Obviously, you can have HHHT without getting HHHH. But if you get HHHH, then you still have the HHH prefix, and now you have another flip to get T (and if that's H, yet another chance). The only way you get HHHH without HHHT is if after 3 Hs, it's Hs all the way to the end.
-
-
Replying to @RichardYannow @spiderfoods and
There is a subtle effect where, given that you're seeing a finite n number of flips, it is more likely that those n flips contains more HHHT than HHHH than vice versa (balanced out by a greater chance of larger leads for HHHH). But that's much smaller and subtler than your pic.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RichardYannow @spiderfoods and
And "does take less time to show up" doesn't make any sense to me, if it means which occurs first. Neither occurs until you get HHH, and then whichever flip comes next is 50%. My guess is a reporter credulously paraphrasing without understanding. (But maybe I'm missing something)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RichardYannow @spiderfoods and
Your explanations are exactly correct. The simulation is correct for the phenomenon the OP describes, but the concept is rather contrived and poorly explained, and isn't an interesting result for any practical purposes I can think of (except hustling foolish bettors).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @petespetes @RichardYannow and1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
-
Replying to @literalbanana @RichardYannow and
This is a poor example for the bias bias phenomenon Gigerenzer is trying to illustrate. This is a case of not parsing and understanding the problem correctly, not a case of having perceived experience tell us that HHHT is more likely than HHHH.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @petespetes @literalbanana and
This isn't a case of "small sample statistics differing from large sample statistics". In the large sample (large sequence) case, both HHHH and HHHT show up in every iteration if the sequence is large enough.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @petespetes @literalbanana and
In this case it's merely a coincidence that, as he claims, "the human intuition is correct". The human intuition that thinks HHHT should be more likely to "come first" hasn't processed and understood the problem correctly.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @petespetes @RichardYannow and
curious 1) if you’d say he’s wrong here (screenshotted) and 2) what a better example would be?pic.twitter.com/sCzfaTG2PO
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @literalbanana @RichardYannow and
He's not wrong, he just describes a phenomenon that isn't as interesting/relevant as he wants it to be, and the description is incomplete. The guy sitting at the wheel is *not* more likely to see RRRB before he sees RRRR. Gigerenzer almost implies that.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I think he does more than imply it!
-
-
Replying to @literalbanana @RichardYannow and
He's very careful about his wording. What he's saying is not actually incorrect. What most casual readers will take away from it, and probably what he wants you to take away from it, is incorrect.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @petespetes @RichardYannow and
the funniest thing is that it’s an excerpt from a 30-page paper about how it’s bad to take things out of context (the original paragraph)
0 replies 0 retweets 4 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.