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

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

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

Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:45 am

On 2019-02-02, John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote:

Write out the actual probability math, child.

Okay. Here it is...

Formula:

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

Okay. Here it is...

Formula:

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

that's not right

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

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

that formula is wrong:

try P(1,2) with p=0.5

the answer should be 0.5

I think you want (p^k)*q^(n-k) * n! / (n-k)! / k!

--

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

Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:44 pm

John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in

news:q35335$ouv$3_at_dont-email.me:

Close enough! But he wanted the formula. I gave it and he will

have no clue how to use it.

have no clue how to use it.

You are the clueless one. Because A: That is NOT "the formula",

due to

B: You are NOT getting all the factors involved at each moment

throughout the 100 toss session.

It does not have to be with coins. Use math rules, idiot.

Two outcomes, and a random generation of the 'chosen' outcome.

The probability of the computer having 100 like outcomes in a row.

Even with a very weak random number generation schema, the odds

are absolutely astronomical.

Having a 100 like result set within a trillion 'tosses' is

astronomical.

It really is that simple. No factor of "coin balance", 'edge

deformation''perfect toss machine'... NONE of that changes

ANYTHING.

Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:45 pm

Jasen Betts <jasen_at_xnet.co.nz> wrote in

news:q35ui3$62p$1_at_gonzo.alcatraz:

On 2019-02-02, John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote:

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.

No, there is NOT. What do you think 'radiation hardening' is for?

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.

No, there is NOT. What do you think 'radiation hardening' is for?

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.

hardness and roughness of the floor and the sharpness of the coin

edge.

NO... It DOES NOT!

You have seriously overthunk it. They should give you a real-

ality TV show. You and Hulk Hogan's son... NOT!

Ever throw a nickel onto the ground and make it bounce right back

up to your hand over four feet away? They bounce very nicely when

thrown in a very precise perpendicular fashion. Slightly off and no

upward bounce.

So even with a nice and squared off nickel, you would still fail

to prove your lame assertion. And no coin design 'bulge' or

imbalance of bulges from the front side to the back side matter

either. WAKE UP. They are the extreme of insignificance in this

situation! NOT a factor! EVER!

Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:45 pm

John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in

news:q3574q$ouv$4_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/2/2019 10:31 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org

wrote:

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 â€“ k = number of failures

p = probability of success in one trial

q = 1 â€“ 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.

wrote:

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 â€“ k = number of failures

p = probability of success in one trial

q = 1 â€“ 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.

Again you fail to grasp the fact that no toss is contingent on

(read influenced by)the outcome of a previous toss or set of tosses.

So you claiming the odds change by simply changing the set size is

ludicrous and proves that you have no true grasp of what is going

on.

Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:45 am

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 12:19:52 +0000 (UTC),

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

Jasen Betts <jasen_at_xnet.co.nz> wrote in

news:q35ui3$62p$1_at_gonzo.alcatraz:

On 2019-02-02, John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote:

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.

No, there is NOT. What do you think 'radiation hardening' is for?

news:q35ui3$62p$1_at_gonzo.alcatraz:

On 2019-02-02, John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote:

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.

No, there is NOT. What do you think 'radiation hardening' is for?

Your record is still perfect, AlwaysWrong.

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.

NO... It DOES NOT!

You have seriously overthunk it. They should give you a real-

ality TV show. You and Hulk Hogan's son... NOT!

Ever throw a nickel onto the ground and make it bounce right back

up to your hand over four feet away? They bounce very nicely when

thrown in a very precise perpendicular fashion. Slightly off and no

upward bounce.

So even with a nice and squared off nickel, you would still fail

to prove your lame assertion. And no coin design 'bulge' or

imbalance of bulges from the front side to the back side matter

either. WAKE UP. They are the extreme of insignificance in this

situation! NOT a factor! EVER!

hardness and roughness of the floor and the sharpness of the coin

edge.

NO... It DOES NOT!

You have seriously overthunk it. They should give you a real-

ality TV show. You and Hulk Hogan's son... NOT!

Ever throw a nickel onto the ground and make it bounce right back

up to your hand over four feet away? They bounce very nicely when

thrown in a very precise perpendicular fashion. Slightly off and no

upward bounce.

So even with a nice and squared off nickel, you would still fail

to prove your lame assertion. And no coin design 'bulge' or

imbalance of bulges from the front side to the back side matter

either. WAKE UP. They are the extreme of insignificance in this

situation! NOT a factor! EVER!

Still is and likely will remain perfect as long as you're on the

planet. Idiot.

Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:45 am

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 11:50:38 +0000 (UTC),

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in

news:q3574q$ouv$4_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/2/2019 10:31 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org

wrote:

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 â€“ k = number of failures

p = probability of success in one trial

q = 1 â€“ 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.

Again you fail to grasp the fact that no toss is contingent on

(read influenced by)the outcome of a previous toss or set of tosses.

So you claiming the odds change by simply changing the set size is

ludicrous and proves that you have no true grasp of what is going

on.

news:q3574q$ouv$4_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/2/2019 10:31 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org

wrote:

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 â€“ k = number of failures

p = probability of success in one trial

q = 1 â€“ 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.

Again you fail to grasp the fact that no toss is contingent on

(read influenced by)the outcome of a previous toss or set of tosses.

So you claiming the odds change by simply changing the set size is

ludicrous and proves that you have no true grasp of what is going

on.

We all understand that you're an idiot, AlwaysWrong but do try to

think a bit.

Still wrong.

Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:45 am

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:

Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote in

news:LDa5E.189859$Fj3.159053_at_fx06.iad:

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?

You really are lost on this balance thing. Coin tosses are

chaotic, so 'balance', and edge condition... NONE of that matters.

WAKE UP!

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.

Dude! The 'balance' of the coin matters NOT!

It is like a billiard break. Even though ALL of the balls are

placed in the EXACT same locations each time (far more exact than

your balanced coin delusion), the rack still breaks up differently

each (and every) time.

Again... W A K E U P !!!

news:LDa5E.189859$Fj3.159053_at_fx06.iad:

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?

You really are lost on this balance thing. Coin tosses are

chaotic, so 'balance', and edge condition... NONE of that matters.

WAKE UP!

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.

Dude! The 'balance' of the coin matters NOT!

It is like a billiard break. Even though ALL of the balls are

placed in the EXACT same locations each time (far more exact than

your balanced coin delusion), the rack still breaks up differently

each (and every) time.

Again... W A K E U P !!!

It is YOU that is asleep.

Never heard of loaded dice?

Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:45 am

krw_at_notreal.com wrote:

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.

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.

IDIOT!

THREE "faces"; heads, tails, and edge.

Nickels seem more prone to land and stay on edge than a penny.

Guest

Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:45 am

Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote in news:LIQ5E.74841

$E44.55538_at_fx28.iad:

It is YOU that is asleep.

Never heard of loaded dice?

Never heard of loaded dice?

A cube is NOT a coin, you dippy asshole. A modified cube is NOT a

cube! Get a fucking clue! A loaded dice is NOT a dice, because it

is a cheat. THAT is NOT a dice, but a con artists tool. Can you

really be tyhat fucking clueless?

And this is about PROPER elements to analyze, not some lame fuck

with a modified device claiming to throw the numbers.

Those and your fucked in the head mindset about this is about as

stupid as it gets.

A coin... a proper, unmodified coin... NO predictability.

PERIOD! It is that simple.

ALL of your pathetic nit picks step outside the parameters of the

test.

Guest

Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:45 am

Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote in news:_KQ5E.74842

$E44.28835_at_fx28.iad:

IDIOT!

THREE "faces"; heads, tails, and edge.

Nickels seem more prone to land and stay on edge than a penny.

THREE "faces"; heads, tails, and edge.

Nickels seem more prone to land and stay on edge than a penny.

No, they do not. They BOUNCE straight. That is about it. Landing

on and staying on the edge? VERY low likelyhood. Likely less than one

in a million. Likely orders of magnitude less than that even.

Guest

Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:45 am

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 22:14:19 -0800, Robert Baer

<robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote:

krw_at_notreal.com wrote:

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.

IDIOT!

THREE "faces"; heads, tails, and edge.

Nickels seem more prone to land and stay on edge than a penny.

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.

IDIOT!

THREE "faces"; heads, tails, and edge.

Nickels seem more prone to land and stay on edge than a penny.

Four. There is a finite probability that it will tunnel. Of course

it will end up somewhere but you may not know where it went to. Sorta

like socks in the dryer.

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