Re: Kerry's Improbable Medals
From: John Woodgate (jmw_at_jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk)
Date: 09/13/04
- Next message: John Woodgate: "Re: eer"
- Previous message: John Woodgate: "Re: what is the processor"
- In reply to: Tom Seim: "Kerry's Improbable Medals"
- Next in thread: Fred Bloggs: "Re: Kerry's Improbable Medals"
- Reply: Fred Bloggs: "Re: Kerry's Improbable Medals"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:23:01 +0100
I read in sci.electronics.design that Tom Seim <soar2morrow@yahoo.com>
wrote (in <6c71b322.0409122112.404cda7f@posting.google.com>) about
'Kerry's Improbable Medals', on Sun, 12 Sep 2004:
>This results in the final answer of:
>
>2.08E-09 (.00000000208%)
That is the classical probability. I notice that you didn't respond to
my question about the Bayesian probability. (;-)
-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
- Next message: John Woodgate: "Re: eer"
- Previous message: John Woodgate: "Re: what is the processor"
- In reply to: Tom Seim: "Kerry's Improbable Medals"
- Next in thread: Fred Bloggs: "Re: Kerry's Improbable Medals"
- Reply: Fred Bloggs: "Re: Kerry's Improbable Medals"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
