B Predicting Supernovas: Math Question and Mental Exercises | Expert Help Needed

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter K. Doc Holiday
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Beginning
K. Doc Holiday
Messages
32
Reaction score
13
I suck at math. Help?

Any good at statistics? I could use your help. I like to make nearly impossible predictions but I suck at calculating odds of success.

On November 2nd, 2016 at 15:54 Mountain Standard Time I made an astronomy prediction on my Facebook page:

P.M.* January 9, 2017:
IK Pegasi B appears as a NOVA.

A.M.* January 16, 2017:
AN Ursae Majoris B appears as a type 1a SUPERNOVA. (Don't fly anywhere)

*Mountain Standard Time

I am not trying to upset anyone. I do mental exercises to expand my view of reality.

I made the prediction 67 days in advance = 1 in 67. Half day "P.M." should cut it in half = 1 in 134?
Or?

Current consensus is IK Pegasi B won't nova for 2 million years. So, is 1 in 2 million closer?

To the half day is 365 times 2 = 730 times 2 million = 1 in 1,460,000,000?

Since no one considers polar white dwarfs a possibility for a supernova event I assume it is fair to calculate the odds of that happening at zero?

Once again I apologize for asking silly questions and i appreciate your patience.

Sincerely
Doc

ps. Merry Christmas [emoji320][emoji318][emoji268][emoji6]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
K. Doc Holiday said:
I
I made the prediction 67 days in advance = 1 in 67.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way at all. 1 in 67 means a certain degree of surprise/uncertainty. Specifying how many days in advance doesn't quantify that way. I can predict that in 67 years it will rain somewhere in the world. I did it 67 days in advance, but the odds aren't 1 in 67.

For sure though, specifying something more in advance than specifying it right before it happens is more impressive, and might deserve more impressive odds, but it won't be 1 in 67.
 
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...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top