I am a bit confused about something. Watch

AlbertXY
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
X=(52)

P(A)/X=(1/52)/t1

Y=f(^X)

P(A)/Y=σ2/t2

XY


How can this be incorrect?
0
reply
AlbertXY
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#2
Does nobody know?
0
reply
AlbertXY
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
No answers for me yet?

(dx)=52
P(n)/(dx)=(1/52)/t
(dy)=f(^x)
P(n)/(dy)=σ2/t2
P(n)/(dx)≠P(n)/(dy)
[x1∝x2]≠[y1≠y2]

(dy)≠(dx)
t


P(n)/(dy)=σ2/t2=The chance of receiving ~(n) by random choice of set is dependent to the variance of population values by the shuffle of (dX), (the rows), aligning values to p1 , (the output), in a Y-axis (column) and by adding choice, changing the continuous t1 of the dx axis to a ''quantum leap'' of t2 and a (dy) choice bringing the variant in the ^dx position forward in time from of the (dy) axis□

Model:

..(dy)/t2..
nnnnnnnn(dx)/t1
nnnnnnnn(dx)/t1
nnnnnnnn(dx)/t1
nnnnnnnn(dx)/t1
nnnnnnnn(dx)/t1
nnnnnnnn(dx)/t1

P(B | A)=1
0
reply
physicsmaths
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Post the question.


Posted from TSR Mobile
4
reply
AlbertXY
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by physicsmaths)
Post the question.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I did post the question in the first post. I suppose you mean a more detailed question,


In a game of chance that has 52 variants such as a game like texas holdem poker, does offering a choice of pre-shuffled decks change the probability function of using a single deck?


My maths says yes is does.
0
reply
BlueSam3
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
Those are random messes of symbols. That's not a question. Nor is it a proof of anything. It's just some symbols. Start by defining them.
2
reply
AlbertXY
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by BlueSam3)
Those are random messes of symbols. That's not a question. Nor is it a proof of anything. It's just some symbols. Start by defining them.
(dx)=52
P(n)/(dx)=(1/52)/t
(dy)=f(^x)
P(n)/(dy)=σ2/t2
P(n)/(dx)≠P(n)/(dy)
[x1∝x2]≠[y1≠y2]

(dy)≠(dx)
t

d = distance or dimension
P=probability
x=vector
y=vector
f=function
^x=number of sets/random shuffles
t1=continuous time
t2=random choice of set bringing variants forward in time
∝=equally proportionate
≠=not equal to
σ²=variance of population values
n=any specific variant

P(n)/(dy)=σ²/t2=0_1

....yyyyy
x=nnnnn
x=nnnnn
x=nnnnn
x=nnnnn

If I take a coin and tossed it , you know the chance of H or T is 1/2, you know this is also the chance for any other coin. If I tossed 10 individual coins one after each other and recorded the results of each coins toss, then asked you to pick any of the tosses 1 to 10, you know your chance remains 1/2. This is wrong and a trick your brain is playing on you, Because the event has already happened, you have ten unknown variants aligned to your choice,
oooooooooo P(H)=0_1/10 P(T)=0_1/10 1/2 becomes obsolete and by adding choice, makes a multivariate, and we take a random leap rather than a random walk, bringing values forward in time?

P(B | A)=1
0
reply
BlueSam3
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by AlbertXY)
(dx)=52
P(n)/(dx)=(1/52)/t
(dy)=f(^x)
P(n)/(dy)=σ2/t2
P(n)/(dx)≠P(n)/(dy)
[x1∝x2]≠[y1≠y2]

(dy)≠(dx)
t

d = distance or dimension
P=probability
x=vector
y=vector
f=function
^x=number of sets/random shuffles
t1=continuous time
t2=random choice of set bringing variants forward in time
∝=equally proportionate
≠=not equal to
σ²=variance of population values
n=any specific variant

P(n)/(dy)=σ²/t2=0_1

....yyyyy
x=nnnnn
x=nnnnn
x=nnnnn
x=nnnnn
This is gibberish. Explain your point.

If I take a coin and tossed it , you know the chance of H or T is 1/2, you know this is also the chance for any other coin. If I tossed 10 individual coins one after each other and recorded the results of each coins toss, then asked you to pick any of the tosses 1 to 10, you know your chance remains 1/2. This is wrong and a trick your brain is playing on you, Because the event has already happened, you have ten unknown variants aligned to your choice,
This is wrong. You are making a decision based on limited information. The information that is available to you absolutely does have baring on the probability of things, and in this case, the probability absolutely is 1/2.

oooooooooo P(H)=0_1/10 P(T)=0_1/10 1/2 becomes obsolete and by adding choice, makes a multivariate, and we take a random leap rather than a random walk, bringing values forward in time?

P(B | A)=1
This, again, is gibberish.
0
reply
AlbertXY
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by BlueSam3)
This is gibberish. Explain your point.



This is wrong. You are making a decision based on limited information. The information that is available to you absolutely does have baring on the probability of things, and in this case, the probability absolutely is 1/2.



This, again, is gibberish.
It is not gibberish the world is just not understanding it, limited information exactly.


we know the values of x but we do not know the values of y.


I am pulling my hair out and ready to bang my head against a wall, this is baby maths and easy maths yet people are denying it.

Take 2 sets of 2 sweets, in each set there is a blue sweet and a red sweet,


So we have two people with two sweets each a red and a blue sweet, ok so far?


Each person swaps shuffles the sweets between their hands behind their back and then both persons hold out their left closed hand and ask you to pick a one of the peoples left hands

the odds of a blue sweet are?........
0
reply
physicsmaths
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by AlbertXY)
It is not gibberish the world is just not understanding it, limited information exactly.


we know the values of x but we do not know the values of y.


I am pulling my hair out and ready to bang my head against a wall, this is baby maths and easy maths yet people are denying it.

Take 2 sets of 2 sweets, in each set there is a blue sweet and a red sweet,


So we have two people with two sweets each a red and a blue sweet, ok so far?


Each person swaps shuffles the sweets between their hands behind their back and then both persons hold out their left closed hand and ask you to pick a one of the peoples left hands

the odds of a blue sweet are?........
Lol no one is gna help u


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
AlbertXY
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by physicsmaths)
Lol no one is gna help u


Posted from TSR Mobile

You know Im correct, the world knows im correct , I have produced a piece of brilliance, yet the world wants to ignore me, Einstein would be turning in his grave at the thought of it, simple maths and it is avoided, this is hilarious from all the forums, why?
0
reply
BlueSam3
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by AlbertXY)
It is not gibberish the world is just not understanding it, limited information exactly.
No, it's poorly written gibberish. You are explaining it. If people don't understand it, that is your fault and nobody else's.


we know the values of x but we do not know the values of y.


I am pulling my hair out and ready to bang my head against a wall, this is baby maths and easy maths yet people are denying it.

Take 2 sets of 2 sweets, in each set there is a blue sweet and a red sweet,


So we have two people with two sweets each a red and a blue sweet, ok so far?


Each person swaps shuffles the sweets between their hands behind their back and then both persons hold out their left closed hand and ask you to pick a one of the peoples left hands

the odds of a blue sweet are?........
One half. Obviously. Probability is relative to information availability.

(Original post by AlbertXY)
You know Im correct, the world knows im correct , I have produced a piece of brilliance, yet the world wants to ignore me, Einstein would be turning in his grave at the thought of it, simple maths and it is avoided, this is hilarious from all the forums, why?
Cut the garbage. Explain your point. Properly. In English that people can actually understand. You're nowhere near as intelligent as you seem to think that you are. To quote Einstein: "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself". Given that you've not only failed to explain it to a six year old, but also to actual mathematicians. What does that tell you about your (complete lack of) understanding?
1
reply
AlbertXY
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by BlueSam3)
No, it's poorly written gibberish. You are explaining it. If people don't understand it, that is your fault and nobody else's.




One half. Obviously. Probability is relative to information availability.



Cut the garbage. Explain your point. Properly. In English that people can actually understand. You're nowhere near as intelligent as you seem to think that you are. To quote Einstein: "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself". Given that you've not only failed to explain it to a six year old, but also to actual mathematicians. What does that tell you about your (complete lack of) understanding?
The point is that using many sets instead of one set gives a different probability to using one set of variants.
0
reply
Mason_
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by AlbertXY)
X=(52)

P(A)/X=(1/52)/t1

Y=f(^X)

P(A)/Y=σ2/t2

XY


How can this be incorrect?
Is this A level maths?
0
reply
BlueSam3
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by AlbertXY)
The point is that using many sets instead of one set gives a different probability to using one set of variants.
Now state it clearly, explain it, and prove it. Recall that proofs are written in English.

(Original post by Mason_)
Is this A level maths?
No. It's poorly explained drivel.
1
reply
Mason_
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by BlueSam3)
No. It's poorly explained drivel.
Serious answer please because if it is I may have to reconsider the subjects I'm taking.
0
reply
BlueSam3
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Mason_)
Serious answer please because if it is I may have to reconsider the subjects I'm taking.
That is a serious explanation. Note the first word. This is not, in any way, A-level maths. It's not even maths, at this point. It's an incoherent mess of symbols.
1
reply
username1692103
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Mason_)
Serious answer please because if it is I may have to reconsider the subjects I'm taking.
No it is nothing to do with A-Level maths, the OP needs to revist his probability fundamentals. It's a bunch of symbols which make no sense whatsoever, don't worrry.
1
reply
Mason_
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by BlueSam3)
That is a serious explanation. Note the first word. This is not, in any way, A-level maths. It's not even maths, at this point. It's an incoherent mess of symbols.
Okay, thank you.
1
reply
AlbertXY
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by BlueSam3)
Now state it clearly, explain it, and prove it. Recall that proofs are written in English.



The simplified maths what you will know is

P(A)/x=1/52

P(A)/y=σX=1_0


model
....yy
x=00
x=00

P(B | A)=1

∑P(A)/y=(0)&(.5)&(1)=0_1

AB
xy

μx=1

μy=σ²

x<<y
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What offers have you received from universities?

Unconditional (20)
22.99%
Unconditional if firmed (4)
4.6%
Unconditional if insurance (0)
0%
Both unconditional and unconditional if firm/insurance (1)
1.15%
No unconditional offers (62)
71.26%

Watched Threads

View All