Coin flip probabilities and relevance

[jcsd]

Originally posted by chroot
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

Yes, your right the moderators should have a Stalin-like purge of these boards, it's getting a little tiresome having to argue about even the most basic well-accepted concepts of maths and physics.

 

[Verasace]

Originally posted by jcsd
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.

That is true for the FINAL ratio, but along the way to the end of the sample, if large enough, or infinity, you will may cross the 50/50 "zone" several times to end up at 50/50 at the end.

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 well-accepted 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?

 

[Njorl]

It is not always easy to distinguish the earnest-but-ignorant from the true-believers. I don't know why, but this one set off all my alarms.

Njorl

 

[jcsd]

Originally posted by Verasace
That is true for the FINAL ratio, but along the way to the end of the sample, if large enough, or infinity, you will may cross the 50/50 "zone" several times to end up at 50/50 at the end.

And the exchange of ideas is arguing, and arguing is bad so kick me off?

You still haven't answered my question from a few posts ago, did you look at my graph?

But you've not proved in any way that the 50/50 line must be crossed for any value of n.

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

 

[sol1]

Originally posted by jcsd
Ah yes, but your forgetting throatwarbler's fourth law of inductive quantum micro-managment

Pleae explain.

Sol

 

[sol1]

Originally posted by Verasace
Finally, some discussion...



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.

mechanics gives electron waves structure
[/URL]


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

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Verasace
Just curious, who out there has looked at the graph? Only 4 others besides me since I posted it til now

I looked at it. It's a one-dimensional random walk. It's nothing that any decent scientist or mathematician hasn't already seen a hundred times.

Should I assume that "basic well-accepted concepts of maths and physics" are to never be challenged?

No, you can certainly challenge them. But when someone responds to your challenge by explaining to you in very specific language how things really work -- to anyone's satisfaction but yours -- you become a crackpot.

Originally posted by sol1
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?

Jesus H. Christ, this thread is going downhill.

- Warren

 

[sol1]

Originally posted by jcsd
But you've not proved in any way that the 50/50 line must be crossed for any value of n.

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

I wasn't necssarily referring to you verasace



I guess that would be me then.

I am always open to corrections in light of the string issues. The graviton has helped explain things we had not understood before. If you take that position, then how has probabilty dterminations changed?

Consider me the child here then[b(] Boltzman is a considerable factor to think about in the issues of Quantuim mechanics yet there is some "joining" taking place. How far ahead are these math minds in QM to have undertsood something about GR? Big question?

Sol

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by sol1
I am always open to corrections in light of the string issuess. The grvaiton has help explain things we had not undrtsood before. If you takethat psotion then how aas probabilty dterminations changed?

I have a hard time believing that even YOU understand what the hell you say. Do you just string together all the scientific words you can think of, in hopes of one day arriving at a sensible sentence?

- Warren

 

[sol1]

Originally posted by chroot
I have a hard time believing that even YOU understand what the hell you say. Do you just string together all the scientific words you can think of, in hopes of one day arriving at a sensible sentence?

- Warren

Maybe you should reread my post yu linked. There has been some additions.

Without a vision of the gravity field(hyperdimensional space) you don't know what you are talking about either. What is supergravity? Do you understand? Maybe probability statistics can help you explain what is happening in a much more dynamical way?

The answer is, you can't without GR.

Sol

 

[jcsd]

Originally posted by sol1
I wasn't necssarily referring to you verasace



I guess that would be me then.

I am always open to corrections in light of the string issues. The graviton has helped explain things we had not understood before. If you take that position, then how has probabilty dterminations changed?

Consider me the child here then[b(] Boltzman is a considerable factor to think about in the issues of Quantuim mechanics yet there is some "joining" taking place. How far ahead are these math minds in QM to have undertsood something about GR? Big question?

Sol

I was referring to crackpots in general, your posts thopugh don't make any sense.

Probabilty is an abstract mathematical tool it has zilch to do with quantum mechanics, etc. though it can be applied in these areas if needed.

 

[sol1]

Originally posted by jcsd
I was referring to crackpots in general, your posts thopugh don't make any sense.

Probabilty is an abstract mathematical tool it has zilch to do with quantum mechanics, etc. though it can be applied in these areas if needed.

Maybe you should reread my post yu linked. There has been some additions.

Without a vision of the gravity field(hyperdimensional space) you don't know what you are talking about either. What is supergravity? Do you understand? Maybe probability statistics can help you explain what is happening in a much more dynamical way?

The answer is, you can't without GR.

Sol

 

[chroot]

Aye dios mio. Que lastima.

- Warren

 

[sol1]

Originally posted by chroot


Jesus H. Christ, this thread is going downhill.

- Warren

Originally posted by chroot
Aye dios mio. Que lastima.

- Warren

Before you go I was hoping you could correct this statement for me

Temperature is sure hard to explain when supersymmetry asks us to look at the early universe and the contiuity with which are are able to define this movement.

Yet we know that plasma effects and super gravity are closely associated?

Please stay and I will go. Hopefuly they will be an answer to the question?

Sol

 

[Hurkyl]

Sol: You really should be asking physics questions in one of the physics forums here (such as the Strings, Branes, & LQG forum) rather than in the mathematics forum. And you definitely shouldn't be asking in a thread on a different topic.

 

[sol1]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Sol: You really should be asking physics questions in one of the physics forums here (such as the Strings, Branes, & LQG forum) rather than in the mathematics forum. And you definitely shouldn't be asking in a thread on a different topic.

I don't mean to be a pest...but the questions have to do with this math. Coin flips and such. If I cannot be straighten out then indeed I will remain in illusion.

It seems I find those who are gifted in maths might be deficient in other areas, so they make rude comments, like I do not undertand.

But they have to trust that I have spent considerable time looking at the issues, in order to understand the use of math(?) to question the viabilty of current thinking. If they cannot marry themselves, to current thoughts, then they will have remained as distinctive parts of, but have not understood their connection to a vast network.

They(the math) are part of the TOE

Sol

 

[Hurkyl]

Verasace:

The reason you are getting this response from everyone is:

(a) Your claims are very contradictory to established mathematics.
(b) You know full well your claims are very contradictory to established mathematics.
(c) You are trying to convince everyone you're right, but you are making no effort to prove you're right.
(d) You don't consider input from others.


Others have mentioned something called a random walk. Have you went to investigate what such a thing is and what properties they have?


For example, consider the experiment you have done; flip a coin 5000 times and let Χ be the number of times the running score is 0.

If you assume that each coin flip has a 50% chance of being heads (that is, there is no "probability pressure"), the statistical mean of Χ is approximately 56.4274.


You made an interesting observation, and you would probably have learned quite a bit and gained a deeper understanding of probability & statistics if you had buckled down and investigated why your observation might be true.

Instead, you felt the need to invent some strange, new idea, and are refusing to consider that established mathematics can explain this phenomenon. Why do you feel the need to do such a thing?


Anyways, if you're still dead set on convincing everyone that probability pressure are real, you should consider ways of actually proving it. You said you understood everything you learned in your statistics classes; you should recall discussing hypothesis testing. You need to design an experiment and derive a hypothesis test that can confirm with, say, 99% confidence that the results could not have been generated by the usual model.

 

[Verasace]

Hurkyl,

Thank you, and the others, for your thoughtful response.

I will indeed consider your helpful suggestions and keep all informed.

As for now, I'm off to New Orleans for an extended Halloween weekend.

Verasace

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by chroot
You absolutely should not. This is just evidence you have no idea what probability means. As a result, Njorl requested that you tell us where you've taken your graduate probability classes, so that we can all be sure to never take anyone from that school seriously.

- Warren

this is hilarious! the guy is making obvious "independence" errors yet more than one person is making the same error in assuming that everyone from that school thinks the same way!

there is no such thing as a "probability wave" like your mentioning. if the coin has been 10,000 heads in a row, there is no "pressure" making the probability of the next one being heads any different from 0.5. this is because the events are independent.

this reminds me of a famous anecdote regarding independence. a "statistician" thinks that while the probability of someone brining a bomb on to an airplane may be low, it is even lower that two people independently bring bombs on board. therefore, to lower the odds of there being a bomb, he brings his own bomb on board.

 

[O Great One]

Difference between ratio and absolute number of heads and tails

Verasace,
There are two things that are getting confused here and it doesn't look like anyone has pointed this out. It is true that the ratio (Heads:Total number of flips) will approach .50 as the number of flips increases. But, what is also true is that the difference between the number of heads and tails will get larger and larger as the number of flips increases. This is what you are measuring with your graph. If you increase the number of flips you will find that the graph won't return to zero. In fact, it will move away from zero. I hope this clears up the confusion.

 

[Hurkyl]

That is incorrect; the graph will eventually return to 0 with probability 1.

However, the maximum observed difference between the number of heads and tails will also diverge to infinty as the number of flips increases. (also with probability 1, I think)

 

[O Great One]

You're right.

I'm sorry, you are correct Hurkyl. I guess as the number of flips increases the graph will continue to cross the zero line but with less and less frequency?

 

[Hurkyl]

IIRC, when I did some calculations, it looked like the number of zero crossings was roughly proportional to the square root of the number of flips, which could be interpreted as saying the frequency of zero crossings goes down.

 

[FearsForLife]

But I am not talking about samples, or portions of a wave, I'm talking about an infinite ocean, and eventually from the start point you will return to 50/50

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

Actually V, you're first mistake was posting in a forum designed for physicists. I've met a few, they tend to be closed minded.

Second, being weak in physics, and...uh...also weak in general mathematics, and yet having still taken a few classes...Maybe think about it using discrete induction.

I like that you think outside the box, I really do, but if you hit this using induction, maybe it'll clear some stuff up. If the odds of a coin flip is 50% for n, and the odds of a coin flip is 50% for n+1, that should (if I've got my induction done correctly) prove that, to infinity (and beyond!), each coin flip should uniquely have a probability of 50%. Just a new way to look at it, suppose you were getting tired of being called a moron by the snoots.

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Sol: You really should be asking physics questions in one of the physics forums here (such as the Strings, Branes, & LQG forum) rather than in the mathematics forum. And you definitely shouldn't be asking in a thread on a different topic.

I don't mean to be a pest...but the questions have to do with this math. Coin flips and such. If I cannot be straighten out then indeed I will remain in illusion.

It seems I find those who are gifted in maths might be deficient in other areas, so they make rude comments, like I do not undertand.

But they have to trust that I have spent considerable time looking at the issues, in order to understand the use of math(?) to question the viabilty of current thinking. If they cannot marry themselves, to current thoughts, then they will have remained as distinctive parts of, but have not understood their connection to a vast network.

They(the math) are part of the TOE

Sol

Sol, if you were in a different forum, surrounded by my people (the unintelligent ones), we would berate you into the ground for even CONSIDERING Hijacking a thread. GO! Go post a new thread! I wasted 5 minutes trying to read through your posts to see if they were relevant to the topic at hand! Bad internet form!



I hope I didn't upset anyone...except for Sol.
It's not my fault you guys come off as snooty.

 

[D H]

Actually V, you're first mistake was posting in a forum designed for physicists. I've met a few, they tend to be closed minded.

Your biggest mistake is dredging up a thread that hasn't been active for *five* years.

 

[FearsForLife]

Wow. Awesome, talk about the biggest bump ever.

Well, I guess that guy gave up. I insulted somebody who hopefully is 5 years wiser about how to use the internet, and I'll shut up and go away now.

Smooches
FFL

 

[Kittel Knight]

... but if you hit this using induction, maybe it'll clear some stuff up. If the odds of a coin flip is 50% for n, and the odds of a coin flip is 50% for n+1, that should (if I've got my induction done correctly) prove that, to infinity (and beyond!), each coin flip should uniquely have a probability of 50%.

Does it make any sense using induction to prove that?
...infinity and beyond?

Where did you learn induction?
Where did you learn math?

Hmmm...I'm quite sure you and Verasace were classmates...

 

[regor60]

Bad form by a lot of people here...better off addressing misconceptions with facts than with belittling

 

[ssd]

I feel the urge to mention a thing or two in addition to all those said to counter op's notion of so called "probability pressure".

1/ Say, we get H in 1st toss. If there is any such pressure then after the 1st toss the pressure shall be towards T, to bring to 50-50. So we must get T in 2nd toss (since there is a pressure towards it and negative pressure towards H).
Therefore, under the pressure theory we must get alternate H and T. {Of course newer "pressure" or whatever theory has to be developed to counter the real life sequences}.

2/ I want to know that whether op really tossed a coin or used computer generated random numbers for his graph. If computer generated numbers are used, did he perform a (statistical) test of randomness? If yes, how did he perform the test (because his concept of pressure will affect again the distribution of any r.v.). So, he cannot relay on any existing statistical test.
Unless he tested the used numbers for randomness in a "logical' way, his graphs and findings do not remain valid.

 

[statdad]

the simplest explanation (other than the one that says the OP doesn't know what he's doing) is that he has confused empirical observation with theoretical probability (which goes back to not knowing what he's doing)