A roll of the dice

If the red house has blue shutters and the green house has red shutters, what's this section for?
User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1515
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: A roll of the dice

Postby Angel » Thu Oct 06, 2016 3:06 am

It's a loaded question .
Hmm ~ no quotes and yet it cannot be
deleted. Go figure.
Last edited by Angel on Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
When you go from ~
Divid to David
You go from ~
I I to AI
From supernatural to
artificial intelligence
From knowing to not knowing
From God to whatever you are now.

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: A roll of the dice

Postby Tallboy » Thu Oct 06, 2016 4:46 pm

Gord wrote:
Tallboy wrote:
Gord wrote:Everyone on the maths website who bothered to post agreed with me. Almost everyone on the non-maths website who posted (even the professor of physics and the professor of computer science!) disagreed with me.

do you have a link for the non-maths website?

No, it's long gone. The original forum disappeared over 12 years ago, then the second version was created, then it disappeared and a third came along, then it was gone and the fourth and final version was up until someone important died (the husband of the woman hosting the final version; the original version of the forum was run by the guy who died, from a progress brain disease). They're all gone now. I'm 90% certain the riddle was posted on the fourth incarnation.

too bad. would have been interesting to hear the professors reasons for disagreeing.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27091
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Wild animal
Location: Transcona

Re: A roll of the dice

Postby Gord » Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:15 pm

Tallboy wrote:
Gord wrote:
Tallboy wrote:
Gord wrote:Everyone on the maths website who bothered to post agreed with me. Almost everyone on the non-maths website who posted (even the professor of physics and the professor of computer science!) disagreed with me.

do you have a link for the non-maths website?

No, it's long gone. The original forum disappeared over 12 years ago, then the second version was created, then it disappeared and a third came along, then it was gone and the fourth and final version was up until someone important died (the husband of the woman hosting the final version; the original version of the forum was run by the guy who died, from a progress brain disease). They're all gone now. I'm 90% certain the riddle was posted on the fourth incarnation.

too bad. would have been interesting to hear the professors reasons for disagreeing.

The physics prof talked about quantum mechanics, if I remember (and understood) correctly. Something about the dice being independent of one another, so what one die rolled didn't influence what the other die rolled, therefore the chances of rolling two 1s if you know one of the dice already rolled one 1 is going to be 1 in 6.

I think the computer prof just belittled people (like me!) who think they know more about maths than they actually do -- or don't know enough about maths to know just how little they know about maths (in other words, he Dunning–Krugered me :heh: ).
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: A roll of the dice

Postby Tallboy » Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:15 pm

Gord wrote:The physics prof talked about quantum mechanics, if I remember (and understood) correctly. Something about the dice being independent of one another, so what one die rolled didn't influence what the other die rolled, therefore the chances of rolling two 1s if you know one of the dice already rolled one 1 is going to be 1 in 6.


oh, so he, in essence, assumed the dice were rolled sequentially or that we know which die had a 1. not very interesting as this is the typical misunderstanding. the question, in part, seems to be testing against this kind of thinking. I often think there is a cognitive need to interpret the problem this way as it simplifies it immensely.

Gord wrote:I think the computer prof just belittled people (like me!) who think they know more about maths than they actually do -- or don't know enough about maths to know just how little they know about maths (in other words, he Dunning–Krugered me :heh: ).

oh no, you got reverse DK'd!!

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: A roll of the dice

Postby Scott Mayers » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:21 am

Tallboy wrote:casino owners make lot's of $$ using probability correctly and banking on the public not using it correctly (the gamblers fallacy, emotion, etc.). it relies on the publics' misunderstanding of probability (I find this somewhat reprehensible, btw). the stock market/hedge fund guys use prob/stats in the same way to predict stock prices. you can tell them that their probabilities are logically unsound, or that they don't deal with the real world problems, and they will smile back and wave to you as they drive off in their Ferrari's on their way to their $10M vacation house in the Hamptons.

stats is not deterministic. all stat models include an error term, so prediction is not perfect. it's a tool to predict future events when the real-life situation is too complex for deterministic systems. when Einstein said 'God doesn't roll dice with the universe' he's right. if we knew exactly how the universe worked we wouldn't need stats. but some things are unknowable. perhaps some day in the future we could predict how people will vote from a blood test. but until then, we take polls that have a margin of error. and these polls, if done correctly (representative random sample, etc.) are pretty darn accurate.


The underlined portion is what you may not be aware regarding what occurred. Einstein was responding to an interpretation of the very same majority of physicists in Quantum Mechanics who believe that the Uncertainty Principle is NOT simply a mathematical convenience but as a real interpretation of the reality being observed. That is, the argument was about literally believing it 'true' that a cat IS both alive and dead simultaneously in some box UNTIL you open it. That was just an analogy of the phenomena of 'superposition' that asserts particles exist everywhere but only 'assert' a specific position WHEN an observer observes it. ...that the wave-function (a statistical representation of some particle) is in many places at once, but 'collapses' to only one of those possibilities when or where we observe. It sounds fantastical and similar to actually thinking like this problem or other puzzles that a 'probability' actually represents reality UNLESS we actually HAVE multiple worlds (or similarly, multiple repeats that make things 'fair').

In other words, if you toss a die in the air, for our particular world, there is only ONE REAL outcome UNLESS we have other 'places' that exist. So if asked what the 'probability' one WILL get if they tossed a coin, the odds is NOT 1/2, but an exclusive 'OR': 1 or 0 to heads, 0 or 1 to tails. The 'probability' thus represents not a 'reality' but an imaginary function if you COULD either repeat the event OR have a world parallel to it for each possibility. But at the same time, many still believe this is 'true' even in only ONE event, AND equally, that multiple worlds do not exist. To myself, as to those like Einstein, who question this, it is about whether we should INTERPRET the math using this as representing the reality. Also, IF we find such an APPARENT reality, we MUST question things to 'fit' with our normal capacity or we reduce our thinking to a form of religion.

I'm for the math of probability. But while we cannot 'witness' other worlds OR do not actually have the capacity to determine 'fairness' if we allow one or more repeats of some event, where we see 'weirdness', this is a default hint by the "contradictions" or "paradoxes", that we are more likely wrong about the interpretation. Instead, many simply EMBRACE these weird interpretations AS 'real' and then treat US as merely defaulted. While I don't disagree for practical reasons, where we transfer these to be 'truths', this is where religion originates anew.

I tackle things differently by BEGINNING with a reality that is "inconsistent" but that our particular reality observed must compete against it. In this way, 'weird' realities do exist, but we cannot expect that we actually have evidence of it. The justification of this began with the Slit Experiment. They interpreted the "observation" of the interference pattern as PROOF that a particle was in more 'places' AND everywhere at once, but that it 'collapses' upon the back wall to make that 'appear' in one point unless it is "conflicted" (have two slits). As such, the explanation is yet missing that the very OBSERVATION of the interference pattern COULD be in itself affecting the result!!
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27091
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Wild animal
Location: Transcona

Re: A roll of the dice

Postby Gord » Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:17 pm

Tallboy wrote:
Gord wrote:The physics prof talked about quantum mechanics, if I remember (and understood) correctly. Something about the dice being independent of one another, so what one die rolled didn't influence what the other die rolled, therefore the chances of rolling two 1s if you know one of the dice already rolled one 1 is going to be 1 in 6.

oh, so he, in essence, assumed the dice were rolled sequentially or that we know which die had a 1. not very interesting as this is the typical misunderstanding. the question, in part, seems to be testing against this kind of thinking. I often think there is a cognitive need to interpret the problem this way as it simplifies it immensely.

She was a woman professor. Basically she thought I was wrong, and used her knowledge of physics to examine how I could be wrong. I didn't think physics profs were necessarily very good at probability, and after her comments I still wasn't sure they were necessarily very good at probability....

Not that I'm saying there aren't physics profs who are very good at it. I'm just thinking, maybe it isn't a necessity when you're specialising.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE


Return to “Brainteasers”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest