EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

probability of coin toss

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - probability of coin toss

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next


Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 8:45 am   



krw_at_notreal.com wrote in
news:be6a5ep2maksppgqit4bjmovq4ibk8qn02_at_4ax.com:

Quote:
...and this isn't the first time you've admitted that you are
neither, AlwaysWrong.


I made no such statement.

Pomegranate Bastard
Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:45 am   



On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 11:03:19 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

Quote:
krw_at_notreal.com wrote in news:5fh75etplhhaef6kuag3afhm9ftpbj7tia@
4ax.com:

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 02:33:34 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

Pomegranate Bastard <pommyb_at_aol.com> wrote in
news:gjr35e1omch40bcah237v5q61u85p7768q_at_4ax.com:

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:40:13 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

krw_at_notreal.com wrote in
news:1kr45epo9qh3basvfgo4v501utvuo70nvh@
4ax.com:

No, DimBulb, your mother brought out the worst of you. YOU!

YOU? YOU are a piece of shit.

Your mother? YOUR MOTHER should be put in prison, cheap whore
that
it is. Your cheap whore mother should be put in prison for
failing to pull the flush handle, the moment the severly ass
fucked street slut shat you.

There's a strong correlation between a person's intelligence and
the quality of their jokes. Never truer in this case. You are an
imbecile.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus



I perform mechanical and electrical engineering tasks.

You are neither.

I am performing both services. Sorry Krong Rong Wanker. I am
orders of magnitude more productive on my computer than you are on
yours. You cannot even behave like an adult.

Sad too, since IIRC you were once an "IBM Fellow". To stoop to
your level, you likely cleaned their toilets. You certainly do not
have the brains for anything else.

I'll bet that my CAD workstation puts yours to shame.


All this juvenile "My CAD workstation is better than yours" guff is
exactly what you'd expect from somebody with a mental age of 12.

Your thin skin and childish petulant outbursts put you firmly in the
same category that other lying infantile berk, your hero Donald J
Chump.

Quote:

I would also bet on my doing real engineering work on it. Whereas
all you do with yours is ac like an uncivil asswipe in Usenet.

I would also bet that my machine has more legit, paid for software
on it. Whereas you likely barely get email on yours while you spend
time hunting up heart health behaviors and trolling real adults on
Usenet.


John S
Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:45 pm   



On 2/1/2019 4:14 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
Quote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32e0a$mrl$9_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 3:23 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32cna$mrl$7_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 3:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32bhq$mrl$6_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:50 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32b2i$mrl$5_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:30 PM,
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q3216a$mrl$3_at_dont-email.me:

And what IS your calculated probability of that outcome,
AlwaysWrong?


Fuck off and die, uncivil, retarded, Usenet troll
fucktard!


Referencing the original statement:

" So 100 tosses could result in 100 events with the same
outcome.

Now, the PROBABILITY of that happening is the
question when one is
examining a set or group of like events. "

So you have no clue about the binomial theorem and how to
use it with either Excel or WolframAlpha to get an answer,
do you? If that is the question, why not impress us with
your genius and give us the answer.

Show us your answer and I'll show you mine.



I was an Excel master decades ago, chump. I still am.
My
workbooks rock.

You are a trivial twerp, at best. And what gets your
gourd is
that I have pegged you correctly.

Oh, and my Wolfram|Alpha is the paid for version, so I
likely have
upped your petty ass there as well. And I also know how to
write the name correctly.

You are likely one of those jerk fucks whom emptied
their car ash
trays at the roadside.


So, what's the solution, Fake?


The very fact that I made the statement shows I know what I
am
talking about.

It shows nothing. Show the probability that 100 tosses of a fair
coin could result in 100 heads (or tails).

"Now, the PROBABILITY of that happening is the question when
one is
examining a set or group of like events. "

The very fact that you deliberately ignored that further
proves
that you are nothing more than a pathetic Usenet PUNK FUCK.


Ignored what? I am asking for the solution in your second
original sentence. It is easy if you know how to use either
Excel or WolframAlpha (WolframAlpha as written on their Web
page). If I tell you the probability, will you be able to find
it yourself?




The probability of even 30 consectutive heads (or tails) results
is 30,000,000 to 1

Go away, little boy.


That is not the solution to your original statement. Let me take
your hand and tell you how to come up with the correct answer.

Enter into WolframAlpha the phrase "probility of getting 100 heads
in 100 coin tosses" without the quotes.

In Excel put the following into any cell:
=BINOMDIST(100,100,0.5,FALSE)

The two results should agree. Tell me what you find and I will
tell you whether my result agrees with yours.


Wrong formula.

Show us the correct, actual probability formula, not some lame
Excel or Wolfram function.

Write out the actual probability math, child.


Okay. Here it is...

Formula:

P(k,n)=(p^k)*q^(n-k)

Where:
n = number of trials
k = number of successes
n – k = number of failures
p = probability of success in one trial
q = 1 – p = probability of failure in one trial

Now show the probability of achieving 100 heads in 100 tosses.

John S
Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:45 pm   



On 2/1/2019 4:14 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
Quote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32e0a$mrl$9_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 3:23 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32cna$mrl$7_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 3:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32bhq$mrl$6_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:50 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32b2i$mrl$5_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:30 PM,
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q3216a$mrl$3_at_dont-email.me:

And what IS your calculated probability of that outcome,
AlwaysWrong?


Fuck off and die, uncivil, retarded, Usenet troll
fucktard!


Referencing the original statement:

" So 100 tosses could result in 100 events with the same
outcome.

Now, the PROBABILITY of that happening is the
question when one is
examining a set or group of like events. "

So you have no clue about the binomial theorem and how to
use it with either Excel or WolframAlpha to get an answer,
do you? If that is the question, why not impress us with
your genius and give us the answer.

Show us your answer and I'll show you mine.



I was an Excel master decades ago, chump. I still am.
My
workbooks rock.

You are a trivial twerp, at best. And what gets your
gourd is
that I have pegged you correctly.

Oh, and my Wolfram|Alpha is the paid for version, so I
likely have
upped your petty ass there as well. And I also know how to
write the name correctly.

You are likely one of those jerk fucks whom emptied
their car ash
trays at the roadside.


So, what's the solution, Fake?


The very fact that I made the statement shows I know what I
am
talking about.

It shows nothing. Show the probability that 100 tosses of a fair
coin could result in 100 heads (or tails).

"Now, the PROBABILITY of that happening is the question when
one is
examining a set or group of like events. "

The very fact that you deliberately ignored that further
proves
that you are nothing more than a pathetic Usenet PUNK FUCK.


Ignored what? I am asking for the solution in your second
original sentence. It is easy if you know how to use either
Excel or WolframAlpha (WolframAlpha as written on their Web
page). If I tell you the probability, will you be able to find
it yourself?




The probability of even 30 consectutive heads (or tails) results
is 30,000,000 to 1

Go away, little boy.


That is not the solution to your original statement. Let me take
your hand and tell you how to come up with the correct answer.

Enter into WolframAlpha the phrase "probility of getting 100 heads
in 100 coin tosses" without the quotes.

In Excel put the following into any cell:
=BINOMDIST(100,100,0.5,FALSE)

The two results should agree. Tell me what you find and I will
tell you whether my result agrees with yours.


Wrong formula.

Show us the correct, actual probability formula, not some lame
Excel or Wolfram function.

Write out the actual probability math, child.


Okay. Here it is...

Formula:

P(k,n)=(p^k)*q^(n-k)

Where:
n = number of trials
k = number of successes
n – k = number of failures
p = probability of success in one trial
q = 1 – p = probability of failure in one trial

Now show the probability of achieving 100 heads in 100 tosses.


Quote:
The goal is defining the formula to obtain the correct probability
of n number of same result tosses in a row. The number is so low
that considering 100 in a row is ludicrous and your math is likely
orders of magnitude off the mark.

In other words, I think you have probelmes seeing, much less
defining big picture elements of nature. You half assed it, boy.



Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:45 pm   



John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in news:q348gj$mrl$16_at_dont-
email.me:

Quote:
On 2/1/2019 4:14 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32e0a$mrl$9_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 3:23 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32cna$mrl$7_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 3:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32bhq$mrl$6_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:50 PM,
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32b2i$mrl$5_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:30 PM,
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q3216a$mrl$3_at_dont-email.me:

And what IS your calculated probability of that outcome,
AlwaysWrong?


Fuck off and die, uncivil, retarded, Usenet troll
fucktard!


Referencing the original statement:

" So 100 tosses could result in 100 events with the same
outcome.

Now, the PROBABILITY of that happening is the
question when one is
examining a set or group of like events. "

So you have no clue about the binomial theorem and how to
use it with either Excel or WolframAlpha to get an answer,
do you? If that is the question, why not impress us with
your genius and give us the answer.

Show us your answer and I'll show you mine.



I was an Excel master decades ago, chump. I still
am.
My
workbooks rock.

You are a trivial twerp, at best. And what gets your
gourd is
that I have pegged you correctly.

Oh, and my Wolfram|Alpha is the paid for version, so
I
likely have
upped your petty ass there as well. And I also know how to
write the name correctly.

You are likely one of those jerk fucks whom emptied
their car ash
trays at the roadside.


So, what's the solution, Fake?


The very fact that I made the statement shows I know
what I
am
talking about.

It shows nothing. Show the probability that 100 tosses of a
fair
coin could result in 100 heads (or tails).

"Now, the PROBABILITY of that happening is the question when
one is
examining a set or group of like events. "

The very fact that you deliberately ignored that further
proves
that you are nothing more than a pathetic Usenet PUNK FUCK.


Ignored what? I am asking for the solution in your second
original sentence. It is easy if you know how to use either
Excel or WolframAlpha (WolframAlpha as written on their Web
page). If I tell you the probability, will you be able to find
it yourself?




The probability of even 30 consectutive heads (or tails)
results
is 30,000,000 to 1

Go away, little boy.


That is not the solution to your original statement. Let me take
your hand and tell you how to come up with the correct answer.

Enter into WolframAlpha the phrase "probility of getting 100
heads
in 100 coin tosses" without the quotes.

In Excel put the following into any cell:
=BINOMDIST(100,100,0.5,FALSE)

The two results should agree. Tell me what you find and I will
tell you whether my result agrees with yours.


Wrong formula.

Show us the correct, actual probability formula, not some lame
Excel or Wolfram function.

Write out the actual probability math, child.


Okay. Here it is...

Formula:

P(k,n)=(p^k)*q^(n-k)

Where:
n = number of trials
k = number of successes
n – k = number of failures
p = probability of success in one trial
q = 1 – p = probability of failure in one trial

Now show the probability of achieving 100 heads in 100 tosses.


Again you fail to analyze the proper set of events much less
probabilities within same.

The probability for even a single consecutive like toss is:

p=1-(1-1/2^x)^n-x+1.

So you missed that aspect.

So for a single set... one toss followed by another, the simple
odds are 1 in 4 that the second toss will match the first. The
formula gets slightly more complicated when subsequent tosses are
factored in and expected consecutive like results get achieved.
Hard to put it in here.

n=x-1+ln(1-p)/ln(1-1/2^x)

With a hundred flips, you might start seeing 6 or 7 in a row.

10 out of ten or a hundred is ludicrous

100 out of 100 is astronomically ludicrous.

To get 10 consec, like tosses...

10 out of ten AND

10 out of 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, etc. all have the same probability as
no previous toss weighs on any subsequent toss. So the odds of
getting ten in a row are so high that the set size you try to
achieve that in is no different than doing it ten times per set.
Hitting that ten in a row does not matter if you tried to get there
within 10 tosses or a thousand. The odds of achieving a THIAR (Ten
Heads In A Row) within a 1000 toss set is the same as doing 100 ten
sets and the odds are the same there as well. Replace heads with
tails at will and nothing changes and that regardless of some dope's
precious "coin balance" numbers.

You may start to get the picture, if you can get this simple
idiom.


Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:45 pm   



On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 06:31:15 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

Quote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32l6d$mrl$13_at_dont-email.me:

But this still not address your original stupid statement. That
is, the probability that you can observe 100 heads in 100 tosses.
Haven't figured that one out yet, eh genius?


No, dumbfuck. My statement was that 100 like tosses are possible,
and they are. The I stated that IT COMES DOWN TO the probability of
that happening. And that probability is a very small number.


But you can't come up with the number.
Quote:

You are the one that has since made all the stupid statements.


No, AlwaysWrong, you're the master of stupid.

> Grow the fuck up, putz.

You really should try it, Nymbecile.


Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:45 pm   



On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 08:12:54 -0600, John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote:

Quote:
On 2/1/2019 4:14 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32e0a$mrl$9_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 3:23 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32cna$mrl$7_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 3:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32bhq$mrl$6_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:50 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32b2i$mrl$5_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:30 PM,
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q3216a$mrl$3_at_dont-email.me:

And what IS your calculated probability of that outcome,
AlwaysWrong?


Fuck off and die, uncivil, retarded, Usenet troll
fucktard!


Referencing the original statement:

" So 100 tosses could result in 100 events with the same
outcome.

Now, the PROBABILITY of that happening is the
question when one is
examining a set or group of like events. "

So you have no clue about the binomial theorem and how to
use it with either Excel or WolframAlpha to get an answer,
do you? If that is the question, why not impress us with
your genius and give us the answer.

Show us your answer and I'll show you mine.



I was an Excel master decades ago, chump. I still am.
My
workbooks rock.

You are a trivial twerp, at best. And what gets your
gourd is
that I have pegged you correctly.

Oh, and my Wolfram|Alpha is the paid for version, so I
likely have
upped your petty ass there as well. And I also know how to
write the name correctly.

You are likely one of those jerk fucks whom emptied
their car ash
trays at the roadside.


So, what's the solution, Fake?


The very fact that I made the statement shows I know what I
am
talking about.

It shows nothing. Show the probability that 100 tosses of a fair
coin could result in 100 heads (or tails).

"Now, the PROBABILITY of that happening is the question when
one is
examining a set or group of like events. "

The very fact that you deliberately ignored that further
proves
that you are nothing more than a pathetic Usenet PUNK FUCK.


Ignored what? I am asking for the solution in your second
original sentence. It is easy if you know how to use either
Excel or WolframAlpha (WolframAlpha as written on their Web
page). If I tell you the probability, will you be able to find
it yourself?




The probability of even 30 consectutive heads (or tails) results
is 30,000,000 to 1

Go away, little boy.


That is not the solution to your original statement. Let me take
your hand and tell you how to come up with the correct answer.

Enter into WolframAlpha the phrase "probility of getting 100 heads
in 100 coin tosses" without the quotes.

In Excel put the following into any cell:
=BINOMDIST(100,100,0.5,FALSE)

The two results should agree. Tell me what you find and I will
tell you whether my result agrees with yours.


Wrong formula.

Show us the correct, actual probability formula, not some lame
Excel or Wolfram function.

Write out the actual probability math, child.


Okay. Here it is...

Formula:

P(k,n)=(p^k)*q^(n-k)

Where:
n = number of trials
k = number of successes
n k = number of failures
p = probability of success in one trial
q = 1 p = probability of failure in one trial

Now show the probability of achieving 100 heads in 100 tosses.


That's the trivial case of the above: for the simple case of a fair
coin and no funny business: 1/2^100

The probability that the 100 tosses are all the same, it's 1/2^99 (the
first result doesn't matter).


Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:45 pm   



On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 22:19:23 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote:

Quote:
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
krw_at_notreal.com wrote in news:5fh75etplhhaef6kuag3afhm9ftpbj7tia@
4ax.com:

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 02:33:34 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

Pomegranate Bastard <pommyb_at_aol.com> wrote in
news:gjr35e1omch40bcah237v5q61u85p7768q_at_4ax.com:

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:40:13 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

krw_at_notreal.com wrote in
news:1kr45epo9qh3basvfgo4v501utvuo70nvh@
4ax.com:

No, DimBulb, your mother brought out the worst of you. YOU!

YOU? YOU are a piece of shit.

Your mother? YOUR MOTHER should be put in prison, cheap whore
that
it is. Your cheap whore mother should be put in prison for
failing to pull the flush handle, the moment the severly ass
fucked street slut shat you.

There's a strong correlation between a person's intelligence and
the quality of their jokes. Never truer in this case. You are an
imbecile.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus



I perform mechanical and electrical engineering tasks.

You are neither.

I am performing both services. Sorry Krong Rong Wanker. I am
orders of magnitude more productive on my computer than you are on
yours. You cannot even behave like an adult.

Sad too, since IIRC you were once an "IBM Fellow". To stoop to
your level, you likely cleaned their toilets. You certainly do not
have the brains for anything else.

I'll bet that my CAD workstation puts yours to shame.

I would also bet on my doing real engineering work on it. Whereas
all you do with yours is ac like an uncivil asswipe in Usenet.

I would also bet that my machine has more legit, paid for software
on it. Whereas you likely barely get email on yours while you spend
time hunting up heart health behaviors and trolling real adults on
Usenet.

Did anyone mention that a perfectly balanced coin CAN NOT produce a
perfect 50/50 result?
As a wild guess,the result is like 49.99999/49.99999/0.00001.
I will let the student determine what that third choice is; for an
advanced credit, derive an equation to approximately predict the 3rd
probability.


Well, the coin could tunnel through the earth, never to be seen again.


Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:45 pm   



On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 06:58:15 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

Quote:
krw_at_notreal.com wrote in news:be6a5ep2maksppgqit4bjmovq4ibk8qn02@
4ax.com:

I'll bet that my CAD workstation puts yours to shame.

Why would I even have a "CAD workstation"?

Yeah... all you need is a cheap chromebook to troll Usenet with.


No one "needs" any more if one were to "troll <the> Usenet",
AlwaysWrong but any moron could tell that I'm not using a chromebook.
Since you can't...
Quote:

Whereas I actually perform work on my machines.


I can see that you're as hard as you can, here, AlwaysWrong.

Quote:
Only an idiot brags about
a stupid computer,

Only an idiot unable to reply correctly cries about bragging.
And you are the only 'stupid computer' on this bus, child.


You really are a fool, AlwaysWrong.
Quote:

these days. What's the matter, AlwaysWrong.
Feeling a little small? ...down there?

Only an idiot thinks all other men are as concerned with their
penis as they are.

Sorry, punk. You couldn't be farther off the mark.


....and you trip over your own tongue. Again.


Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:45 pm   



On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 06:53:35 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

Quote:
krw_at_notreal.com wrote in
news:be6a5ep2maksppgqit4bjmovq4ibk8qn02_at_4ax.com:

...and this isn't the first time you've admitted that you are
neither, AlwaysWrong.


I made no such statement.


Now you lie, AlwaysWrong. _Every_ time you're pinned down you evade
the issue with weasel words (not that we don't expect anything more
from you).


Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 6:45 pm   



On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 16:31:17 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

Quote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in news:q348gj$mrl$16_at_dont-
email.me:

On 2/1/2019 4:14 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32e0a$mrl$9_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 3:23 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32cna$mrl$7_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 3:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32bhq$mrl$6_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:50 PM,
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32b2i$mrl$5_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:30 PM,
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q3216a$mrl$3_at_dont-email.me:

And what IS your calculated probability of that outcome,
AlwaysWrong?


Fuck off and die, uncivil, retarded, Usenet troll
fucktard!


Referencing the original statement:

" So 100 tosses could result in 100 events with the same
outcome.

Now, the PROBABILITY of that happening is the
question when one is
examining a set or group of like events. "

So you have no clue about the binomial theorem and how to
use it with either Excel or WolframAlpha to get an answer,
do you? If that is the question, why not impress us with
your genius and give us the answer.

Show us your answer and I'll show you mine.



I was an Excel master decades ago, chump. I still
am.
My
workbooks rock.

You are a trivial twerp, at best. And what gets your
gourd is
that I have pegged you correctly.

Oh, and my Wolfram|Alpha is the paid for version, so
I
likely have
upped your petty ass there as well. And I also know how to
write the name correctly.

You are likely one of those jerk fucks whom emptied
their car ash
trays at the roadside.


So, what's the solution, Fake?


The very fact that I made the statement shows I know
what I
am
talking about.

It shows nothing. Show the probability that 100 tosses of a
fair
coin could result in 100 heads (or tails).

"Now, the PROBABILITY of that happening is the question when
one is
examining a set or group of like events. "

The very fact that you deliberately ignored that further
proves
that you are nothing more than a pathetic Usenet PUNK FUCK.


Ignored what? I am asking for the solution in your second
original sentence. It is easy if you know how to use either
Excel or WolframAlpha (WolframAlpha as written on their Web
page). If I tell you the probability, will you be able to find
it yourself?




The probability of even 30 consectutive heads (or tails)
results
is 30,000,000 to 1

Go away, little boy.


That is not the solution to your original statement. Let me take
your hand and tell you how to come up with the correct answer.

Enter into WolframAlpha the phrase "probility of getting 100
heads
in 100 coin tosses" without the quotes.

In Excel put the following into any cell:
=BINOMDIST(100,100,0.5,FALSE)

The two results should agree. Tell me what you find and I will
tell you whether my result agrees with yours.


Wrong formula.

Show us the correct, actual probability formula, not some lame
Excel or Wolfram function.

Write out the actual probability math, child.


Okay. Here it is...

Formula:

P(k,n)=(p^k)*q^(n-k)

Where:
n = number of trials
k = number of successes
n – k = number of failures
p = probability of success in one trial
q = 1 – p = probability of failure in one trial

Now show the probability of achieving 100 heads in 100 tosses.


Again you fail to analyze the proper set of events much less
probabilities within same.

The probability for even a single consecutive like toss is:

p=1-(1-1/2^x)^n-x+1.

So you missed that aspect.

So for a single set... one toss followed by another, the simple
odds are 1 in 4 that the second toss will match the first.


AlwaysWrong. A normal person could be wrong as often as you are, if
they tried!

Quote:
The
formula gets slightly more complicated when subsequent tosses are
factored in and expected consecutive like results get achieved.
Hard to put it in here.


No, it doesn't.
Quote:

n=x-1+ln(1-p)/ln(1-1/2^x)


AlwaysWrong.

Quote:
With a hundred flips, you might start seeing 6 or 7 in a row.

10 out of ten or a hundred is ludicrous

100 out of 100 is astronomically ludicrous.

To get 10 consec, like tosses...

10 out of ten AND

10 out of 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, etc. all have the same probability as
no previous toss weighs on any subsequent toss. So the odds of
getting ten in a row are so high that the set size you try to
achieve that in is no different than doing it ten times per set.
Hitting that ten in a row does not matter if you tried to get there
within 10 tosses or a thousand. The odds of achieving a THIAR (Ten
Heads In A Row) within a 1000 toss set is the same as doing 100 ten
sets and the odds are the same there as well. Replace heads with
tails at will and nothing changes and that regardless of some dope's
precious "coin balance" numbers.

You may start to get the picture, if you can get this simple
idiom.


In other words, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. We
expect that from you, AlwaysWrong.

John S
Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:45 pm   



On 2/2/2019 10:06 AM, krw_at_notreal.com wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 22:19:23 -0800, Robert Baer
robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote:

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
krw_at_notreal.com wrote in news:5fh75etplhhaef6kuag3afhm9ftpbj7tia@
4ax.com:

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 02:33:34 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

Pomegranate Bastard <pommyb_at_aol.com> wrote in
news:gjr35e1omch40bcah237v5q61u85p7768q_at_4ax.com:

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:40:13 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

krw_at_notreal.com wrote in
news:1kr45epo9qh3basvfgo4v501utvuo70nvh@
4ax.com:

No, DimBulb, your mother brought out the worst of you. YOU!

YOU? YOU are a piece of shit.

Your mother? YOUR MOTHER should be put in prison, cheap whore
that
it is. Your cheap whore mother should be put in prison for
failing to pull the flush handle, the moment the severly ass
fucked street slut shat you.

There's a strong correlation between a person's intelligence and
the quality of their jokes. Never truer in this case. You are an
imbecile.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus



I perform mechanical and electrical engineering tasks.

You are neither.

I am performing both services. Sorry Krong Rong Wanker. I am
orders of magnitude more productive on my computer than you are on
yours. You cannot even behave like an adult.

Sad too, since IIRC you were once an "IBM Fellow". To stoop to
your level, you likely cleaned their toilets. You certainly do not
have the brains for anything else.

I'll bet that my CAD workstation puts yours to shame.

I would also bet on my doing real engineering work on it. Whereas
all you do with yours is ac like an uncivil asswipe in Usenet.

I would also bet that my machine has more legit, paid for software
on it. Whereas you likely barely get email on yours while you spend
time hunting up heart health behaviors and trolling real adults on
Usenet.

Did anyone mention that a perfectly balanced coin CAN NOT produce a
perfect 50/50 result?
As a wild guess,the result is like 49.99999/49.99999/0.00001.
I will let the student determine what that third choice is; for an
advanced credit, derive an equation to approximately predict the 3rd
probability.

Well, the coin could tunnel through the earth, never to be seen again.


A perfectly balanced FAIR coin will have no edge on which to balance. So
goes the three possibilities, however remote.

John S
Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:45 pm   



On 2/2/2019 10:11 AM, krw_at_notreal.com wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 08:12:54 -0600, John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote:

On 2/1/2019 4:14 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32e0a$mrl$9_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 3:23 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32cna$mrl$7_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 3:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32bhq$mrl$6_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:50 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32b2i$mrl$5_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:30 PM,
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q3216a$mrl$3_at_dont-email.me:

And what IS your calculated probability of that outcome,
AlwaysWrong?


Fuck off and die, uncivil, retarded, Usenet troll
fucktard!


Referencing the original statement:

" So 100 tosses could result in 100 events with the same
outcome.

Now, the PROBABILITY of that happening is the
question when one is
examining a set or group of like events. "

So you have no clue about the binomial theorem and how to
use it with either Excel or WolframAlpha to get an answer,
do you? If that is the question, why not impress us with
your genius and give us the answer.

Show us your answer and I'll show you mine.



I was an Excel master decades ago, chump. I still am.
My
workbooks rock.

You are a trivial twerp, at best. And what gets your
gourd is
that I have pegged you correctly.

Oh, and my Wolfram|Alpha is the paid for version, so I
likely have
upped your petty ass there as well. And I also know how to
write the name correctly.

You are likely one of those jerk fucks whom emptied
their car ash
trays at the roadside.


So, what's the solution, Fake?


The very fact that I made the statement shows I know what I
am
talking about.

It shows nothing. Show the probability that 100 tosses of a fair
coin could result in 100 heads (or tails).

"Now, the PROBABILITY of that happening is the question when
one is
examining a set or group of like events. "

The very fact that you deliberately ignored that further
proves
that you are nothing more than a pathetic Usenet PUNK FUCK.


Ignored what? I am asking for the solution in your second
original sentence. It is easy if you know how to use either
Excel or WolframAlpha (WolframAlpha as written on their Web
page). If I tell you the probability, will you be able to find
it yourself?




The probability of even 30 consectutive heads (or tails) results
is 30,000,000 to 1

Go away, little boy.


That is not the solution to your original statement. Let me take
your hand and tell you how to come up with the correct answer.

Enter into WolframAlpha the phrase "probility of getting 100 heads
in 100 coin tosses" without the quotes.

In Excel put the following into any cell:
=BINOMDIST(100,100,0.5,FALSE)

The two results should agree. Tell me what you find and I will
tell you whether my result agrees with yours.


Wrong formula.

Show us the correct, actual probability formula, not some lame
Excel or Wolfram function.

Write out the actual probability math, child.


Okay. Here it is...

Formula:

P(k,n)=(p^k)*q^(n-k)

Where:
n = number of trials
k = number of successes
n – k = number of failures
p = probability of success in one trial
q = 1 – p = probability of failure in one trial

Now show the probability of achieving 100 heads in 100 tosses.

That's the trivial case of the above: for the simple case of a fair
coin and no funny business: 1/2^100

The probability that the 100 tosses are all the same, it's 1/2^99 (the
first result doesn't matter).


Close enough! But he wanted the formula. I gave it and he will have no
clue how to use it.

John S
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:45 am   



On 2/2/2019 10:31 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
Quote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in news:q348gj$mrl$16_at_dont-
email.me:

On 2/1/2019 4:14 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32e0a$mrl$9_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 3:23 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32cna$mrl$7_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 3:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32bhq$mrl$6_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:50 PM,
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org
wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32b2i$mrl$5_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:30 PM,
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q3216a$mrl$3_at_dont-email.me:

And what IS your calculated probability of that outcome,
AlwaysWrong?


Fuck off and die, uncivil, retarded, Usenet troll
fucktard!


Referencing the original statement:

" So 100 tosses could result in 100 events with the same
outcome.

Now, the PROBABILITY of that happening is the
question when one is
examining a set or group of like events. "

So you have no clue about the binomial theorem and how to
use it with either Excel or WolframAlpha to get an answer,
do you? If that is the question, why not impress us with
your genius and give us the answer.

Show us your answer and I'll show you mine.



I was an Excel master decades ago, chump. I still
am.
My
workbooks rock.

You are a trivial twerp, at best. And what gets your
gourd is
that I have pegged you correctly.

Oh, and my Wolfram|Alpha is the paid for version, so
I
likely have
upped your petty ass there as well. And I also know how to
write the name correctly.

You are likely one of those jerk fucks whom emptied
their car ash
trays at the roadside.


So, what's the solution, Fake?


The very fact that I made the statement shows I know
what I
am
talking about.

It shows nothing. Show the probability that 100 tosses of a
fair
coin could result in 100 heads (or tails).

"Now, the PROBABILITY of that happening is the question when
one is
examining a set or group of like events. "

The very fact that you deliberately ignored that further
proves
that you are nothing more than a pathetic Usenet PUNK FUCK.


Ignored what? I am asking for the solution in your second
original sentence. It is easy if you know how to use either
Excel or WolframAlpha (WolframAlpha as written on their Web
page). If I tell you the probability, will you be able to find
it yourself?




The probability of even 30 consectutive heads (or tails)
results
is 30,000,000 to 1

Go away, little boy.


That is not the solution to your original statement. Let me take
your hand and tell you how to come up with the correct answer.

Enter into WolframAlpha the phrase "probility of getting 100
heads
in 100 coin tosses" without the quotes.

In Excel put the following into any cell:
=BINOMDIST(100,100,0.5,FALSE)

The two results should agree. Tell me what you find and I will
tell you whether my result agrees with yours.


Wrong formula.

Show us the correct, actual probability formula, not some lame
Excel or Wolfram function.

Write out the actual probability math, child.


Okay. Here it is...

Formula:

P(k,n)=(p^k)*q^(n-k)

Where:
n = number of trials
k = number of successes
n – k = number of failures
p = probability of success in one trial
q = 1 – p = probability of failure in one trial

Now show the probability of achieving 100 heads in 100 tosses.


Again you fail to analyze the proper set of events much less
probabilities within same.

The probability for even a single consecutive like toss is:

p=1-(1-1/2^x)^n-x+1.

So you missed that aspect.

So for a single set... one toss followed by another, the simple
odds are 1 in 4 that the second toss will match the first. The
formula gets slightly more complicated when subsequent tosses are
factored in and expected consecutive like results get achieved.
Hard to put it in here.

n=x-1+ln(1-p)/ln(1-1/2^x)

With a hundred flips, you might start seeing 6 or 7 in a row.

10 out of ten or a hundred is ludicrous

100 out of 100 is astronomically ludicrous.

To get 10 consec, like tosses...

10 out of ten AND

10 out of 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, etc. all have the same probability as
no previous toss weighs on any subsequent toss. So the odds of
getting ten in a row are so high that the set size you try to
achieve that in is no different than doing it ten times per set.
Hitting that ten in a row does not matter if you tried to get there
within 10 tosses or a thousand. The odds of achieving a THIAR (Ten
Heads In A Row) within a 1000 toss set is the same as doing 100 ten
sets and the odds are the same there as well. Replace heads with
tails at will and nothing changes and that regardless of some dope's
precious "coin balance" numbers.

You may start to get the picture, if you can get this simple
idiom.


Hey, DecadentAlwaysWrong - (Decadent is a great definition of you)

Your original assertion of 100 heads/tails out of 100 tosses of a fair
coin probability is 7.8886090522101E-31. That is, nearly infinitesimal.

probability of 10 consecutive heads/tails in 20 tosses: 3/512 (do you
know how to divide? it is .005859)

probability of 10 consecutive heads/tails in 30 tosses: 44991/4191304
(about .01073)

Already your second assertion is wrong, DecadentAlwaysWrong.

Jasen Betts
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:34 am   



On 2019-02-02, John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote:
Quote:
On 2/2/2019 10:06 AM, krw_at_notreal.com wrote:

A perfectly balanced FAIR coin will have no edge on which to balance. So
goes the three possibilities, however remote.


There's always a metastable state between two logic states.

In this case the width of the metastable state depends on the
hardness and roughness of the floor and the sharpness of the coin edge.

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - probability of coin toss

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map