Quote:
Originally Posted by Thremp
No. Its only 16 in your utter dickbag analysis. I already explained why it ****ing sucks. Quoting it only further heightens the fact you can't do basic math.
If the probability of Nadal to win a slam is p and the probability of Federer winning the slam is also p. Then the probability of one of them winning is 2p (since Nadal winning and Federer winning are disjoint events).
Now if we say Nadal has probability p1,p2,p3,p4 to win AO,FO, W, UO respectively, his probability of winning all four is p1*p2*p3*p4. Assuming that the gap between Federer and Nadal is 0, means that he has the same probabilities, hence for him to win all four would be p1*p2*p3*p4. However for Federer+Nadal to win each tournament would be 2p1, 2p2, 2p3, 2p4, respectively. Therefore winning all four would be 16*p1*p2*p3*p4. Showing that it is 16 as I claimed.
Quote:
I wasn't even addressing you till you thought my post was some sort of rebuttal to yours. To which you posted extensive "analysis" that is comically absurd, and now I'm mostly just mocking the fact that you can't do math and you have the overbearing sense of self-worth. You're completely inept, yet seem to think you have actually made a credible case.
Show me a section where my math is wrong. You can claim that the assumptions are wrong, I don't argue that. But show me a mathematical mistake.
Quote:
I'd bet any amount of money your math isn't "solid". You can't just use probabilities that sum to >1
I took approximations of the odds of Nadal winning the AO and Federer winning the AO. The sum is well below 1 for both of them. Again, the actual number DON'T MATTER as the point I was making was independent of the actual numbers.
Quote:
You're like DS talking about sports betting. Maybe you guys could have coffee and keep denying the fact both of you guys are wrong.
You should learn how to read math. When attacking math, you should find if there are actually any math mistakes.
You should also actually attack the arguments I am making instead of just stating things that don't have any connection to what I said.