SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Wij]

I’m right.

 

[Zarjazz]

I’m right.

You are but what were the odds of that ...

 

[Wij]

1 in 52 is the chance of drawing a specific card from the first deck. In this case we don't care what that card is, so the first deck just acts as a random card generator, the only requirement is that the card from the second deck needs to match it, with the odds of 1 in 52. for the third deck then to match is 1 in 52^2 etc.

I've no idea what you mean by conditionality in this case, but I don't think it's relevant, all three cards can be drawn at the same time or in order, the odds don't change.

And I don't care what anyone else says, the fucking plane will take off!!

Correct on both.

 

[Wij]

Think of it this way. The chances of any particular combination are indeed 52 to the power of 5.

However there are 52 outcomes which meet the criteria:
1.) All 5 decks draw the Ace of Clubs
2.) All 5 decks draw the Ace of Hearts
3.) All 5 decks draw the Ace of Spades
...
...
52.) All 5 decks draw the 2 of Diamonds

Therefore the odds of the draw meeting the criteria is 52 to the power of 5, divided by 52. Which is 52 to the power of 4.

Basic stuff.

 

[Scouse]

I’m right.

Nope.

Take two packs of cards. One left hand, one right hand.

Turn over the top cards of both (same as a random drawing) at the same time.

The chances of them matching are as the formula given above.



Your scenario is different. Given an Ace Of Spades, what is the probability of drawing another Ace Of Spades out of another deck - yep: 1 in 52.

You fail your exam, however, because you didn't read the question properly.




Edit: We need an actual maths and stats guy to verify this. But why don't we just ask @Job?

Edit edit: I just read the above @Wij - narrow it down to two decks like I've just shown. The maths are 1/52*1/52 = 1 in 2704. You don't subtract a deck to make it one in 52 - both draws are independent.

(And I take back the requirement for the maths and stats guy )

 

[Scouse]

Fuck it. I'm going to get two decks of cards

 

[Scouse]

Just realised. I'm in Wales. I have two camping chairs, a box and a duvet.

On the basis that I'm so fried I can barely comprehend where I live right now I think it wise to go away and come back to this in a day or so

 

[Zarjazz]

Turn over the top cards of both (same as a random drawing) at the same time.

This is your mistake. It doesn't matter when you turn over the cards. The formula you gave is absolutely correct for two independent events and gives you the probability of a particular combined event. So for two packs the odds of any single possible combination being shown when you turn the two cards over at once is indeed 1 in 2704 BUT that's for a single combination. 52 combinations match.

@Wij is also correct with the simpler answer. Turn over one card then find the chance to turn over another of the same from the other pack.

You still get the same answer either method. The wonder of maths. This isn't like the Monty Hall problem where the order you pick a door (or card) matters.

 

[Job]

Id be interested in real life comparison.
The maths is an absolute, in the real world everything develops a pattern that edges out the random.


This probability calculator loses me at normal distribution after putting me in a coma at conditional probability..

Probability Calculator
You could help me here..if conditional is based on removal of an object after an event...does it happening before, count as a removal?

 

[Access Denied]

I fucking hate maths.

 

[Zarjazz]

You could help me here..if conditional is based on removal of an object after an event...does it happening before, count as a removal?

No because it makes no sense to ask that. It's illogical just like having effect before cause. Conditional means performing an action changes the state that any further action acts upon.

If you removed a card from a deck before selecting one all that means is that the initial conditions are different, it's not conditional.

 

[Job]

Not an obvious physical difference to the outcome, but we register it as an event which changes the universe in some fucking way I cant comprehend.
Our observation of the universe is a cornerstone of modern theoretical physics and Im waiting for some proof we change its direction by just how we feel about it.

Theyve probably got cards covered though.

 

[caLLous]

...are you trying to massage what "conditional" means to suit whatever the fuck you were talking about before?

 

[Job]

No Im waffling about possibilites.

Probability as a mathamatical absolute is a bit boring.

 

[Lamp]

Our entire universe is based on probability & uncertainty. At the sub-molecular level, things get very unintuitive. As we all know from the double slit experiment, a single photon does not go through both slits at the same time but the probability wave function does. It is only when we measure the photon on the back screen that the wave function collapses, and the photon then becomes a particle. Measurement is not the same as Observation.

Correct me if I'm wrong @Zarjazz

 

[Zarjazz]

Our entire universe is based on probability & uncertainty. At the sub-molecular level, things get very unintuitive. As we all know from the double slit experiment, a single photon does not go through both slits at the same time but the probability wave function does. It is only when we measure the photon on the back screen that the wave function collapses, and the photon then becomes a particle. Measurement is not the same as Observation.

Correct me if I'm wrong @Zarjazz

Not wrong but it may be more precise to say measurement makes the observable "real".

Describing measurement as a wave function collapsing, the Copenhagen interpretation, is the one most commonly taught to the public and undergraduate physicists however there are still many who argue that interpretation is partly what makes Quantum Mechanics so hard to understand. The math is simpler to calculate than most other interpretations but it may not actually describe reality and what is actually happening at a fundamental level. For example a large number of physicists prefer the Many-worlds interpretation because it has none of the conceptual problems of the Copenhagen interpretation and is more elegant - it essentially says the maths of QM describes reality exactly. No interpretation is required. There is none of the nonsense about collapsing wavefunctions and arguing about what does that even mean or how that process occurs. However it does also leads to the conclusion that every measurement leads to the universe splitting creating a multi-verse of every possible choice.

No matter what interpretation you use, and there are more than those two, you still get exactly same results at the end so in practice almost everyone treats QM as a black box. Stick in the inputs, get your answer, and don't look inside because there be dragons.

 

[Deebs]

Fuck me reading these last 2 or 3 pages since being away has given me a massive fucking headache.

 

[Deebs]

Not wrong but it may be more precise to say measurement makes the observable "real".

Describing measurement as a wave function collapsing, the Copenhagen interpretation, is the one most commonly taught to the public and undergraduate physicists however there are still many who argue that interpretation is partly what makes Quantum Mechanics so hard to understand. The math is simpler to calculate than most other interpretations but it may not actually describe reality and what is actually happening at a fundamental level. For example a large number of physicists prefer the Many-worlds interpretation because it has none of the conceptual problems of the Copenhagen interpretation and is more elegant - it essentially says the maths of QM describes reality exactly. No interpretation is required. There is none of the nonsense about collapsing wavefunctions and arguing about what does that even mean or how that process occurs. However it does also leads to the conclusion that every measurement leads to the universe splitting creating a multi-verse of every possible choice.

No matter what interpretation you use, and there are more than those two, you still get exactly same results at the end so in practice almost everyone treats QM as a black box. Stick in the inputs, get your answer, and don't look inside because there be dragons.

And even though you have attempted to explain it to me several times I still cannot understand that if the universe is growing, then what is outside of the universe?

ps. Fancy another go but use toddler language?

 

[Zarjazz]

And even though you have attempted to explain it to me several times I still cannot understand that if the universe is growing, then what is outside of the universe?

ps. Fancy another go but use toddler language?

Toddler language? I can try but it's hard to give a playschool level answer that isn't simply wrong. For example to say something is outside the universe the universe would have to have an edge. A "cliff" you could step off into something else. How can you step outside the universe? A physicist would say that makes no sense. It's like asking what is north of the north pole or what number is smaller than zero.

When a physicist talks about the universe they mean the observable universe. That volume of space-time that is defined by the speed of light and the amount of time since the Big Bang. That is the only universe we will ever be able to see or touch. The observable universe gets bigger as the light travels further but it is still finite. However there is definitely "more stuff" outside that volume, a larger Universe, but we never be able to interact with it because of the speed of light limitation. We will never find an edge to our universe.

Now how big that entire Universe is is still an open question and leads you down the path to some crazy ideas. Such as a lot of scientists think there are many, many observable universe "bubbles" inside the greater Universe. In fact maybe an infinite number.

 

[Deebs]

Toddler language? I can try but it's hard to give a playschool level answer that isn't simply wrong. For example to say something is outside the universe the universe would have to have an edge. A "cliff" you could step off into something else. How can you step outside the universe? A physicist would say that makes no sense. It's like asking what is north of the north pole or what number is smaller than zero.

When a physicist talks about the universe they mean the observable universe. That volume of space-time that is defined by the speed of light and the amount of time since the Big Bang. That is the only universe we will ever be able to see or touch. The observable universe gets bigger as the light travels further but it is still finite. However there is definitely "more stuff" outside that volume, a larger Universe, but we never be able to interact with it because of the speed of light limitation. We will never find an edge to our universe.

Now how big that entire Universe is is still an open question and leads you down the path to some crazy ideas. Such as a lot of scientists think there are many, many observable universe "bubbles" inside the greater Universe. In fact maybe an infinite number.

Thanks @Zarjazz. That allows me to understand it a lot better now.

Next question from me. If the universe started from the Big Bang then something must have existed before the Universe. What was that?

 

[Zarjazz]

Next question from me. If the universe started from the Big Bang then something must have existed before the Universe. What was that?

Short answer - we don't know. Physicists have plenty of ideas some of which are more popular than others but we can't prove any of them at the moment.

The Big Bang theory explains what happened from a very short time after the start, 10^-36 seconds iirc, until now but it doesn't explain what caused it. To go earlier than that we need a new theory of physics, Quantum Gravity specifically. Some speculate that may even allow us to go before the start which if you understood these things isn't actually that crazy of a suggestion.

 

[Deebs]

Short answer - we don't know. Physicists have plenty of ideas some of which are more popular than others but we can't prove any of them at the moment.

The Big Bang theory explains what happened from a very short time after the start, 10^-36 seconds iirc, until now but it doesn't explain what caused it. To go earlier than that we need a new theory of physics, Quantum Gravity specifically. Some speculate that may even allow us to go before the start which if you understood these things isn't actually that crazy of a suggestion.

I liked the short answer. Got lost in the rest but thanks for replying

 

[Moriath]

Are there other big bangs with other galaxies?

 

[Deebs]

Are there other big bangs with other galaxies?

Multiverse!

 

[Embattle]

See this story typifies why no matter what you say some people are just never going to survive natural selection - Warning after people pictured walking near cliffs

 

[Lamp]

@Zarjazz re Quantum Gravity, and the notion that there might be a fundamental Graviton particle take a look at this lecture by the late Freeman Dyson.

He says that there is no need to unify GR & QM. I quite like his argument. The equations show that finding a Graviton may be impossible.

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[Ormorof]

@Zarjazz re Quantum Gravity, and the notion that there might be a fundamental Graviton particle take a look at this lecture by the late Freeman Dyson.

He says that there is no need to unify GR & QM. I quite like his argument. The equations show that finding a Graviton may be impossible.

The best way to succeed is not knowing what you are trying to do is impossible (Terry Pratchett i think)

 

[dysfunction]

I would have been terrified at this: (Although that video headline is misleading)


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E_hjhHS7C4

 

[Overdriven]

The last few pages here are a fun read at 8am!

Oddly related to a conversation a friend and I had: We wish we could take algebra/pure mathematics and convert it to code and actually understand how to do it. Like... How did Facebook do an equation in pure maths then convert it to code?! This is why I'm not a billionaire.