Posted: Aug 15, 2014 9:54 pm
Fucking hell, this is really sad, isn't it? Not least for the following reason.
The prior probability of one particular die throw yielding any chosen particular result from the set {1,2,3,4,5,6} is 1/6.
The prior probability of a second die throw yielding any other chosen particular result from the set {1,2,3,4,5,6} is also 1/6, and therefore the prior probability of any pair of chosen results from the set in question is (1/6)2.
Applying this result in the same way to subsequent die throws, yields that any sequence of numbers chosen from the set {1,2,3,4,5,6} emerging from N die throws, has a prior probability of (1/6)N.
But wait, look at the expression this individual supplies, namely:
[1-(5/6)N]
This expression is equal to:
[(6/6)N - (5/6)N] = [(6-5)N/6N] = (1/6)N.
In short, all this individual has done, is derive a different form for the same expression describing the prior probability of N independent events.
Yet this individual is apparently too thick to realise this.
The prior probability of one particular die throw yielding any chosen particular result from the set {1,2,3,4,5,6} is 1/6.
The prior probability of a second die throw yielding any other chosen particular result from the set {1,2,3,4,5,6} is also 1/6, and therefore the prior probability of any pair of chosen results from the set in question is (1/6)2.
Applying this result in the same way to subsequent die throws, yields that any sequence of numbers chosen from the set {1,2,3,4,5,6} emerging from N die throws, has a prior probability of (1/6)N.
But wait, look at the expression this individual supplies, namely:
[1-(5/6)N]
This expression is equal to:
[(6/6)N - (5/6)N] = [(6-5)N/6N] = (1/6)N.
In short, all this individual has done, is derive a different form for the same expression describing the prior probability of N independent events.
Yet this individual is apparently too thick to realise this.