Posted: Jan 08, 2015 8:25 pm
by Lowpro
Sorry even after rereading my own post I realized it just...wasn't clear. I was posting during class so I didn't have my full attention to it.

I am almost 100% in agreement with you said except for how you were comparing the coins being face up and its relation to the probability that it was either left face up by an agent or whether it landed face up within a probability of heads or tails. That's beyond testing for a probability because there is no information if there was an agent that left the coin face up; all other states (tails up) are impossible.

We could STILL pretend we're working with a discrete probability of heads or tails and if it's fair then we'd see a 0,1 ( ie heads or tails) in a fair distribution. We could also assume a fair distribution with no flips at all and possibly be correct. That's a probability distribution with no testing. Probabilities can be valid with no confidence, scientifically this is not useful. But it is mathematics.

Again I agree with all the stuff you've posted (mostly). The issue I have is that when you wanted to make a probability of placing the coin heads up or assuming it landed heads up from a flip are independent to the fact it's found face up. Maybe that's what you meant the entire time (and after reading again, it probably was). I just didn't interpret it that way when I read it.

There's a big difference between the sample space of "heads or tails" aka [0,1] from the coin being flipped and NO SAMPLE SPACE, where the agent makes the coin face up. The latter makes the coin impossible, it's nonsensical. So yes this was purely a semantics issue to me, that's all. Have a nice day chap!