahead and sweep (censor) me, or just don't respond if you wish. Just curious, who out there has looked at the graph? Only 4 others besides me since I posted it til now 



#30
Oct2903, 03:10 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,226

For the time being I'll assume that an infinite sample will return an ratio of 1:1 for H:T, it's not a completely unresonable assumption as that is what the ratio should tend to when you increase the size of the sample. Going back to my example again where the first 50 trials are ignored, it's clear to you that whethr we include the first 50 trials or not will not affect the ratio even if they are all heads. Infact with the assumptions I've made so far you're right the first 50 trials won't affect the ratio, indeed the first n trials will not affect the ratio, therefore there is absolutely no need for this pressure as the trials before any given trial will not affect the final ratio of 1:1. 



#31
Oct2903, 03:11 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,226




#32
Oct2903, 03:18 PM

P: n/a

And the exchange of ideas is arguing, and arguing is bad so kick me off? The Flat Earth Society strikes again. Should I assume that "basic wellaccepted concepts of maths and physics" are to never be challenged? You still haven't answered my question from a few posts ago, did you look at my graph? 



#33
Oct2903, 03:19 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 875

It is not always easy to distinguish the earnestbutignorant from the truebelievers. I don't know why, but this one set off all my alarms.
Njorl 



#34
Oct2903, 03:23 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,226

I wasn't necssarily referring to you verasace, I think you have basically just misunderstood a vital element of probabilty. 


#35
Oct2903, 04:01 PM

P: n/a

Sol 


#36
Oct2903, 04:13 PM

P: n/a

Quantum Well Any congregation of energy is defined in the Quantum Harmonic Oscillator, and Zero point defines any particle state. From a fuzzy nature, energy is not real defined, yet, it is describing a particle? You see? Sol 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Probabilities of Unfair Coin Flipping  Calculus & Beyond Homework  1  
Coin flip  Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics  3  
Happy 4th of July..Flip Early, Flip Often  General Discussion  4  
Coin flip paradox  General Math  18  
flip a coin  Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics  8 