Also see my personal least favorite maths term, "almost all", which literally means "everything, except anything you can possibly see or measure directly". (Almost all real numbers are irrational. There are infinitely many rational numbers! But they're 0% of the total!)
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I'm this way with time travel. Like Janeway.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Infinity isn't real and there's no need to let it hurt your head if you don't want to Constructivism 4 life
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @iBreezy6 and
I mean have you seen the thing about how the sum of the infinite series of all natural numbers (1+2+3+4+5+6+...) is -1/12 (This makes people very angry)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww …
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I'm not going to watch that because I'm still upset about the Monty Hall problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH nearly everyone is upset about the Monty Hall problem. Except (to loop back to the original topic of the thread) for the fucking Rationalist cultists, because it's a classic illustration of Bayesianism, which is their Holy Scripture.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
The Monty Hall problem suffers badly from the fact that people bring their real-world intuitions to what is a highly unnatural situation You have to accept that the host *always* eliminates one of the fake doors, *whether or not* it's to his benefit to do so
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
That's a good point and I always forget that part. Whenever I walk away from it for a decade and for whatever reason I'm trying to do the math in my head, I always get stuck on "but wait, what happened to the third door? And then I go look it up.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yeah, the whole reason it's used as an illustration of Bayesianism is that it hinges on the idea that there is PRIOR KNOWLEDGE on someone's part which affects the probability of the result. The door that gets eliminated is always one of the two false doors, NEVER the true door.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Right, in order to make this work you have to make it clear that the host NEVER accidentally opens up the right door early and reveals the car and goes "Oops my bad" Because then, you know, the game would just be over
-
-
Right. It's exactly the fact that THE HOST KNOWS WHICH DOORS ARE FALSE that makes it an interesting result.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @iridienne @arthur_affect and
If everyone INCLUDING THE HOST were just guessing, the naive probability would be the correct one and you'd just have frequentism.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.