What are the odds?

[Hornbein]

Then there was the time the University of California at Santa Cruz statistics students dressed up as gangsters and showgirls and had a casino party. They had a roulette wheel with play money. Everyone but me bet wildly. They broke the bank [won all the play money] in about fifteen minutes.

And people think statistics is boring.

 

[nsaspook]

Unlikely but nice! Just dropped in a twenty to have a drink while sitting at the slot machine with 75 cent bets.

 

[Hornbein]

So what is the coincidence? With 300 million competitors there is virtual certainty that one would cross the finish line.

What? In humans conception occurs in about 1 in 50, uh, events.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So what is the coincidence? With 300 million competitors there is virtual certainty that one would cross the finish line.

Regardless, the odds against my existence were 80-300 million to 1.

Put another way, when I was born, the world won the lottery.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, I posted this in the photos thread because it was such a nice example of Google stitching images incorrectly, This is a four door, not a six door.

What I didn't mention was the reason for me noticing this image in the first place. Another view reveals I owned the identical make, model, year, and color automobile. It is identical to my old car. It is about a 20 year-old vehicle in this photo.

It is parked in front of the home I lived in as a very young child.

 

[Hornbein]

Events that are not planned are unlikely, but there are a very great many possible unlikely events.

It is true that computing the probability ignores all the possible coincidences didn't happen at that moment. But I think a study that got some data could shed some light on this Oort cloud of unrealized possibilities. How big is it? That would interest me.

It also could tell us something about the observer. If we assume that everyone experiences the same number of coincidences, then people who notice more coincidences are more observant. And if people don't experience an equal density of coincidences, why not?

 

[jbriggs444]

But I think a study that got some data could shed some light on this Oort cloud of unrealized possibilities. How big is it? That would interest me.

The idea bores me to tears.

Once one defined the quantity that is to be measured carefully enough that it could be measured, it would be a meaningless number. Even worse than the bit rate of human thought.

 

[javisot20]

Let's break down the probability, I'm thinking of a real number, can anyone get it right?

 

[DaveC426913]

Let's break down the probability, I'm thinking of a real number, can anyone get it right?

Is it "not eight"?

 

[javisot20]

Is it "not eight"?

Almost

 

[Ibix]

Almost

At least give us an upper and lower bound. That way there are still as many choices, but it looks more hopeful.

 

[javisot20]

At least give us an upper and lower bound. That way there are still as many choices, but it looks more hopeful.

In some sense that shouldn't help increase the probability of getting it right, but I promise you that it's not difficult to get it right.(I know only a finite number of real numbers)

 

[Hornbein]

Let's break down the probability, I'm thinking of a real number, can anyone get it right?

Pi.

 

[xTheFormlessOnedx]

My famous line goes something like this. 00.01% of the time. Something is going to happen that only happens 00.01% of the time. So when something happens 00.01% of the time, that only happens 00.01% of the time. Try not to be too surprized

 

[javisot20]

Pi.

What was the probability that you would get it right on the first try?

Well, you got it right on the first try. The universe should collapse right now

 

[DaveC426913]

I mean, technically, I got it right on the first try too.

 

[javisot20]

I mean, technically, I got it right on the first try too.

Really on the second attempt, your answer is correct because I did not specify the degree of accuracy, but Hornbein was morally right. Since we are talking about real numbers it is as impressive as if it were the first attempt. It's the most unlikely thing we've ever seen happen.

Even if I had said it was a real number between 3 and 3.3 it shouldn't have been much help. (Asserting that in this case the probability increases would be an example of gambler's fallacy)

I usually ask the same question without offering any upper or lower limit on different forums and in less than 5 tries they have always gotten it right.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's the most unlikely thing we've ever seen happen.

I'd say you're getting just a skosh of help from the List of Interesting Numbers, in which pi is listed as one of a mere dozen or so transcendentals. I'd say most PF members are acquainted with pi.

 

[gmax137]

Yeah, I was thinking $\frac \pi 2$

 

[javisot20]

I'd say you're getting just a skosh of help from the List of Interesting Numbers, in which pi is listed as one of a mere dozen or so transcendentals. I'd say most PF members are acquainted with pi.

Even if it is true, I asked for a real number without specifying any range and it was correct on the second try. It could have been the 8,546477448.. , but it was pi.

(It is clear that if we ask this same question in a primary school the answer will be: what is a real number?)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How improbable does an event have to be before we can say it didn't happen by chance?​

https://philosophy.stackexchange.co...to-be-before-we-can-say-it-didnt-happen-by-ch

 

[Averagesupernova]

I had a tough time convincing my (scientist) brother than you are as likely to win the lottery on the numbers 1 2 3,4,5 6,7 as any other set of seven numbers.

I've found this to be the case also. It seems that people are accepting of 7 digits worth of odds but if you pick a patterned series of numbers they think it decreases the chances farther.
-
The question at this point becomes: Many many different patterns are significant to someone somewhere even though though they might not mean anything to they person picking numbers. So then what happens to the odds? Different from one person to the next? The intelligent ones will see the light.
-
I had a computer teacher in high school that I didn't think was very bright. I wrote code for a random number generator that generated numbers within a range that would fill the 2000 squares on the monitor. The screen started to fill in and I asked other students if they had a pick for the last one to fill in. The teacher picked the very bottom right square. As if to say that was the fastest square. Wasn't going to get caught very easily by the random number generator. In hindsight I should have taken bets. Not pick a square. Just bet they all won't.

 

[DaveC426913]

The question at this point becomes: Many many different patterns are significant to someone somewhere even though though they might not mean anything to they person picking numbers. So then what happens to the odds? Different from one person to the next? The intelligent ones will see the light.

Me playing Devil's

: I suspect my brother would see right through the "special numbers" fallacy. He would (rightly) recognize that other people having special numbers would have no effect on the probabilities. Yet he would still trip over the non-specialness of 1234567. It's an easy fallacy to make if you're not overly familiar with probabilities.

(OK, in his defense, he is a microbiology tech - perhaps as far from math as you can get in science.)

 

[Averagesupernova]

Yet he would still trip over the non-specialness of 1234567. It's an easy fallacy to make if you're not overly familiar with probabilities.

It is more unlikely to draw those numbers out in that particular order than it is to draw 7 numbers out where to order does not matter. I think that's where people get caught up. If I draw 7 numbers out of a bucket of 100 and claim I will pull 1 through 7 out in that order that is way less likely to pull off than saying I will pull them or any other out in any order. I can hope to pull out 1-7 in order or 35-41 in order and the chances are the same. I can claim to do it 41, 36, 39, 40, 37, 38, 35 and those chances are no different either. The mixed up order is not recognizable. It's perceived as less special.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is more unlikely to draw those numbers out in that particular order than it is to draw 7 numbers out where to order does not matter. I think that's where people get caught up.

True. Although lotteries generally do not work that way - as least any I'm aware of.
Order of draw and order of pick is is irrelevant. Both are arranged in ascending order after-the-fact.

 

[Averagesupernova]

True. Although lotteries generally do not work that way - as least any I'm aware of.
Order of draw and order of pick is is irrelevant. Both are arranged in ascending order after-the-fact.

I don't play so I don't know. What I assume in how they work is likely at least partially incorrect.

 

[gmax137]

In the PowerBall lottery, you Select five numbers between 1 and 69 for the white balls, then select one number between 1 and 26 for the red Powerball. The order of the five white numbers does not matter.