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)
-
-
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 -
Replying to @petespetes @literalbanana and
Actually he is more likely to see a RRRB before a RRRR. The expected waiting time is less. The basic intuition is that when RRRR comes first, RRRB can come on the next spin, and will come as soon as a B comes. But when RRRB comes first, RRRR can't come until RRR happens again.
4 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @metapotat @literalbanana and
Literally, no. When I say see it "first" in the post above, I mean first in the sequence as he watches it. Once he sees RRR, the next spin is going to complete the RRRR or RRRB sequence (if not green). Both are equally likely.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I corrected myself :) Formally, EX < EY, but P(X < Y) = 0.5 Dependence is unintuitive
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.