What's a boy to do?
 

Bob Weinberger wrote:
"Wolfgang" wrote in message
ups.com...

O.k., let's see now......ya got yer {BB}, yer {Bb}, yer {bB}, yer {Bg},
yer {bG}, yer {BG}, yer {GB}, yer {Gb}, yer {gB}, yer {Gg}, yer {GG},
and yer {gG}.

Hm.......o.k......yeah......that's two.

Wolfgang
who be go ta hell if he can figure out where the xs and ys went to
:(


Not that it makes any difference in the solution, but as a technical matter
you should not include BB, GG, BG, or GB as possibilities in your list
above, even if you are using age as a differentiation factor. Twins are not
born at *exactly* the same time.

Noted and filed for future reference. Thanks, Bob. :)

Wolfgang

What's a boy to do?
 

rw wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:
rw wrote:

Wolfgang wrote:

Still smells funny to me.

Alert the mathematics world! This simple and uncontroversial
combinatorial reasoning "smells funny" to ROFF's Wolfgang.


In the absence of any positional element (birth
order, size, where they might happen to be standing relative to one another
in a photo, etc.) how does {a boy and a girl} on the one hand differ from {a
girl and a boy} on the other?

It's simply because they are two different people. Duh.


Hm......

Bob and Sally are two different people than Sally and Bob? Do you
suppose that Bob and Sally know that? Then again, what will Sally and
Bob think when they find out?

Now that you've demonstrated that you're incapable of understanding
elementary mathematical logic,

Well, maybe it's not so much incapacity on my part as it is poor
instruction. At least this can be tested experimentally. Why don't we
see if you can explain who are two different people from whom and then
we'll take a poll......see if anybody else can understand it.

**** off.

No, not just yet, I think. I worry about who would remind you that you
are a slow learner if I were to go away. Tell you what......see if you
can find a sufficiently qualified volunteer, and we'll talk about
it.....o.k.?

Wolfgang

What's a boy to do?
 

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:53:30 +0800, "riverman" wrote:

The type of distribution doesn't matter, as long as it is the same for all
three darts.

That's the problem I have with your example - I think the distribution changes
based on the prior throw. Change your dart throwing to fly casting to a rising
fish and maybe then I'll believe you're totally random. g
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

What's a boy to do?
 

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:53:30 +0800, "riverman" wrote:

The type of distribution doesn't matter, as long as it is the same for all
three darts.

That's the problem I have with your example - I think the distribution
changes
based on the prior throw. Change your dart throwing to fly casting to a
rising
fish and maybe then I'll believe you're totally random. g


LOL, but I see the problem. Not 'random'. 'Consistent'.

--riverman

What's a boy to do?
 

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 09:58:16 +0800, "riverman" wrote:


"Charlie Choc" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:53:30 +0800, "riverman" wrote:

The type of distribution doesn't matter, as long as it is the same for all
three darts.

That's the problem I have with your example - I think the distribution
changes
based on the prior throw. Change your dart throwing to fly casting to a
rising
fish and maybe then I'll believe you're totally random. g


LOL, but I see the problem. Not 'random'. 'Consistent'.

I said I think the distribution changes based on the prior throw (or cast for
that matter) - IOW not consistent (and for this problem, random or consistent
gives the same result). There may be a consistent distribution for 1st throws,
2nd throws, etc - but I believe they will be different distributions.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

What's a boy to do?
 

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 09:58:16 +0800, "riverman" wrote:


"Charlie Choc" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:53:30 +0800, "riverman" wrote:

The type of distribution doesn't matter, as long as it is the same for
all
three darts.

That's the problem I have with your example - I think the distribution
changes
based on the prior throw. Change your dart throwing to fly casting to a
rising
fish and maybe then I'll believe you're totally random. g


LOL, but I see the problem. Not 'random'. 'Consistent'.

I said I think the distribution changes based on the prior throw (or cast
for
that matter) - IOW not consistent (and for this problem, random or
consistent
gives the same result). There may be a consistent distribution for 1st
throws,
2nd throws, etc - but I believe they will be different distributions.

Well, I won't disagree that this is a mathematical model, while IRL they
would probably be able to adjust their throw a bit based on their previous
toss. But unless they improve a LOT, the results (within a small degree of
error) would hold. Maybe a few percentage points off, or fractions of a
percentage, so dealing with it as a mathematical model is not a vain
exercise. Throwing darts still has enough of a random component that even
the experts are not hitting perfect games consistently. Possibly it would be
more salable if I said "after warming up" at the beginning.

Anyway, this has been a long discussion, and I'm pretty much fried out on
it. Those with the mathematical insight know that this is acually the Monte
Hall problem in another form, which makes it fascinating that people were
more likely to adjust their misconceptions of the MH puzzle when faced with
some physical demonstration or layman's description, while this problem had
many folks stubbornly refusing to change their point of view, and unwilling
to accept a layman analysis. Interesting.

--riverman

What's a boy to do?
 

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
riverman wrote:

This is EOT for me. The problem, as stated, does not contain
enough information to solve.

You mean 'the problem, as you chose to state it, does not contain enough
information to solve.' The coin toss example was merely to show that, if no
information was disclosed, then tense is irrelevant.

I'm okay with EOT, and you can even have the last word. It won't change the
solution g

--riverman

the definitive answer
 

Wolfgang wrote:
RE Obviously, the five dollars must be under one of the other two.

The way you stated this, you removed what at one time looked like
a one in three chance. But, the way you stated this, you took away
one of the three choices, and the one you took away was known
to be false.

So there are now two choices left, one of which is guaranteed
to be correct. And you have no evidence to indicate one choice
over the other.

The current 50-50 condition is unrelated to a previous condition,
when three chances were involved. And it doesn't matter how many times
to you do it (if you follow the sequence of events you specified).

If you restate the problem, and say you now remove one of three
choices, leaving two that might be false, or two choices that
contain at most one true, then it is a different problem.

Jesus, forget mathematicians. When you need answers to difficult
problems,
always ask a sliver digger (a carpenter).

the definitive answer
 

salmobytes wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:
RE Obviously, the five dollars must be under one of the other two.

The way you stated this, you removed what at one time looked like
a one in three chance. But, the way you stated this, you took away
one of the three choices, and the one you took away was known
to be false.

So there are now two choices left, one of which is guaranteed
to be correct. And you have no evidence to indicate one choice
over the other.

The current 50-50 condition is unrelated to a previous condition,
when three chances were involved. And it doesn't matter how many times
to you do it (if you follow the sequence of events you specified).

If you restate the problem, and say you now remove one of three
choices, leaving two that might be false, or two choices that
contain at most one true, then it is a different problem.

Jesus, forget mathematicians. When you need answers to difficult
problems,
always ask a sliver digger (a carpenter).

I won't speak for anyone else, but when I need the answer to a
difficult question (or even what may turn out to be a not so difficult
question, for that matter) I think I'll ask someone who can at least
make his or her position on a previous question (not to mention an
explication thereof) clear.

Thanks, anyway.

Wolfgang
still, the venture was not entirely without profit.......we have at
least learned something about the origins of old expression, "to a man
with a hammer......."

the definitive answer
 

you said you took a false choice away
That means the remaining choice is 50/50
no matter what.

Any previous condition is like Wolfgang:
totally irrelevant :-)