Did I just create a coin tossing paradox?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cgskook
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paradox
cgskook
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Gibson's Coin Paradox:

You have 2 coins with you. There is absolutely no way that you can tell the difference between them. The coins are fair, meaning the chances of getting heads is equal to the chance of getting tails so a 50% vs. 50% chance.

You put on a blindfold and drop the coins, one in each hand, into 2 separate buckets.
What is the chance that there will be at least 1 tail in your results?
The outcomes are the following:

Bucket 1: Bucket 2:
H H
H T *
T H *
T T *

The bottom 3 results satisfy the rule of there being at least one tail, there are 4 possibilities, therefore it is a 3/4 chance that there will be at least 1 tail.

However*:

You now conduct a similar experiment using only one bucket and the same coins. Now you are going to drop the coins into the same bucket using the same method as before.
The outcomes are the following:

Bucket 1:
H and H
Opposite *
T and T *

Now because the coins are indistinguishable order does not matter in the results. This combines 2 of the values into one making there only be 3 possibilities. Now 2 of the results satisfy the rule of there being at least 1 tail, there are 3 outcomes, therefore it is a 2/3 chance that there will be at least 1 tail.

Can we agree that the probabilities of these should be the same? And that's where the paradox lies, because the probabilities are not the same.

If there is any way to distinguish the coins your are more likely (3/4) to satisfy the "at least one tail rule" than if they coins are not distinguishable (2/3).

Thoughts, opinions, and comments ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
In your first example why is there not a TT outcome?

For your second, even thou you cannot distinguish between the coins there is still 2 ways to get a HT. So even if you cannot tell HT from TH they remain 2 possible outcomes.
 
phinds said:
I don't know what you're talking about but I'd guess you're skating on thin ice here. This is a physics forum, not a religious one.

LOL I am the most strongly opinionated atheist that you will ever know. It's a theory that I have considered, not a religious belief. Look up "Schrödinger's cat"
 
cgskook said:
Have you ever heard of Universal consciousness?

Not since they invented the Internet.
 
cgskook said:
LOL I am the most strongly opinionated atheist that you will ever know. It's a theory that I have considered, not a religious belief. Look up "Schrödinger's cat"

Are you referring to the idea that the apparent multiplicity of selves is an illusion? Is there more to it than a purely metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics?
 
cgskook said:
Have you ever heard of Universal consciousness?
Thread locked.

Pending moderation? Probably not. It's not a coin toss.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...

Similar threads

Replies
57
Views
6K
Replies
45
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
41
Views
7K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Back
Top