Re: The Consise Cantor Disproof



HERC777 wrote:
> >talking about "the probability that something was
> >randomly generated" then there is no hope for you.
>
> It's exactly what distinguishes you
> as an idiot with your stupid
> argument.

No, fool, that's you.


>
> r1 = 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000
> has approx. 10^-30
> confidence level of having being randomly generated.

It DOES NOT, DUMBASS.
IF you assume that 1) you are dealing with 50 independent
events here, and 2) that all 50 of them are drawn from the
same probability distribution, AND 3) that each event has
only 2 possible outcomes, 0 or 1, AND 4) that because of 3,
one simple rational between 0 and 1 will suffice to
characterize the underlying probability distribution
mentioned in 2), THEN you can get a confidence level.
But you do NOT get a confidence level about whether something
has been "randomly generated". What you get a confidence
level about is THE HYPOTHESIS OF WHETHER p (the probability
of a 1, as opposed to a 0; the probability of a 0 is q,
and q = 1-p) does or doesn't lie in a certain range.
I.e., you get a confidence level about whether p is or
isn't anwyhere near 1/2. THIS IS NOT THE SAME thing
as a confidence level about whether ANYthing has been
randomly generated! YOU ASSUME IN ADVANCE, BEFORE STARTING
ANYTHING, that OF COURSE these 50 outcomes have been
randomly generated! The question is, FROM WHAT UNDERLYING
PROBABILITY distribution have they been randomly sampled?
You are trying to MEASURE p when you do an experiment like
this, and what you get out of it is a degree of confidence
about whether p does or does not lie in SOME INTERVAL.

NO outcome proves ABSOLUTELY that ANY particular p
is impossible, if the sample is finite.

But this has nothing to do with THAT in ANY case.

In THIS experiment, you were NOT trying to measure p.
You were NOT trying to estimate p by taking a random
sample. IN THIS EXPERIMENT, WE ALREADY KNEW, BEFORE
THE EXPERIMENT BEGAN, WITH *100%* confidence, that
p=0.5=1/2, EXACTLY. So everything you are trying
to say about Monte Carlo and confidence intervals is
just irrelevant and backwards.


In other words, you suck even worse at statistics than
you do at computer science, and even worse at math than
you do at statistics.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Shotgun statistics
    ... I've been thinking about the problem of using a confidence level of ... of null and alternate hypotheses that can be investigated (e.g. the ... astrobank dataset used for investigating astrology). ... then the probability ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Comparing fractions (or proportions)
    ... Confidence Level *** The confidence level is the ... the significance level is the ... probability of a difference that large or larger is ... called the alpha value of the test. ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Simple confidence interval
    ... Say I run 10 trials and I get 7 successes. ... Is there a way to calculate a probability range (such ... You can obtain confidence intervals for the binomial parameter by using the relationship between the binomial distribution and the beta distribution and the relationship between the beta distribution and the F distribution. ... Let x be the observed number of successes, n be the number of trials, and 1-alpha be the confidence level. ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Probability vs. Confidence Levels
    ... but ties it to a confidence level. ... The current process calculates the percent detection as ... being equal to the percentage of sampled faults that were ... 32.3% probability of 90% fault detection. ...
    (sci.stat.edu)
  • Re: Calculus XOR Probability
    ... the sum of a countable number of 0's; he simply "wants" it to be 1. ... then the probability of one being chosen is 1. ... If you can establish a uniform probability distribution, ... even if n is infinite. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading