# 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

Jasen Betts
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:45 am

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

Quote:
Write out the actual probability math, child.

Okay. Here it is...

Formula:

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

that's not right

Quote:
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

that formula is wrong:

try P(1,2) with p=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:

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

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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!

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:

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

wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32e0a\$mrl\$9_at_dont-email.me:

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,
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32bhq\$mrl\$6_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:50 PM,
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,
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

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

You are a trivial twerp, at best. And what gets
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

So, what's the solution, Fake?

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

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.

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

Enter into WolframAlpha the phrase "probility of getting 100
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.

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:

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),

Quote:
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?

Your record is still perfect, AlwaysWrong.

Quote:
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!

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),

Quote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q3574q\$ouv\$4_at_dont-email.me:

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

wrote:
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32e0a\$mrl\$9_at_dont-email.me:

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,
John S <Sophi.2_at_invalid.org> wrote in
news:q32bhq\$mrl\$6_at_dont-email.me:

On 2/1/2019 2:50 PM,
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,
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

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

You are a trivial twerp, at best. And what gets
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

So, what's the solution, Fake?

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

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.

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

Enter into WolframAlpha the phrase "probility of getting 100
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.

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:

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.

Robert Baer
Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:45 am

Quote:
Robert Baer <robertbaer_at_localnet.com> wrote in

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

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 02:33:34 +0000 (UTC),

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

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:40:13 +0000 (UTC),

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.

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

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.

Robert Baer
Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:45 am

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

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

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 02:33:34 +0000 (UTC),

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

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:40:13 +0000 (UTC),

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.

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

Quote:
It is YOU that is asleep.

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.

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

Quote:
IDIOT!
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:

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

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

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 02:33:34 +0000 (UTC),

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

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:40:13 +0000 (UTC),

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.

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.

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

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