If I am now out of the penalty box (with pkdk clearly scoring on the power play), I'd love to hear pkdk's thoughts on two other phenomena which require deep-thinking to fully understand:

(1) Monty Hall problem

(2) Quantum entanglements.

I'll hang up and take my answers off the air.

I dont know man, that basically sounds like any dude with any amount of self esteem and still has balls that produce testosterone. Then again I'm a brain science geek and psychology is in lol territory when it comes to real science of the brain.

He's talking about quantum entangled boxes guys.

Edit: I see that whosnext beat me to this.

But are the boxes rays or waves? Does the prize exist in any box before it is opened? Does a random card have any value before it is seen? Is the prize in the box dead or alive before it is opened?

Does it make a difference if the boxes are launched to the moon instead of the sun?

Of course Kelvis. Don't be silly.

Wow, and they said that I won't miss a thing if I went away for a few weeks... This should teach me better.

Yes, you might have missed learning that ? is the one and only true and correct answer to every math question.

I was referring more to the entertainment value that the last "new" poster in this thread has provided but I won't dismiss educative stuff

I should put myself in the box; clearly I jumped the gun assuming you had scared him away.

I agree with you with most of these guys, but I think he's one of the rare instances that has a decent chance of being a troll. Wouldn't have taken that much effort to jump on our forums a few times and make a handful of nutty posts. But at the same time, I also wouldn't be surprised if he is the real deal (but not from Real Deal) - that's probably more likely.

Poker is rarely rigged. Online poker is always rigged, at least nowadays. Perhaps 10 years ago it was not rigged; then they learned how to rig it and GET AWAY WITH IT, so they have been doing it ever since. If you lost your money playing online, do not blame anyone, blame yourself for being stupid enough to trust virtually untouchable and therefore nonpunishable entities in difficult to reach jurisdictions. That is how it works when money is involved - if they can squeeze a dollar or a thousand from you, they will do it, make no mistake about it. And no, they do not have to rig the random generator, just the software that uses it. If you want to know more detail on how they do it, just stay tuned.

Yeah, he cut and paste the introduction from the "Manifestos for Dummies" handbook, but given he created his account nearly a decade ago and his other 9 posts in that time are random (last one was about Dwan) - there is a much better chance he is an actual troll than the guy who pitched his vector spaceship theory or whatever for years in forums where nobody trolls, simply as a setup for future trolling in threads like this years later.

https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/me...e97dfafea9fd26


I am not delusional, I am not crazy, I am not suffering from Dunning Krugger affect.

Do any of you understand what the word ostensible means?


You are not recalculating events.


Event one we start with 4 boxes

{a} {b} {c} {d}

In two of the boxes there is a prize.


P{a} =2/4

P{b}=2/4

P{c}=2/4

P{d}=2/4

That is strict definition ,

if you had only two boxes and one prize 1/2

{a} {b}


When you create a new event in your example


i ={a}{b}


j={c}{d}


Your new calculation is not based on the new parameters of that event and only two boxes . You do not know any information anymore with only two boxes, you do not know if prize ∈ {i} or prize ∈ {j} so you can't with a certainty under strict definition say 1/2 with a 100% certainty . Hence the uncertainty principle .

https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/me...e97dfafea9fd26


If you know science, you know I am right.


added - Try it this way,


{a} {b} {c} {d}


You could bet your life there is two prizes in these 4 boxes ,



{b} {d}


I would not bet my life on the above, there could be no prize ?/2

2/4 Δ ((?/2 + ?/2)) is the event change.

Your parents must have had the same last name before they married.

Quite clearly you have poor maths skills and poor objective qualities. My math is correct and so is the uncertainty principle. I would suggest you start by go learning some basic calculation methods.

Possibles of {i}

AB
00
10
01
11

Possibles of {j}

CD
00
10
01
11


I would think again if i was you .

added- When the four boxes are together, you cannot produce a null result.

Ok so besides being a ******ed troll, I actually think this might be a bot. He just keeps repeating his nonsense without altering anything at all and it doesn't bother him in the slightest that I just called him a product of incest.

Politeness costs nothing, your lame insults do not bother me, why should they ?

You are actually one of the trolls by definition, it is lucky I am not sensitive.

However I will not be rude back to you, I am an adult and it is wrong to speak badly to children.

I thought you had your panties all twisted and ran away when whosnext bothered you or something like that?

You are mixing up certainty with probability.

No one here is saying they are certain there is still one or two or no prizes in the two remaining boxes.

Admittedly, everyone here is saying it is certain that each of the remaining boxes has either one or no prizes in them.

However, the probability answer is certainly 1/2 - there is either a prize in them or not. There is a 50% likelihood that any selected box has a prize in it. If you were willing to offer to pay $51 to someone every time they guessed correctly that there was a prize in at least one of the boxes, (or a specific one), and they paid you $50 every time there was no prize in either of them, (or the specific one), you would have everyone lining up to take the bet. A bit like why Blackjack card counters are willing to play BJ when it is a losing game to play if you're not a good card counter. They are delighted to play for about a 1% advantage over the house. (Roulette is always a losing game for the bettor in every single situation. The house's advantage of about 5% cannot be overcome by any fair means.)

?/2 is a meaningless answer and certainly not correct in probability nor mathematical terms.

1/2 would contradict everything you said before that.

Think about that . If you say 1/2 , you are specifying with a certainty there is at least one prize in the two boxes. Logically false.

P :⇔ Q means P is defined to be logically equivalent to Q. where Q = ?/2 where P is your statement quoted in red.

The statement ⊥ is unconditionally false. where ⊥ is your 1/2 statement

You are a ?/2 empty kind of guy.

You still have not said why you think live cats can melt steel.


All the best.

No. We are saying there is a 50% chance there is a prize in remaining box 1, and there is a 50% chance there is a prize in remaining box 2.

We are not saying there is a 100% chance that there is a prize in one of the remaining two boxes.

If you can get your head around that the two 50% chances are separate events and not cumulative when the full information is not available, you might understand why you are certainly wrong.

Without going back to your answers, I think you agreed that when there were four boxes, and you had full information, there was a 2/4, or 1/2, or 50% chance that there was a prize in any specific box. 50% + 50% + 50% + 50% by your way of looking at things would result in there being a 200% chance of there being two prizes in the four boxes. That is obviously wrong - even you should know there is "only" a 100% chance - so that should lead you to the conclusion that your way of looking at the problem in probability terms is incorrect.

Molecular diffusion .