/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13586039

1MiB, 1080x1792, Screenshot_20210703-123340_Chrome.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Can /sci/ solve a probability problem or is it all /pol/ schizos at this point?

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 16:03:31 2021 No.13586039 View Reply Original Report

Let's take a break from the anti-vax shitposts and do some math. Don't forget to show your work.

Vote for the answer here: https://www.strawpoll.me/45621524

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 16:06:06 No.13586048 Report

Quoted By: >>13587285

>>13586039
Zero, they were both male frogs because the frogs have been turned gay.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 16:07:57 No.13586058 Report

Quoted By:

impliggin i dont just accept my fate and snuff it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 16:11:59 No.13586078 Report

Quoted By: >>13586250

>>13586039

does the croak come from either of the two frogs you see or somewhere else?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 16:13:18 No.13586087 Report

Quoted By: >>13586113 >>13586295 >>13589221 >>13589268

Possible frog configurations

M F
F F
M M

F F can be eliminated (assuming this isn't a "haha gotcha what if the croak came from somewhere else!" thing,) so you have:
50% M M (die)
50% M F (live)

So basically, 50%, either you live or you don't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 16:15:18 No.13586098 Report

Quoted By: >>13586393

>>13586039
This is a silly question since for one-time events probability doesn't make sense. The only way to make it rigorous is to make a computer simulation utilizing some pseudo random number generator and formulating a question about the ratios.
In this situation there are lots of options for such simulations, which are not distinguished by the problem statement. For example, we can have two frogs each time, A,B, and assign each one with probability 1/2 to be male/female, and make the males always croak. You could also count the croaks. Then on the condition that only one croak has been heard, that always means that one of them is female so the ratio will be 1. Or you can ignore the number of croaks and simple count the croak. Then conditional on a croak heard, if the males always croak you have three equally possible options MM, FM, MF so the ratio will be about 2/3.
Without knowing about the particularities of croaking, you can simply interpret croaking as a sign that one of them is a male. You know the options are MM, FM, MF, and with given information these are equally likely. Then the probability will be 2/3.
So my answer is that this question is ill-formed, but if I were forced to give a number, I'd say 2/3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 16:16:24 No.13586106 Report

Quoted By: >>13586504 >>13590661

>>13586039
>only males croak
>you hear a croak
>OP's question in the poll: What is your chance the pair contains a male?
>1 is not an answer

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 16:17:38 No.13586113 Report

Quoted By: >>13586631

>>13586087
What are these configurations of? What exactly do you mean by
M F? Is it different from
F M?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 16:45:33 No.13586250 Report

Quoted By: >>13586965

>>13586078
The two frogs you see.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 16:54:39 No.13586295 Report

Quoted By: >>13586391 >>13586394 >>13590538 >>13594387

>>13586087
>50% M M (die)
>50% M F (live)
So two males are as likely to produce a single croak as one male only?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:06:09 No.13586342 Report

Quoted By: >>13586366 >>13586398

>>13586039
Assuming the croak didn't come from a different source and only the two frogs, the chance of survival is 2/3 or 66.66% since you lick both frogs.
>Case 1: M F
100% chance of survival
>Case 2: F F
100% chance of survival
>Case 3: M M
0% chance of survival
So out of the three possible cases, you will survive 2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:10:39 No.13586366 Report

Quoted By: >>13586398

>>13586342
I forgot that only males can croak.
So looking at the cases, you would not hear case 2 since both frogs are female. So chance of survival is 1/3 since only one case has both the male frog which can croak, and the female frog which can cure the venom.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:15:38 No.13586391 Report

Quoted By: >>13586426

>>13586295
We have to assume so, since the distribution is unknown. Otherwise, it's impossible to get a definite answer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:16:02 No.13586393 Report

Quoted By: >>13586408 >>13586457

>>13586098
>This is a silly question since for one-time events probability doesn't make sense
It makes perfect sense, it's a measure of how much information you have about the sexes of the pair of frogs.

>The only way to make it rigorous is to make a computer simulation utilizing some pseudo random number generator and formulating a question about the ratios.
Computer simulations are the opposite of rigorous. Try using math.

>Without knowing about the particularities of croaking, you can simply interpret croaking as a sign that one of them is a male.
Or you can treat the probability of croaking as a variable. It's not hard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:16:07 No.13586394 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586295
We can't know. Heck, it might even be that when two males get together the chance of either or both of them croaking is less than if they were alone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:16:54 No.13586398 Report

Quoted By: >>13586439 >>13586547

>>13586039
Strawpoll answer is 100%
Since you can't hear the female, and you heard a croak, only two pairs are possible, Male frog and Female frog and male frog and Male frog. So, 100% of the pairs you get will have male frogs.
>>13586366
>>13586342
Not quite.
If females can't croak, case 2 is eliminated because it is not possible. So the chance of survival is 50%

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:18:27 No.13586408 Report

Quoted By: >>13586481

>>13586393
>Computer simulations are the opposite of rigorous. Try using math.
Monte Carlos have been written for this problem, which also matched analytic solution. For the record, the whole thread is incorrect right now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:20:05 No.13586416 Report

Quoted By:

Since OP drank whatever it is that turns the frogs gay, I've got another strawpoll

https://www.strawpoll.me/45621725

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:22:09 No.13586426 Report

Quoted By: >>13586434

>>13586391
>We have to assume so, since the distribution is unknown.
Doesn't follow. And that assumption doesn't help you anyway since it means the probability of a male croaking is 0. But that would mean the probability of survival is undefined since it's conditioned on an event with probability 0.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:23:35 No.13586434 Report

Quoted By: >>13586470

>>13586426
I think the probabilities I'm observing in this thread are converging upon certainty that you are stupid

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:25:54 No.13586439 Report

Quoted By: >>13586490 >>13586539 >>13586614 >>13586653 >>13586666 >>13586855

>>13586398
>So the chance of survival is 50%
Wrong.
MM
FM
MF
are three equally likely possibilities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:29:39 No.13586457 Report

Quoted By: >>13586530

>>13586393
>It makes perfect sense, it's a measure of how much information you have about the sexes of the pair of frogs.
The point is that it's not a mathematical question. It asks you to idealize the situation (since that's a prerequisite for probability to even make sense) and there are many possible ways to idealize it, all compatible with the problem statement.
>it's a measure of how much information you have about the sexes of the pair of frogs
In what way?
>Computer simulations are the opposite of rigorous
No. Once you write a computer simulation, you make the question precise since you're forced to idealize it and remove it from its real world context. Once such an idealization is done, the answer can be made precise.
>Try using math.
That is math.
>Or you can treat the probability of croaking as a variable
But then there isn't a single numerical answer, and my point about the question being underdefined is correct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:32:42 No.13586470 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586434
Not an argument, try again. Please explain how two males and one male can have the same probability of producing a single croak. If the probability of a male remaining silent is x, then the probability of two males croaking once is x times the probability of one male croaking once. So the only way they can be equal is if males are almost always silent.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:36:39 No.13586481 Report

Quoted By: >>13586491

>>13586408
>Monte Carlos have been written for this problem, which also matched analytic solution
If you have the analytic solution, why do you even need a simulation? A simulation is just an expression of your interpretation of the problem. This is a very simple problem (maybe not as simple as the average poster on /sci/ though).

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:39:34 No.13586490 Report

Quoted By: >>13586593 >>13586609 >>13586622 >>13586842

>>13586439
>are three equally likely possibilities.
They are equally likely when you have no information about the frogs. Since croaking/not croaking is correlated with the frogs' sex, this is no longer true. For example, do you think two males are as likely to croak as only one male?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:39:42 No.13586491 Report

Quoted By: >>13586585

>>13586481
What's your answer?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:42:45 No.13586504 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586106
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:47:55 No.13586530 Report

Quoted By: >>13586566

>>13586457
>The point is that it's not a mathematical question
It is nothing but a mathematical question.

>It asks you to idealize the situation
Sounds very mathematical to me.

>and there are many possible ways to idealize it, all compatible with the problem statement.
There is really only one rational way to interpret the question. You're talking about what assumptions you can add to the problem, not how you can solve it as written.

>In what way?
In that the closer the probability is to 0, the more information you have indicating that the pair does not contain a female, abs the closer it is to 1, the more information you have indicating the pair contains a female. For more, I suggest you read a textbook on Bayesian probability theory.

>Once you write a computer simulation, you make the question precise since you're forced to idealize it and remove it from its real world context.
Making it precise is not the same as rigor. You can make up whatever assumptions you want to make the answer precisely whatever you want. A rigorous approach would be to answer the question as asked, even if it doesn't have a precise answer. In other words, to distill all the information in the problem into a parsimonious mathematical statement.

>That is math.
No, it's a simulation. It's not even precise.

>But then there isn't a single numerical answer, and my point about the question being underdefined is correct.
Yes, and?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:48:02 No.13586532 Report

Quoted By: >>13586593

>>13586039
The possibilities are MF, FM or MM. All of them are equally likely. MF or FM means you survive, so that's 2/3. Case closed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:49:52 No.13586539 Report

Quoted By: >>13586568

>>13586439
You're confused on the labeling of the cases.
The cases should be renamed to
>2 males
>2 females
>1 male 1 female
This way, both FM and MF fall under case three, since order of the frogs' sex does not matter.
So only two cases are possible, 1 male with 1 female, and 2 males. And since males do not have the cure, the probability of survival is 50%

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:51:58 No.13586547 Report

Quoted By: >>13586609

>>13586398
>If females can't croak, case 2 is eliminated because it is not possible. So the chance of survival is 50%
Only one out of four cases is eliminated, and the other three are equally likely.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:57:21 No.13586566 Report

Quoted By: >>13586753

>>13586530
>It is nothing but a mathematical question.
No it's not, since mathematical questions are unambiguous and only have one answer. Mathematical questions have an unambiguous formalization in ZFC (up to logical equivalence) but the whole formalization here is the biggest part of the problem.
>Sounds very mathematical to me.
It only becomes mathematical once it's idealized. "How far will John go tomorrow" is not a mathematical question. There might be a way to idealize the situation by providing enough details and specifics about the way he travels, his speed etc., then the question becomes mathematical. It's not before that.
The concept of probability is notoriously flaky and imprecise. You will get very different answers depending on your assumptions and idealizations. "What is the probability that tomorrow it will rain?" is not a mathematical question, even though it uses the word probability and seems to be about the state of affairs in the world.
>There is really only one rational way to interpret the question
I'm not talking about interpreting the question but about idealizing it so that it becomes a mathematical question. The best way to do it is to write a computer simulation since then you make you assumptions and idealization very clear. I'm not talking about running it, just writing the code.
>In that the closer the probability is to 0, the more information you have indicating that the pair does not contain a female, abs the closer it is to 1
Probability, information are not mathematical notions in this context, but rather vague buzzwords. "more information" is does not have a mathematical meaning.
>A rigorous approach would be to answer the question as asked, even if it doesn't have a precise answer. In other words, to distill all the information in the problem into a parsimonious mathematical statement.
Which is? What's your answer?
>No, it's a simulation. It's not even precise.
I just explained how it's precise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 17:58:22 No.13586568 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586539
>The cases should be renamed to
>>2 males
>>2 females
>>1 male 1 female
You can rename them however you like but with your labelling the three options are not equally likely. 1 male 1 female is more likely since there are more equally ways you could have 1 male 1 female than the other options.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:02:59 No.13586585 Report

Quoted By: >>13586604 >>13587954

>>13586491
1/(1+x)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:03:04 No.13586587 Report

Quoted By: >>13586592

>>13586039
50/50, half the combinations contain female. Assuming they have a 50% chance of actually being together. Since such probabilities have been omitted, I have to assume such is the case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:04:05 No.13586592 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586587
Oh, apparently only males can croak. It's still 50/50.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:04:05 No.13586593 Report

Quoted By: >>13586599

>>13586532
See >>13586490

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:05:21 No.13586599 Report

Quoted By: >>13586931

>>13586593
Are you fucking stupid? The remaining three options are still equally likely. How could they not be?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:06:20 No.13586604 Report

Quoted By: >>13586757

>>13586585
My answer is 1+y/3+xyz

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:06:52 No.13586609 Report

Quoted By: >>13586612

>>13586547
>the other three are equally likely.
See >>13586490

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:08:06 No.13586612 Report

Quoted By: >>13586778

>>13586609
You still haven't explained how ruling out one possibility alters the likelihood of the others, and that's because it doesn't and you're a brainlet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:08:12 No.13586614 Report

Quoted By: >>13586630

>>13586439
What are you talking about? You lick BOTH.
One of them is for certain a male.

The only one that matters is the 2nd frog, which can be either male or female. There's only 2 options.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:10:41 No.13586622 Report

Quoted By: >>13586823

>>13586490
>For example, do you think two males are as likely to croak as only one male?
They could croak once a year for all we know. This probability is moot. As long as you did not hear two croaks none of this matters. This all is elapsed over a short period of time as well.

The time between croaks could be infinite, or it could be infinitely small. It's 50/50, and it's undeterminable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:13:01 No.13586630 Report

Quoted By: >>13586641

>>13586614
>The only one that matters is the 2nd frog, which can be either male or female. There's only 2 options.
Just how retarded are you? You can only rule out one possibility out of four, leaving you with three.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:13:08 No.13586631 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586113
they're not different, because you're licking both frogs anyways, it doesn't matter if the order is F M or M F

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:14:45 No.13586641 Report

Quoted By: >>13586645

>>13586630
One frog is determined to be male. What we wonder is if the other frog is male or female. There's only 2 options.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:15:47 No.13586645 Report

Quoted By: >>13586689

>>13586641
>One frog is determined to be male.
Which rules out the FF possibility, and leaves you with FM, MF or MM.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:17:03 No.13586653 Report

Quoted By: >>13586666 >>13586842

>>13586439
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:19:32 No.13586663 Report

Quoted By: >>13587096

Thank you for your submission, OP, however your contribution is neither significant nor novel. The fundamental problems are beyond revision. Please do consult Hall (1963).

Making it about frogs was a nice touch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:20:05 No.13586666 Report

Quoted By: >>13586680 >>13587100

>>13586439
>>13586653
Think of it this way. You got two frogs, let's call the one on the left A and the one on the right B.
There are two cases. Either A croaked or B croaked. Suppose A croaked. Then A is male. Now B is either male or female, and both are equally likely. Therefore the probability is 1/2. Now suppose it was the frog B that croaked. Then we know B is male. And A is either male or female, with probability 1/2. In any case, the probability that one of them is female is 1/2, so in total the probability is 1/2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:22:41 No.13586680 Report

Quoted By: >>13586695 >>13586698

>>13586666
>There are two cases
You can think of it in terms of two cases, but the case for having one female is twice as likely as the case for having two males. It's 2/3 and it's not up for debate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:23:19 No.13586689 Report

Quoted By: >>13586696

>>13586645
MF and FM are the same thing. Are you expecting the female to have made the croak, and the male frog being quiet?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:24:20 No.13586695 Report

Quoted By: >>13586700

>>13586680
Don't troll like this please.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:24:21 No.13586696 Report

Quoted By: >>13586707

>>13586689
>MF and FM are the same thing
When you conflate them into one, you double the probability of that case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:24:41 No.13586698 Report

Quoted By: >>13586705

>>13586680
>You can think of it in terms of two cases, but the case for having one female is twice as likely as the case for having two males.
Wrong. I just explained how it's not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:25:38 No.13586700 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586695
No, you're simply too low-IQ for basic statistics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:26:39 No.13586705 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586698
You can't "explain" away objective and irrefutable reality. You can either crawl back to /pol/ or ask me nicely to dumb it down even further for you so that you could understand why you're wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:26:55 No.13586707 Report

Quoted By: >>13586748 >>13586766

>>13586696
The fact is that you got one frog which croaked, call it A, and the frog that didn't, call it B.
Since only males croak, A can only be M. Thus
FM is not an option, only MF. The only options are
MM (A=M and B=F) and
MF (A=M and B=F)
and they are both equally likely, since the frog that didn't croak is equally likely to be male as female. Thus the probability is 1/2.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Finished1stage.jpg, 253KiB, 1561x1195

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:27:28 No.13586710 Report

Quoted By: >>13586712 >>13586893

>>13586039
How many times are you gonna post this shit? There can't possibly be a user of this forum who hasn't seen it ten times already. Why can't you make a new problem? Why is your head stuck in this shit for years on end?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:28:06 No.13586712 Report

Quoted By: >>13586742

>>13586710
What's your answer?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:33:48 No.13586742 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586712
Idgaf, just like the fifty previous times when I've seen this posted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:34:17 No.13586745 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586039
Those frogs are the same size so I'll just consider myself fucked.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:35:19 No.13586748 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586707
Either "A croaked" accounts for one possibility, while "B croaked" accounts for two, or vise versa.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:36:30 No.13586753 Report

Quoted By: >>13586773 >>13587954

>>13586566
>No it's not, since mathematical questions are unambiguous and only have one answer.
LOL. There is nothing ambiguous about the problem and you must not have gotten past elementary school math if you think all math problems have one answer.

Solve x^2 = 1 for x

>"How far will John go tomorrow" is not a mathematical question.
>What is the probability that tomorrow it will rain?" is not a mathematical question
And how are these questions like the one in the OP?

>The concept of probability is notoriously flaky and imprecise.
Hardly. It's a precise mathematical field.

>I'm not talking about interpreting the question but about idealizing it so that it becomes a mathematical question.
What's the difference?

>The best way to do it is to write a computer simulation since then you make you assumptions and idealization very clear.
No, that would be what a rigorous analytic solution does. You can just write code without explaining anything. That is in fact what most people do when answering this question with a simulation and they often do it incorrectly.

>Probability, information are not mathematical notions in this context, but rather vague buzzwords.
It must seem that way to someone ignorant of basic probability theory. If you actually understood the context, you would know precisely what the words refer to.

>Which is? What's your answer?
1/(1+x)

Now you will probably complain that I haven't told you what x is, but I think it would be fun for you to figure it out yourself.

>I just explained how it's precise.
No, you didn't. A simulation of this problem wouldn't even give a precise answer, just an approximation based on curve fitting approximate values. Why you would call this precise or rigorous is a mystery to me, especially when the analytic solution would take you a fraction of the time spent coding.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:37:36 No.13586757 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586604
Wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:40:36 No.13586766 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586707
"A croaked" accounts for two possibilities out of three (A is male B is female, A is male and B is male).
"B croaked" accounts for two possibilities out of three (B is male A is female, B is male and A is male).

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:41:35 No.13586773 Report

Quoted By: >>13586854

>>13586753
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was speaking to a retard. Have a nice day.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:42:54 No.13586778 Report

Quoted By: >>13586786

>>13586612
>You still haven't explained how ruling out one possibility alters the likelihood of the others
I don't see why I would need to explain this since I never actually stated it, but OK, if you insist. The probabilities of all outcomes have to sum to 1. So if the probability of an outcome decreases to 0, this means the probabilities of other outcomes must increase to make up for it. If the condition that led to the decrease doesn't favor any of the remaining outcomes, then the probabilities of each increases proportionally. This is called the principle of proportionality and makes many conditional probability problems easy to solve. However, What most have overlooked is that hearing a croak does not equally favor the outcomes of two males and one male, because two males are more likely to produce a croak than one male.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:45:31 No.13586786 Report

Quoted By: >>13586844

>>13586778
I confused you for another poster. Either way, if you know nothing about the croacking frequency of the frogs, any possibility is as likely as any other, so it's not a relevant piece of data.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:46:15 No.13586791 Report

Quoted By: >>13586817

The equally likely possibilities are
MC, M
M, MC
MC, F
F, MC
(M = male, not croaking; MC= male croaking; F= female)
Therefore the probability is 1/2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:50:23 No.13586817 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586791
You are a confirmed clinical retard. Your possibilities are not all equally likely.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:51:10 No.13586823 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586622
>They could croak once a year for all we know.
OK, that still doesn't mean two males are as likely to croak as one male.

>This probability is moot.
How can it be moot when the answer depends on it?

>The time between croaks could be infinite, or it could be infinitely small.
And that's trivial to model, instead of assuming it's a certain value when the question explicitly tells you that you don't know. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:53:49 No.13586842 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586653
See >>13586490

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:55:00 No.13586844 Report

Quoted By: >>13586852

>>13586786
>Either way, if you know nothing about the croacking frequency of the frogs, any possibility is as likely as any other, so it's not a relevant piece of data.
Doesn't follow. It's highly relevant, but unknown. So why not treat it as a variable?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:56:28 No.13586852 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586844
For any value you pick to sway the odds in one direction, I can pick one to sway them equally in the other direction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:56:58 No.13586854 Report

Quoted By: >>13586863

>>13586773
Sounds like you got BTFO abs have no response.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:57:02 No.13586855 Report

Quoted By: >>13586861 >>13587391

>>13586439
if you're going to call M/F and F/M separate possibilities then M/M and M/M have to count as well. order matters, right? and if order matters then the first and second male frogs are different entities.

M1/M
F/M
M/F
and...
M/M1

so it's 50% either way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:57:43 No.13586861 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586855
Your possibilities are not equally likely, retard. Wrap your head around it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 18:58:07 No.13586863 Report

Quoted By: >>13587140

>>13586854
I'm done wasting my time with you. You're clinically retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:03:43 No.13586893 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586710
Apparently not enough have seen it since no one has even memorized the answer. Cry more.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:04:02 No.13586895 Report

Quoted By: >>13586908 >>13586917 >>13587168

>>13586039
Impossible to answer without knowing the distribution of the frog croaks.
t. graduate degree in ML
also asked two of my friends who are research scientists in math-heavy fields. same answer

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:06:04 No.13586908 Report

Quoted By: >>13586939 >>13586946 >>13586967 >>13587189

>>13586895
>Impossible to answer without knowing the distribution of the frog croaks.
If any distribution is as likely as any other, the distribution doesn't matter, because for any distribution you pick to make the probability lower by a certain amount, I can pick one to make the probability higher by the same amount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:08:39 No.13586917 Report

Quoted By: >>13586946

>>13586895
That's like answering the question of what's the probability of getting heads 5 times if you flip a coin, that it's impossible to answer without knowing how the coin flies, and the distribution of the angles of the coin when it first hits the table.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:11:50 No.13586931 Report

Quoted By: >>13586939

>>13586599
Because two males are not equally likely to produce a croak as one male.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:13:03 No.13586939 Report

Quoted By: >>13587189

>>13586931
>this stupid shit again
See >>13586908

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:14:14 No.13586946 Report

Quoted By: >>13586957 >>13586961

>>13586908
False - there is a finite smallest unit of time, but there is no infinitely high unit of time
>>13586917
Not the same lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:16:14 No.13586955 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586039
0%
Everyone dies eventually, anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:16:48 No.13586957 Report

Quoted By: >>13586968 >>13586976

>>13586946
>there is a finite smallest unit of time
Not as far as math is concerned.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:17:21 No.13586961 Report

Quoted By: >>13586976

>>13586946
It is the same. Without knowing the surface details, or vector probabilities it's impossible to know. And even if all that is known, it'd be near impossible to calculate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:17:54 No.13586965 Report

Quoted By: >>13586971 >>13587202

>>13586250

I'd say 50/50 then. If you only hear one croak from one frog then the other one could be either sex.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:18:25 No.13586967 Report

Quoted By: >>13586975 >>13586977

>>13586908
in a practical sense there would be a ground truth to how often these frogs croak. your guess and my guess on what it is cannot both be correct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:18:32 No.13586968 Report

Quoted By: >>13586976

>>13586957
Anon is just retareded, I think he meant to say that the infinity on the bigger side is larger than on the smaller side.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:19:10 No.13586971 Report

Quoted By: >>13587413

>>13586965
>If you only hear one croak from one frog then the other one could be either sex.
Except the case where one of the frogs is female is twice as likely as the case where both are male, so it's still 2/3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:20:29 No.13586975 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586967
>your guess and my guess on what it is cannot both be correct.
Yes, but we don't know where in the space of possibilities we stand, and your guess is no better than mine. The overall probability would be an aggregate of every option.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:20:30 No.13586976 Report

Quoted By: >>13586983

>>13586968
>>13586957
>>13586961
Probability doesn't work with arbitrary numbers in this case, only POSSIBLE UNITS OF TIME. There is a physical smallest unit of time, so that is the limit of the SAMPLE SPACE.
Even ignoring that, the infinity between now and the end of time is larger than the infinity between now and when you noticed the frog.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:20:46 No.13586977 Report

Quoted By: >>13587210 >>13587226

>>13586967
By mean, the chance for these frogs to croak is 1/infinity.
The factors are omitted, and the text says that it's unpredictable. We can assume that the author means that there's no more croaking and we can't deduce anything from the croaking, and the decision to lick them is done within a small enough timeframe that the probability of croaking does not matter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:22:18 No.13586983 Report

Quoted By: >>13586995

>>13586976
>There is a physical smallest unit of time
Questionable and irrelevant in a mathematical context.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:22:27 No.13586985 Report

Quoted By:

The question in OP's poll is about what the odds of a male frog being present are. Since a croak was heard, it is 100%. OP's either retarded or trying to see what percentage of people actually read the question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:24:31 No.13586995 Report

Quoted By: >>13587005

>>13586983
I know what you think you're saying, and it's a few levels between being stupid, but a little more thinking and you'd realize that a thing called "sample space' exists.
For example, if I have a bell that only rings at exactly even seconds, and guaranteed to ring every 10 seconds, and it's been 8 seconds and it hasn't rung, you wouldn't say some dumb shit like "there is infinite time between 8 and 10 seconds"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:27:13 No.13587005 Report

Quoted By: >>13587012

>>13586995
I'm saying that for any arbitrary time interval and croak frequency you pick, I can pick a different value to cancel you out within the same interval, but you're apparently too fucking dumb to even participate in the discussion if you think physical limits are in any way relevant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:29:06 No.13587012 Report

Quoted By: >>13587023 >>13587229 >>13590763 >>13592048

>>13587005
No you can not. There are more numbers between any arbitrary numbers and infinity than from 0 to that number.
I'm sure I'm right. I don't think I got a 3.9 at a grad degree at Harvard GSAS being wrong on freshman level questions. I'll post my student ID if you admit you're wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:30:55 No.13587023 Report

Quoted By: >>13587043

>>13587012
>. I don't think I got a 3.9 at a grad degree at Harvard GSAS being wrong on freshman level questions.
I don't think you finished highschool, but alright. You were literally sperging off about "physical time limits" a moment ago. Anyway, time to ignore your retarded posts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:32:37 No.13587031 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586039
we had this thread a few days ago

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO harvard_id.jpg, 42KiB, 984x591

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:36:00 No.13587043 Report

Quoted By: >>13587151 >>13587281 >>13590768 >>13590800

>>13587023
I made over 450k this last year working at a quant firm doing ML. let me tell you something: they don't give you money to have fun, they give you money to be right. if you're wrong and lose them money, you get fired.
also I know my ID is dirty, I haven't pulled it out in years from the bottom of my drawer

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:36:24 No.13587046 Report

Quoted By:

PhD in probability here. The answer is 1/2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:40:06 No.13587068 Report

Quoted By:

PhD in probability and applied philosophy here. The answer is 1/4.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:44:07 No.13587096 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586663
Don't worry, see Hetterich (2017)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:45:08 No.13587100 Report

Quoted By: >>13587106

>>13586666
>Now B is either male or female, and both are equally likely.
No, a frog that didn't croak is more likely to be female.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:46:19 No.13587106 Report

Quoted By: >>13587344

>>13587100
You don't know this without knowing the distribution. If the male frog croaks on average every 1000000000 years, you get little to no information

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:52:09 No.13587140 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586863
It's weird how you're only done with him after you got BTFO.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:53:19 No.13587146 Report

Quoted By: >>13587279 >>13587358

>>13586039
>Assuming the croaking we heard came from either of these frogs, 25%, if we don’t assume this certainty 50%.

We know for a fact one of the frog is a male, it’s croaking gave that away.

Only female frogs carry the remedy.

So already our chance of survival is at most 50%

However, since frog’s croaks are random we aren’t able to determine if the second frog is for sure female/male

This would make the likelihood of that frog being female 50%. Which would halve our survival chance from 50% to 25%.

But wait how do we know for certain that the croaking we heard can from either of those frogs?

If we didn’t know for certain our odds would increase back to 50%

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:54:08 No.13587151 Report

Quoted By: >>13587165

>>13587043
funny how when I post accomplishments related to math on /sci/, post body on /fit/, or post portfolio gains to people giving advice on /biz/, people suddenly run out of arguments

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:56:40 No.13587165 Report

Quoted By: >>13587172

>>13587151
looks like he was already done with you before that. now go give your daddy back his card

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:57:31 No.13587168 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586895
True, but you can still give an expression for it. I'll give you 1/4 credit side you didn't even try.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:58:54 No.13587172 Report

Quoted By: >>13587180

>>13587165
Grad school is free, dumbass. Nice way to out yourself as having 0 experience with higher ed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 19:59:59 No.13587180 Report

Quoted By: >>13587224

>>13587172
i mean his harvard id

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:02:01 No.13587189 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586908
>>13586939
>If any distribution is as likely as any other, the distribution doesn't matter
That doesn't logically follow. 1/(1+x) depends on x even if x can be any value between 0 and 1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:04:24 No.13587202 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586965
It could be either sex, but is a silent frog equally likely to be male or female?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:05:57 No.13587210 Report

Quoted By: >>13587224 >>13587232

>>13586977
>By mean, the chance for these frogs to croak is 1/infinity.
How so?

If that is the case then the answer is undefined.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:09:38 No.13587224 Report

Quoted By: >>13587236 >>13587380

>>13587210
It is undefined. Unless you know the distribution. You could also guess a distribution by using a Dirichlet distribution, which is a distribution of distributions.
>>13587180
no, he left after i mentioned harvard in the first place. not just talking about the ID.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:10:54 No.13587226 Report

Quoted By: >>13587237

>>13586977
>We can assume that the author means that there's no more croaking and we can't deduce anything from the croaking, and the decision to lick them is done within a small enough timeframe that the probability of croaking does not matter.
No.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:11:12 No.13587229 Report

Quoted By: >>13587245

>>13587012
>There are more numbers between any arbitrary numbers and infinity than from 0 to that number.

Are you claiming that for an arbitrary number, x, there are “more numbers” between x and infinity, [x, infinity], then there are between 0 and x, [0, x]?

If so, how are you defining “more numbers”?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:11:42 No.13587232 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587210
The point is that the croaking doesn't matter. How autistic are you guys?
The croaking doesn't matter beyond identifying one male. Can you not read the text and understand that's what the author is telling you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:13:25 No.13587236 Report

Quoted By: >>13587257

>>13587224
>no, he left after i mentioned harvard in the first place
I left after you implied that the set of all reals in an interval, has a different cardinality cardinality from the set of all reals, you stupid fuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:13:30 No.13587237 Report

Quoted By: >>13587387

>>13587226
Yes we can. Otherwise the question wouldn't be asked.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:14:56 No.13587245 Report

Quoted By: >>13587253 >>13587395

>>13587229
yes
real numbers

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:16:31 No.13587253 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587245
Another imbecile. There cardinality of the set of all reals in an interval is the same as the set of all reals. This Harvard dropout doesn't know what he';s talking about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:16:58 No.13587257 Report

Quoted By: >>13587264

>>13587236
Hey buddy, why don't you show us some proof of what your "intelligence" has achieved in the real world?
george cantor proved years ago that sets of infinity are bigger than other sets. are you one of the retards who argues that dumb 0.9999=1 shit in here instead of doing something in real life?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:18:03 No.13587264 Report

Quoted By: >>13587274

>>13587257
>george cantor proved years ago that sets of infinity are bigger than other sets.
Yes, you utter imbecile, but the cardinality of the two sets you happen to be comparing is, in fact, the same.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:20:42 No.13587274 Report

Quoted By: >>13587288

>>13587264
You can have a bijection between them if that's your only care about cardinality, but in terms of SAMPLE SPACE (LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN, SAMPLE SPACE) there is no equality.
what have you achieved?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:20:45 No.13587275 Report

Quoted By: >>13587298 >>13587407

>>13586039
First, without the problem, it should be clear that well over 90% of /sci/ is /pol/ schizos at this point. If they are not the majority, they are certainly the loudest minority.

That being said, the answer is 50%. You heard a croak and saw 2 frogs. That means there is a 100% chance that at least 1 of the frogs is male. So in the absence of other information, there is a 50% chance that the other frog is female, and hence your probability of survival is 50% (assuming there is a 100% chance that the antidote-carrying females will cure you).

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:21:04 No.13587279 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587146
This answer is incomplete because you have to account for the population distribution of males to females within the frog population so,

>assuming that the croak came from one of the two frogs, and that the male to female ratio is 1:1, your odds of survival are 25% based on this logic.

Funny to see you midwits throwing around your credentials over a 4chan post about a frog. SAYS A LOT about your insecurity regarding your intellect

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:21:30 No.13587281 Report

Quoted By: >>13587295

>>13587043
You didn't even try to give an expression for the answer. Disappointing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:22:05 No.13587285 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586048
This. All frogs are gay.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:22:40 No.13587288 Report

Quoted By: >>13587306 >>13587337

>>13587274
>You can have a bijection between
That literally means that for every number in the interval between 0 and x, you have one in the interval between 0 and infinity. Fucking retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:24:43 No.13587295 Report

Quoted By: >>13587412

>>13587281
sure ill give you an expression
1 * P(x1, y) where P(x) return the probability of a frog x1 being male given distribution y
:^)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:25:13 No.13587298 Report

Quoted By: >>13587376

>>13587275
Why don you get to throw out a set of data just because you know for certain it’s values. Wouldn’t you would have to include the male in this data set because you licked both frogs?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:26:49 No.13587306 Report

Quoted By: >>13587353

>>13587288
you're forgetting that time doesn't work like that you fucking retard, hence my idea about the smallest unit of time. If time didn't work like that, then I agree with you. If this question were purely theoretical, I'd agree with you. See how we came full circle to the units of time thing? These units make up the sample space. I could have worded it better looking back

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:28:39 No.13587315 Report

Quoted By:

Holy shit it literally is all pol schizos. Not everyone here can be baiting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:33:07 No.13587337 Report

Quoted By: >>13587343

>>13587288
Just asked my friend who majored in math at Harvard. the cardinality equivalence is only for intervals of reals, it doesn't apply to infinity. guess we are both wrong in different ways.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:34:30 No.13587343 Report

Quoted By: >>13587426

>>13587337
nvm he misunderstood the question. a mapping exists, but my time thing still holds up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:34:32 No.13587344 Report

Quoted By: >>13587351

>>13587106
>You don't know this without knowing the distribution.
No, I know this regardless of the distribution. A female is always silent and a male is only sometimes silent. Thus a silent frog is more likely to be female.

>If the male frog croaks on average every 1000000000 years
Then a silent frog is more likely to be female.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:36:00 No.13587351 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587344
Yeah I agree, I meant to say you don't know the exact probability

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:36:11 No.13587353 Report

Quoted By: >>13587372

>>13587306
>my idea about the smallest unit of time
Math doesn't have a smallest unit of time, and your claim about an interval of reals having a "smaller infinity" than all the reals is false. You're a retarded poser. Case closed. Further posts from you ignored.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:36:51 No.13587358 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587146
>So already our chance of survival is at most 50%
It's at least 50%.

>This would make the likelihood of that frog being female 50%
No, a silent frog is more likely to be female than male.

>Which would halve our survival chance from 50% to 25%.
You don't seem to understand that you lick both frogs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:39:54 No.13587372 Report

Quoted By: >>13587379

>>13587353
This is a math problem about FROGS, and FROGS live in the REAL WORLD. If you cared about "pure math", say something like "arbitrary event X is random"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:40:21 No.13587376 Report

Quoted By: >>13587386 >>13587433 >>13587438

>>13587298
I would love to answer your question but I honest to god don't even know what you asked.

Let me restate my answer and that might clear things up. According to the statement of the problem, there is a 50% chance that any given frog is male or female. 0% of the males will save you and 100% of the females will save you.

Your probability of survival is given by the expansion a la Bayes' theorem:

P(survival) = P(a given licked frog is male/female)*P(survival after licking a male/female frog)

(summed over the number of frogs licked)

We can assign arbitrary labels to the frogs, say "frog 1" and "frog 2". We heard a croak among the two frogs, meaning that AT LEAST ONE of the frogs is male. So, without loss of generality, we can say "frog 1" is male and that we don't know the sex of "frog 2" (you can repeat this calculation by assuming "frog 2" is male instead and you will get the same answer). Thus,

P(survival) = P(licked frog 1 is male)P(survival after licking a male frog) + P(licked frog 2 is female)P(survival after licking a female frog)

As previously stated...
> P(licked frog 1 is male) = 1
> P(survival after licking a male frog) = 0
> P(licked frog 2 is female) = 0.5
> P(survival after licking a female frog) = 0

Thus, P(survival) = 1*0 + 0.5*1 = 0.5

You will get the same answer no matter how you change around the labels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:41:02 No.13587379 Report

Quoted By: >>13587394

>>13587372
Math frogs don't live in the real world, retarde pseud, and the real world doesn't have a smallest time unit, either, as far as anyone knows.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:41:03 No.13587380 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587224
>It is undefined. Unless you know the distribution.
No, you can give a real-valued expression for the average without knowing the distribution. If the distribution is such that the probability of a male croaking is 0, then the answer is not a real value. It's undefined since calculating a probability conditioned on an event with probability 0 requires division by 0.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:42:03 No.13587386 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587376
Your probabilities are wrong, retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:42:21 No.13587387 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587237
Why?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:43:23 No.13587391 Report

Quoted By: >>13587447

>>13586855
Apply a similar logic to actual coinflips and you'll get that the chance of getting matching sides (two heads or two tails) is 66%
the possibilities are either:

HH
HH
HT
TH
TT
TT

or

HH
HT
TT

(the actual probability is 50% chance of matching, I hope you already knew that)
so you're making some mistake dude.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:43:59 No.13587394 Report

Quoted By: >>13587403

>>13587379
There is a smallest unit of time that all particles in the universe must obey, and thus is applicable for a real world question. It's the unit of time for the fastest thing (light) to travel the smallest distance (planck length).
You're the dumbass who would get fired in a week at a real company for failing to realize that the real world exists.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:44:11 No.13587395 Report

Quoted By: >>13587446

>>13587245
Harvard my ass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:45:39 No.13587403 Report

Quoted By: >>13587446

>>13587394
>t. retarded pseud who demonstrably failed highschool math

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:46:11 No.13587404 Report

Quoted By: >>13587458

>People obsessing over the probability that you would hear a croak, an event that has already occurred

Shit don't play the lottery, even if you win you won't spend the money since you probably didn't win it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:46:23 No.13587407 Report

Quoted By: >>13587445 >>13587457

>>13587275
>So in the absence of other information, there is a 50% chance that the other frog is female
Wrong. The other frog did not croak, meaning it's more likely to be female than male.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:47:40 No.13587412 Report

Quoted By: >>13587446

>>13587295
That doesn't even answer the question. Can Harvard revoke diplomas?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO frogs.jpg, 29KiB, 617x534

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:48:01 No.13587413 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586971

Yeah I think you're right. Something like this?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO dxl2ui5v2r611.jpg, 83KiB, 900x900

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:51:00 No.13587426 Report

Quoted By: >>13587446

>>13587343

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:52:45 No.13587433 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587376
Thank you this actually answers my question exactly : D

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:54:14 No.13587438 Report

Quoted By: >>13587462

>>13587376
>> P(licked frog 2 is female) = 0.5
Incorrect. A frog that didn't croak is more likely to be female than male. Can I have your diploma?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:56:51 No.13587445 Report

Quoted By: >>13587468

>>13587407
>not croaking implies female more than 50% chance
there is zero information suggesting this to be true and you are affirming the consequent

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:58:16 No.13587446 Report

Quoted By: >>13587558

>>13587426
>>13587412
>>13587395
>>13587403
>herrr derrr i jerk off to theoretical math and would rather live in my basement jizzing to the purity of equations rather than take into account real-world constraints that actually benefit people and create world-world products

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 20:58:16 No.13587447 Report

Quoted By: >>13587500

>>13587391
The chance of two coins matching given your friend saw both and told you the number of heads is greater than 0 is 1/3, not 50%. However croaking is different since two males are not equally likely to croak as one male. You failed miserably.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:00:06 No.13587457 Report

Quoted By: >>13587517

>>13587407
This is not correct. In short, it's because you only hear one croak.

>"A frog's croak is random, and its distribution over time is unknown"

If we're getting technical, 50% is a bit coarse, as one would probably want to model the number of croaks as a Poisson distribution, which would modify the probability a bit, though not very much.

It is worth noting, however, that I *am* assuming that the frequency of croaks is small compared to the interval of time between when you hear the croak and when you lick both frogs. That being said, your claim can only be true *IF* the frequency of croaks is large enough that, in the interval of time between hearing the croak and licking the frogs, you would expect to hear more than one croak if there were two male frogs.

Is this assumption valid? Technically there's nothing wrong with it, though most frogs do not croak considerably frequently, and if your life is on the line you probably lick the frogs immediately after hearing the croak. But, even if we do assume that these frogs do croak considerably frequently, frequently enough that the absence of two croaks may suggest that one of the frogs is female, then this also applies to the one frog that is certainly male. Thus, it becomes more likely that you would hear at least 2 croaks in total, either 1 from each frog (if they were both male) OR 2 from the same male.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:01:39 No.13587458 Report

Quoted By: >>13587478

>>13587404
>>People obsessing over the probability that you would hear a croak, an event that has already occurred
The croak already occurred, so it can't have any effect on the probability the pair contains a male? Of course it has a huge effect, it tells us that the pair is guaranteed to have a male. You're spouting nonsense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:02:01 No.13587462 Report

Quoted By: >>13587568

>>13587438
This is false for the reason stated in the post above.

Also, I was literally was the best student in my college probability class (I am now a physics graduate student). Your reasoning is type that gets half credit on exam questions, at best.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:03:46 No.13587468 Report

Quoted By: >>13587497

>>13587445
>there is zero information suggesting this to be true
It's explicitly given to us by the problem: females never croak, only males croak. Did you read it?

>and you are affirming the consequent
No, that doesn't even apply to probability. Is Bayes' Theorem affirming the consequent?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:04:49 No.13587473 Report

Quoted By:

This thread demonstrates clearly that /sci/ is 50% reddit and 50% /pol/.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:05:18 No.13587478 Report

Quoted By: >>13587574

>>13587458
The PROBABILITY of hearing a croak can't have any effect. because it's a given.

>What's the probability of A given B?
>well what's the probability of B?
>that's irrelevant

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:08:15 No.13587497 Report

Quoted By: >>13587586

>>13587468
Females never croak, males croak at an uncertain probability. Not croaking is a behavior shared by both frogs, and unless you have some reason to expect a second croak (knowledge of croak frequency), ascribing different probabilities is incorrect.

Consider the possibility that the distribution of croaks (unknown and otherwise uncharacterized) is dependent on the number of frogs around, in even numbers only one frog will ever croak. The probability remains 50%.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:09:10 No.13587500 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587447
No, no , I'm talking about the simple problem of flipping 2 coins and trying to get a match. don't try and add wrinkles yet, have a look at the simpler problem, the toddler-level problem, because your method already doesn't work with that. What's the chances of getting a matching result (two heads or two tails) when flipping two coins no extra information, no croaking coins, just two ordinary coinflips. Look at the possible outcomes. maybe even grab two coins and try it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:14:38 No.13587517 Report

Quoted By: >>13587529 >>13587539 >>13587568 >>13587792 >>13587821 >>13587831 >>13587954

>>13587457
>In short, it's because you only hear one croak.
Nope, that's exactly why the other frog is more likely to be female.

>If we're getting technical, 50% is a bit coarse, as one would probably want to model the number of croaks as a Poisson distribution, which would modify the probability a bit, though not very much.
You could do that, but it's unnecessary.

Let pn = the probability of a male croaking n times while you were listening.

Probability of two males producing one croak = 2 p0 p1

Probably of lone male producing one croak = p1

Probability the pair is a male and female given one croak = (1/2) p1 / ((1/2) p1 + (1/4) 2 p0 p1) = 1/(1+p0)

So the answer entirely depends on the probability of male croaking/not croaking, and must be greater than 1/2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:17:42 No.13587529 Report

Quoted By: >>13587539 >>13587733

>>13587517
you have again assumed that the probability of two males frogs croaking within our time frame is greater than one frog croaking for no reason

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:19:21 No.13587539 Report

Quoted By: >>13587733

>>13587517
This guy >>13587529 gets it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:23:35 No.13587557 Report

Quoted By: >>13587559 >>13587747

>thread is a classic question, most common answers 66% and 50%
>most of the thread is taken up by two retards who aren't committing to either answer and instead hyperfixating on the possibility of extracting an arbitrarily small amount of information in an arbitrarily short amount of time to calculate a vanishingly small correction to the probability

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:23:52 No.13587558 Report

Quoted By: >>13587595

>>13587446
The real world constraint you're taking about isn't relevant and isn't even a real world constraint. It's time to stop posting. Harvard doesn't need to be embarrassed any further.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:24:26 No.13587559 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587557
Finally someone says it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:27:07 No.13587568 Report

Quoted By: >>13587996 >>13588113

>>13587462
>This is false for the reason stated in the post above.
Wrong. See >>13587517

>Also, I was literally was the best student in my college probability class (I am now a physics graduate student).
Then why are you so bad at it? If credentialism is the only thing that will get through to you then read this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.00902

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:28:29 No.13587570 Report

Quoted By: >>13587752

Your chance of surviving is 50% since you know one of the frogs is definetly male.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:29:05 No.13587574 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587478
>The PROBABILITY of hearing a croak can't have any effect. because it's a given.
That's exactly why it has an effect. It's a conditional probability. The condition changes the probability. It's almost like you know the correct answer but you're telling and saying the exact opposite.

>What's the probability of A given B?
>well what's the probability of B?
>that's irrelevant
That's what you're saying, yes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:32:48 No.13587586 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587497
>Not croaking is a behavior shared by both frogs, and unless you have some reason to expect a second croak (knowledge of croak frequency), ascribing different probabilities is incorrect.
if you ascribe then the same probability, 0, then the answer is undefined. Any other probability besides 0 means they have different probabilities of croaking. It doesn't really matter to my argument. Either the answer is undefined or above 1/2.

>Consider the possibility that the distribution of croaks (unknown and otherwise uncharacterized) is dependent on the number of frogs around
Why?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 21:35:10 No.13587595 Report

Quoted By: >>13587756

>>13587558
>herr derr i, with 0 accomplishments, am telling someone who uses math to do real-world projects with real-world impact (and math wouldn't work if it were wrong) what is and what isn't real-world

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:06:42 No.13587719 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586039
1/2. One male is a priority twice as likely as two males, but two males are twice as likely to produce a croak; multiplying those gives an odds ratio of 1:1 or 1/2.

This puzzle is very similar by design to the two-boys paradox, and it's illustrative to consider why the solution doesn't transfer. In the two-boys paradox, you meet a person known to have exactly two children; you ask "is at least one of your children a boy"; and you get the answer "yes". This results in a 1/3 chance of both children being boys.

The difference between these two puzzles is that in the two-boys paradox, the only evidence you receive is that at least one of the children is a boy, and you receive no other information -- not even stochastic information. This is something that is common in math puzzles, but which very rarely happens in realistic, non-artificial examples. In the frog problem, two male frogs are more likely to croak per time unit than one male frog, so the chance of you receiving the piece of evidence of a croak is different between one-male and two-male hypotheses; which means you have stochastic information beyond "at least one of the frogs is male", and the 1/3 probability doesn't apply.

In non-artificial probability problems, it is *almost never* the case that you receive no stochastic information beyond a certain case that is ruled out. Pieces of evidence having a different probability of presenting themself to you for different hypotheses is extremely common, and you have to go out of your way to construct a situation where this isn't the case; the designer of the frogs puzzle tried and failed. As a result, the probabilities collapse back to 1/2 in almost all realistic real-world cases, and the 1/3 result from the two-boys paradox is very rarely applicable outside math puzzles. It does happen, but it is very rare, and this isn't one of those cases despite the careful scenario.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:07:47 No.13587722 Report

Quoted By: >>13587761

>>13586039
1/2. One-male has a prior probability twice as high as two-males, but two males are twice as likely to produce a croak; multiplying those gives an odds ratio of 1:1 or 1/2.

This puzzle is very similar by design to the two-boys paradox, and it's illustrative to consider why the solution doesn't transfer. In the two-boys paradox, you meet a person known to have exactly two children; you ask "is at least one of your children a boy"; and you get the answer "yes". This results in a 1/3 chance of both children being boys.

The difference between these two puzzles is that in the two-boys paradox, the only evidence you receive is that at least one of the children is a boy, and you receive no other information -- not even stochastic information. This is something that is common in math puzzles, but which very rarely happens in realistic, non-artificial examples. In the frog problem, two male frogs are more likely to croak per time unit than one male frog, so the chance of you receiving the piece of evidence of a croak is different between one-male and two-male hypotheses; which means you have stochastic information beyond "at least one of the frogs is male", and the 1/3 probability doesn't apply.

In non-artificial probability problems, it is *almost never* the case that you receive no stochastic information beyond a certain case that is ruled out. Pieces of evidence having a different probability of presenting themself to you for different hypotheses is extremely common, and you have to go out of your way to construct a situation where this isn't the case; the designer of the frogs puzzle tried and failed. As a result, the probabilities collapse back to 1/2 in almost all realistic real-world cases, and the 1/3 result from the two-boys paradox is very rarely applicable outside math puzzles. It does happen, but it is very rare, and this isn't one of those cases despite the careful scenario.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:09:46 No.13587733 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587529
>>13587539
>you have again assumed that the probability of two males frogs croaking within our time frame is greater than one frog croaking
I didn't assume that and nothing I said even implied that. First, I calculated the probabilities, I didn't assume they had some value. For two males to produce a croak, one has to croak and the other has to not croak, and there are 2 ways this can occur. So the probably is 2*p1*p0.

Second, the probability of two males croaking once is 2p0 times the probability of one male croaking once. So if p0 < 1/2, two males are LESS likely to produce one croak than one male. So you didn't even understand what I wrote.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:13:18 No.13587745 Report

Quoted By:

lmao @ you guys not realizing the Harvard guy is trolling you

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:13:40 No.13587747 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587557
>>thread is a classic question
Wrong. It's actually a brainlet filtering question, meant to weed out the retards who don't understand probability and the retards who think they understand it but are really just practicing pattern recognition based on which problems seem similar to others. You didn't make it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:14:35 No.13587750 Report

Quoted By: >>13587773

>>13586039
with the missing information on croaking the information carried in the croak cannot be quantized

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:14:53 No.13587752 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587570
Doesn't follow. You also know females never croak so how is the frog that didn't croak equally likely to be male or female?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:15:53 No.13587756 Report

Quoted By: >>13587771

>>13587595
I did accomplish something, I proved I'm smarter than a Harvard grad. Cry more.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:17:32 No.13587761 Report

Quoted By: >>13587812

>>13587722
>but two males are twice as likely to produce a croak
No, they are twice as likely to produce at least one croak. They are not twice as likely to produce exactly one croak.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:19:02 No.13587769 Report

Quoted By: >>13587803

>>13586039
So tl;dr:
>You have been given general information as to the nature of a species of frogs that in no way allows you to actually solve for x
>Solve for x
your ratarted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:19:13 No.13587771 Report

Quoted By: >>13587792

>>13587756
You proved you can't understand what time is

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:19:36 No.13587773 Report

Quoted By: >>13587823

>>13587750
Wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:22:06 No.13587792 Report

Quoted By: >>13587813

>>13587771
Please explain to me why time should be quantized in this problem and what relevance it has to the answer. I already gave you a perfectly logical solution >>13587517 and you have so far failed to argue against it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:22:27 No.13587794 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586039
This isn't a math problem, it's a natural sciences problem. Frogs croak to attract mates. Male frogs do not share territory. One frog croaking and sitting peacefully in close proximity to another frog means one is male and one is female. You survive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:23:22 No.13587803 Report

Quoted By: >>13587828

>>13587769
>>You have been given general information as to the nature of a species of frogs that in no way allows you to actually solve for x
Not true. You can certainly constrain x to a range and tell us what its relationship is to the probability distribution of male croaking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:25:36 No.13587812 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587761
Fair, but the puzzle has you starting your analysis the moment you hear the first croak, without taking any further time to wait for more croaks to possibly occur. Which collapses the cases of "one croak" and "at least one croak", as they look the same when you stop considering evidence after one croak.

If you did not have a stopping condition at the first croak, I agree that your objection holds. In that case, the probability approaches 1/2 as croaks get rarer, approaches 1/3 as croaks get more common, and can land anywhere in the middle depending on your prior for croak frequency.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:25:41 No.13587813 Report

Quoted By: >>13587821 >>13587837

>>13587792
Because there are a FINITE number of timesteps between 1 and x, and that number is less than timestep x to infinity. That's literally the only thing you need to understand.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:28:19 No.13587821 Report

Quoted By: >>13587841

>>13587813
>Because there are a FINITE number of timesteps between 1 and x
You seem to be just repeating what I asked you to explain. Does Harvard teach English?

Let's try again: Please explain to me why time should be quantized in this problem and what relevance it has to the answer.

You should also explain how >>13587517
Is incorrect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:28:36 No.13587823 Report

Quoted By: >>13587831

>>13587773
>13587773
well do it then

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:29:09 No.13587828 Report

Quoted By: >>13587852

>>13587803
The question on the actual image is "what is you chance of surviving", not "what is the probability distribution of a male frog croaking". We already know a male frog has croaked. The probability of it is 1. The question is essentially "You have two frogs. One is male. What is the probability that the other frog that you know nothing about-- and have no way of knowing anything about given your desperate time constraints-- is female"

And the problem implies they're the only frogs you have access to within your time limit, and you've already licked both either way, so it's all completely irrelevant. You'll either die or you wont. The outcome is unknowable until revealed, but already established and will be revealed shortly. It's not an actual math problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:29:39 No.13587831 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587823
See >>13587517

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:30:28 No.13587837 Report

Quoted By: >>13587848

>>13587813
there is no physics proof for time being discrete. There are even quantum gravity proposals that include continuous time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:30:53 No.13587841 Report

Quoted By: >>13587876

>>13587821
Because any interval of frog croaking is, at the very smallest, planck time.
Also, you're just wasting time typing shit like "does Harvard teach English". I'm more successful than 99.99% of people here in every way imaginable. do you think that question would be a "gotcha" to me? you're probably going to say some dumb shit like "you're so insecure that you have to defend yourself" or something because you have nothing

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:32:00 No.13587848 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587837
Never said there was. But we know that light is the fastest thing in the universe, and that even light takes a specific amount of time to travel the smallest possible distance. Therefore, it's obvious that the speed at which the neurons of the frogs fire from cell to cell is even more discrete.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:32:49 No.13587852 Report

Quoted By: >>13587885

>>13587828
>The question on the actual image is "what is you chance of surviving", not "what is the probability distribution of a male frog croaking"
I didn't say it was, I said the former depended on the latter.

>The question is essentially "You have two frogs. One is male. What is the probability that the other frog that you know nothing about-- and have no way of knowing anything about given your desperate time constraints-- is female"
No, you're ignoring the information that the other frog didnt croak, which makes it more likely to be female. How much more likely depends on the distribution of male croaking. Some beverages advice for you: Instead of trying to turn the question into a different one, try to answer it as it is. That way you won't lose information.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:37:15 No.13587876 Report

Quoted By: >>13587889

>>13587841
>Because any interval of frog croaking is, at the very smallest, planck time.
Why? And how is this relevant?

You can boast all you want but it just makes you look pathetic since you got basic shit wrong like the cardinality of reals. You can't even answer a simple question about your own argument, which means even you know it doesn't make sense. You are desperately insecure, but not because you're defending yourself, because you feel the need to spout nonsense you can't defend because you need strangers to think you're smart.

Every ridiculous part you make further cements the fact that I'm smarter than you. A smart person would have stopped by now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:38:35 No.13587885 Report

Quoted By: >>13587914 >>13587925

>>13587852
>you're ignoring the information that the other frog didnt croak, which makes it more likely to be female.
Nothing in the given information suggests this, no.
>A frog's croak is random
>It's distribution over time us unknown
>It's completely unpredictable
There is no way to solve for the general question of croak probability without witnessing a frog croak to identify it as male, so it's irrelevant for the purposes of identifying whether or not a specific unidentified frog that hasn't croaked yet is male or female.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:39:55 No.13587889 Report

Quoted By: >>13587943

>>13587876
I don't care about looking pathetic to people who are nothing, lol. I didn't get the cardinality of reals wrong. The cardinality is different if you're using timesteps. I don't know how to dumb this down further for you. A finite speed of frog croaks means that the distributions don't cancel out. I welcome you to think you're smarter than me, because only real-world results prove anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:44:40 No.13587914 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587885
>Nothing in the given information suggests this, no.
Wrong again. We're told females never croak and males sometimes croak. This means a silent frog is more likely to be female.

P(female|no croak) = P(female) P(no croak|female) / P(no croak) = (1/2)/((1/2)+(1/2)P(no croak|male))

So if P(no croak|male) < 1 then P(female|no croak) > 1/2

If P(no croak|male) = 1 then the probability of hearing a croak from the pair is 0 and the answer is undefined.

So a silent frog can never be equally likely to be male or female.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:47:08 No.13587925 Report

Quoted By:

>>13587885
>There is no way to solve for the general question of croak probability without witnessing a frog croak to identify it as male, so it's irrelevant for the purposes of identifying whether or not a specific unidentified frog that hasn't croaked yet is male or female.
Doesn't follow. It's still dependent on the distribution of croaking regardless of whether you know it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:50:30 No.13587941 Report

Quoted By: >>13587954

Not a single answer here is correct. Let p = probability male croaks. Then the probability both are males is
(1-p)/(2-p). I leave the proof as an exercise for the reader.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:50:55 No.13587943 Report

Quoted By: >>13587964

>>13587889
>I don't care about looking pathetic to people who are nothing, lol.
Then why do you care about looking smart?

>The cardinality is different if you're using timesteps.
You must be trolling. Why are you even talking about real numbers then?

>A finite speed of frog croaks means that the distributions don't cancel out.
What distributions cancel out?

You have utterly failed to explain why quantized tone should be assumed or is even relevant. I can only assume you're a pathetic tell pretending to be a retarded Harvard grad. Enjoy the rest of your life in your mother's basement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:53:34 No.13587954 Report

Quoted By: >>13588771

>>13587941
Now substitute p0 = 1-p and apologize to

>>13586585
>>13586753
>>13587517

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 22:55:19 No.13587964 Report

Quoted By: >>13587996

>>13587943
ah yes i stole a harvard id and wrote a date just for this post
its YOU who cant understand basic math; contrary to the edgy 4chan circle jerk, top mathematicians at universities such as Harvard are the one who discover theorems and invent fields, and if a thesis committee thinks I'm stupid, I'd rather believe them
>mothers basement
want a screenshot of my bank? or would that be "fake" too haha fucking loser. how about we do a bet where we use a smart contract to prove if I'm telling the truth about my school and my job, and the liar pays 150k?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 23:00:42 No.13587996 Report

Quoted By: >>13588078

>>13587964
Once again you fail to answer the question. Dunce.

>ah yes i stole a harvard id and wrote a date just for this post
Sure or you photoshopped it, or you really are a retarded Harvard grad. It makes no difference to me. The latter is even more embarrassing for you so I'm not sure why you would be so desperate to prove it.

I find it odd you never responded to >>13587568 if you actually think credentials matter here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 23:16:28 No.13588078 Report

Quoted By: >>13588113

>>13587996
that wasnt me you fucking dumbass. I said I studied ML, and that guy did physics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 23:24:42 No.13588113 Report

Quoted By: >>13588141

>>13588078
And again you fail to answer the question. I guess you've abandoned the quantized time bullshit and are just here to whine. You should still read >>13587568, it might cure you of your stubborn stupidity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 23:30:48 No.13588141 Report

Quoted By: >>13588211

>>13588113
They came to the same conclusion I did, if it were a purely theoretical question. I guarantee if I brought up the time stuff to them they'd agree.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Aug 2021 23:49:13 No.13588211 Report

Quoted By:

>>13588141
Then it should be easy for you to answer my question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 00:00:45 No.13588254 Report

Quoted By: >>13588595 >>13588787

>>13586039
ln(2)
Here is the breakdown of the combinatorial permutations:
>MM
>MF
>FM
>FF
All of these are equally likely permutations of two frogs
Because we heard a croak, we rule out FF, but you are more likely to hear a croak from a group of two males (assuming independence) so we have the possibilities:
>MM male 1 croaks
>MM male 2 croaks
>MM both croak
>MM both silent
>MF male croaks
>MF male silent
>FM male croaks
>FM male silent
We can rule out all the possibilities that both male croak (since we heard a single croak) or that there is silence (since we heard one croak) leaving us with:
>MM male 1 croaks
>MM male 2 croaks
>MF male croaks
>FM male croaks
Here is where it gets tricky, the probability of these depends on the probability of a male croaking during the time interval we were listening - which is random and unknown. Let p be the probability that a male croaks exactly once (not none and not more than once, note that then the probability of a male croaking 0 or more than once is 1-p) over time interval t over which we were listening (this probability will be defined no matter the distribution - it will just take on different values depending on the distribution) which gives us these scenarios:
frogs 1 and 2 are male:
>P(MM m1 croaks) = P(m1 croaks)P(m2 does not croak once) = p(1-p)
>P(MM m2 croaks) = P(m2 croaks)P(m1 does not croak once) = p(1-p)
male female:
>P(m croaks) = p
female male:
>P(m croaks) = p
Exactly one of these scenarios has occured so adding up these four probabilities gives us 1(to be super thorough, there is actually a factor of 1/3 in front of all these probabilities but it will cancel out so I just omit it). We lick a female only in the two later cases, which are mutually exclusive, so the probability that we lick a female is
> 2p / ( 2p + 2p(1-p) = 1 / (2-p)
we dont know p, but the distribution is random, so we average over all the possible distributions
to do this integrate 1/(2-p) from 0 to 1 giving us ln(2)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 00:12:53 No.13588303 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586039
Either 0% or 100%, depending on if one of them was female.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO PXL_20210901_011220738.jpg, 3MiB, 3024x4032

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 01:16:34 No.13588536 Report

Quoted By: >>13588595 >>13588791 >>13589639

Interesting. If you assume the probability of hearing one male croak once as p, then the answer is 1/(2-p/2). So as p->0, the chance of surviving approaches 1/2, but as p->1, the chance of surviving approaches 2/3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 01:19:42 No.13588548 Report

Quoted By: >>13588795 >>13589221 >>13589268

>>13586039

P(Frog 2 is Female|Frog 1 croaked)*P(Frog 1 croaked) +P(Frog 1 is Female|Frog 2 croaked)*P(Frog 2 croaked) = 0.5*0.5 + 0.5*0.5

you have a 50% chance of surviving

Also anyone who cant come up with the correct answer is an antivax retard who should be banned from /sci/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 01:36:22 No.13588595 Report

Quoted By: >>13589066 >>13589388

>>13588254
Looks like we got different answers, see: >>13588536

I think the difference in our approaches is whether to count multiple croaks. I think it's fair to do so, since we immediately turn around and lick both frogs as soon as the first croak is heard, without waiting around for the other frog to croak. In your case we would hear the first croak, then keep waiting until some predetermined time T has passed, and don't lick both frogs if the second frog croaks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 02:22:59 No.13588771 Report

Quoted By: >>13588820

>>13587954
>1/(1-p0) = (1-p)/(2-p) for p0 = 1-p
Kys retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 02:24:09 No.13588777 Report

Quoted By: >>13588801

>>13586039
Licking a frog is weird and dying is probably better

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 02:26:35 No.13588787 Report

Quoted By: >>13589388

>>13588254
>>P(MM m1 croaks) = P(m1 croaks)P(m2 does not croak once) = p(1-p)
This calculation includes m2 croaking multiple times since 1-p is the probability of m2 croaking none or multiple times. You're overestimating the probability of two males.

>Exactly one of these scenarios has occured so adding up these four probabilities gives us 1
No, you're just calculating prior probabilities, they have no reason to sum to 1. You can check for yourself, the sum is dependent on p so whether it sums to 1 depends on p regardless of what scale factor you use.

>2p / ( 2p + 2p(1-p) = 1 / (2-p)
This would be the correct way to do it if you hadn't overestimated the probability of two males.

>we dont know p, but the distribution is random, so we average over all the possible distributions to do this integrate 1/(2-p) from 0 to 1 giving us ln(2)
This is invalid since your choice of variable is arbitrary and a different choice might give a different average.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 02:28:00 No.13588791 Report

Quoted By: >>13589066

>>13588536
>If you assume the probability of hearing one male croak once as p
You defined it as hearing one make croak at least once, not once.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 02:29:49 No.13588795 Report

Quoted By: >>13590538

>>13588548
You're ignoring the fact that we didn't hear the other frog croak, which makes it more likely than 0.5 to be female.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 02:30:42 No.13588801 Report

Quoted By:

>>13588777
Can't argue against those trips

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 02:36:40 No.13588820 Report

Quoted By: >>13588835

>>13588771
Wow you're dumb. You didn't realize the probability of two males is not what the question asks for, it's 1-the answer?

Now apologize.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 02:40:24 No.13588835 Report

Quoted By: >>13588950

>>13588820
?
Do you not see how hay arithmetic doesn't work?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 03:09:41 No.13588950 Report

Quoted By: >>13591948

>>13588835
Jesus fucking Christ. Here I'll spoonfeed you:

(1-p)/(2-p) = (1-p)/(1+1-p) = p0/(1+p0)

1-p0/(1+p0) = (1+p0-p0)/(1+p0) = 1/(1+p0)

Now apologize.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 03:50:09 No.13589066 Report

Quoted By: >>13589114

>>13588791
See my explanation for why I think this makes more physical sense: >>13588595

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 04:04:16 No.13589114 Report

Quoted By:

>>13589066
It doesn't matter whether you wait or not. The condition is that you heard one croak while you were listening. You didn't hear multiple croaks, so conditioning on one or more croaks is incorrect.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Science relies on experimentation.png, 27KiB, 833x467

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 04:30:14 No.13589221 Report

Quoted By: >>13589242

To OP: >>13586039

>>13586087
>>13588548
I was orginally with these /sci/tards
But when you think about it, its a bit more complex.

Assumptions:
1.The frogs croak at random so if frog 2 was male, it was not mandatory for it to croak.
2. The: 'haha gotcha what if the croak came from somewhere else' is elliminated

Possible frog configurations
M F
F F
M M

However FF is out because you heard a croak.
So the choices that remain:
MF
MM

However these are now grouped together. You're only pickin ONE. So the actual chances
are one in four:
FMMM

So your chances of survival are 25%.

This has been confirmed through testing (see pic)
1000 event randomized trial

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 04:34:37 No.13589242 Report

Quoted By: >>13589268

>>13589221
You lick both.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 04:40:26 No.13589268 Report

Quoted By: >>13590538

>>13589242
Thanks anon.

Well assuming a licking a male frog has no effect and doesn't do anything.

You're back to these posts:

>>13586087
>>13588548

So 50%
However FF is out because you heard a croak.
So the choices that remain:
MF
MM

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 04:46:14 No.13589282 Report

Quoted By: >>13590543

It's the fucking coin problem. Why do you faggots always have to make narratives around it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 05:23:21 No.13589371 Report

Quoted By: >>13589664 >>13590545

2 frogs exist
MM
MF
FM
FF
one of them croaks
MM
MF
FM
you succeed on any female (2 options)
answer: 2/3 chance of living

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 05:31:01 No.13589388 Report

Quoted By: >>13589639 >>13590579

>>13588595
>we immediately turn around and lick both frogs as soon as the first croak is heard
I assumed that the time passed between hearing the frog and spotting the pair and licking them is non-zero, which is why I went with the assumption that multiple croaks might happen, and since the problem stated that we only heard one croak (as in, this happened so what is the probability, as opposed to if you use this strategy to lick the croaking pair no matter how many croaks you heard)
The problem specifically says a croak, which I'll admit could be left up to interpretation whether that's the one and only croak we hear or there could be more croaks before the licking, I think both interpretations are valid but ofc they will lead to different results

However, as >>13588787 pointed out, I'm double counting multiple croaks so there's a flaw in my result because I sped through it
To address the other points here
>they have no reason to sum to 1
this is true, I don't know why I wrote this, it has no bearing on the derivation though, what I meant to write was that exactly one of these events happened so if you divide the probability of one event by the probability of any of the four events you get the total probability of the event
>This is invalid since your choice of variable is arbitrary
When no information is known about the probability density function (which the problem explicitly states) you use the uniform distribution because it is functionally the expected value of a random distribution in all possible distributions, then you just dont know the base rate, again we have no information, to get the expected value you average over all possible probabilities (which are all the numbers between 0 and 1) and since these are continuous you can do this using the intergral

Now to address the double counting and get the real solution:
(cont)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 06:58:02 No.13589639 Report

Quoted By: >>13589681 >>13589709 >>13591387

>>13589388
Let p0 be the probability of a male giving 0 croaks, p1 of 1 croak and thus any more will be 1 - p0 - p1

P(MF or FM | 1 total croak) = P(MF or FM)P(1 total croak | MF or FM) / P(1 total croak)

When disregarding croaks
P(MF or FM) = 2/4 = 1/2

P(1 total croak | MF or FM) = p1

P(1 total croak) = P(MF or FM)P(1 total croak | MF or FM) + P(MM)P(1 total croak | MM) + P(FF)P(1 total croak | FF) = p1/2 + 1/4*P(1 total croak | MM) + P(FF)*0 = p1/2 + 1/4*P(1 total croak | MM)

Now P(1 total croak | MM) = P(m1 silent and m2 croak once) + P(m1 croak once and m2 silent) = 2(p0*p1)

Thus
P(1 total croak) = p1/2 + p0*p1/2 = p1(1+p0)/2
And
P(MF or FM | 1 total croak) = p1/2 * p1 / (p1(1+p0)/2) = p1 / p1(1+p0) = 1 / (1+p0)

And this intergrates to ln(2) when taken from 0 to 1

I have to note that it is not because my previous method was valid that we ended with the same equations, but only by coincidence because I made a dumb mistake
>2p / ( 2p + 2p(1-p) = 1 / (2-p)
this is actually = 1 / (1-p) which, when intergrated, diverges

Final answer:
>ln(2) ~ 69%

It is interesting that it is actually higher than 2/3, but thats because to get 1 frog to croak once AND another to not croak then it is to get a single frog to croak

Finally, if we use the assumptions of this anon >>13588536
we can again use a uniform probability density of a male croaking once as the expected value of a random probability density and intergrate over 0 to 1 to get ln(25/16)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 07:00:32 No.13589647 Report

Quoted By: >>13589762

It's 2/3. I like how many pseud retards OP caught with his red herring of "unknown croaking distribution".

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 07:04:30 No.13589664 Report

Quoted By: >>13589671

>>13589371
>MF
>FM
>somehow different
retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 07:06:53 No.13589671 Report

Quoted By:

>>13589664
Say, retard, can you tell me the probability that 2/3 random coin flips are tails? Show calculation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 07:10:45 No.13589681 Report

Quoted By:

>>13589639
>2p / ( 2p + 2p(1-p) = 1 / (2-p)
>this is actually = 1 / (1-p) which, when intergrated, diverges

scratch this part, I'm doubly retarded, it wasn't a mistake, it ended up the same because of some reason I can't be bothered to find, I'm guessing some symmetry between integrating p vs 1-p over a uniform distribution

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 07:23:30 No.13589709 Report

Quoted By:

>>13589639
> intergrate over 0 to 1 to get ln(25/16)
sign error, its rather ln(16/9) ~58%

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 07:42:08 No.13589762 Report

Quoted By: >>13590432

>>13589647
Nope, that only works if the signal is equally likely whether there is one or two males (ie if i tell you there is a male in a pair of frogs)

It might be easier to see it in this problem:
>I flip two coins
>for each heads I get in those first two flips, I flip a coin and, if one of these is heads, I tell you there is a head in the first two coins
>I do this procedure, and end up telling you there is a head in the first two coins
>what is the probability that there is a tails in the first two coins

you should be able to figure this one out pretty quickly because you know the probability distribution of the signal
It gets more complicated when you don't

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 07:45:48 No.13589777 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586039
This furnishes insufficient data about the observing conditions, and about the behavior of the species, to give a reliable answer to that question totally irrespective of the statistical question it pretends to pose.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO b4150b29-065b-11ec-b8dd-effc2c65 (...).png, 139KiB, 256x256

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 09:53:18 No.13590235 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586039
>there are two frogs
>we assume one is a Male from the given data
>we lick both frogs
>we taste mayonnaise
>our chance of survival is between 50% and 49.999...% dude to uncertainty in population size.
>time passes
>the trees being to talk among themselves in timbery voices
>the birds loudly gossip in the canopy
>the forest spirits watch us cautiously from afar
>we lie motionless
>the spirits come closer
>they began to run and play and dance
>they play music for us
>there is a kaleidoscope of green and sky and earth
>your body no longer responds to you. As if it were 10x it's size
>you awake in the forest, head throbbing, resting next to a puddle of vomit.
>what happened? Why are you here? Did you dream something?
Don't lick random frogs man.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO thic.gif, 352KiB, 256x256

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 10:39:38 No.13590413 Report

Quoted By:

meta discussion: exactly what mental defect do 2/3niggers have? what transcription error in the womb led the helmet-wearing retard in the last thread to continually deny there was no such thing as t=0? this probability question could be the most important human filter since the rorschach inkblot tests

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 10:45:44 No.13590432 Report

Quoted By: >>13590591

>>13589762
>that only works if the signal is equally likely whether there is one or two males
Which it is, if you don't know how likely a frog is to croak, and all possibilities are equally likely.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 11:32:19 No.13590538 Report

Quoted By:

>>13589268
No, you're back to these posts: >>13586295
>>13588795

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 11:33:20 No.13590543 Report

Quoted By:

>>13589282
>It's the fucking coin problem
Wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 11:34:21 No.13590545 Report

Quoted By:

>>13589371
>answer: 2/3 chance of living
You're incorrectly assuming MM, MF, and FM are equally likely to produce one croak.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 11:36:07 No.13590551 Report

Quoted By: >>13590599

>>13586039
1/2
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 11:48:34 No.13590579 Report

Quoted By:

>>13589388
>When no information is known about the probability density function (which the problem explicitly states) you use the uniform distribution because it is functionally the expected value of a random distribution in all possible distributions, then you just dont know the base rate, again we have no information, to get the expected value you average over all possible probabilities (which are all the numbers between 0 and 1) and since these are continuous you can do this using the intergral
None of this responds to my point. The choice to express the answer as a function of the probability of a male croaking is arbitrary. You could for example express it as a function of the average male croaking rate, in which case there is no mean value.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 11:55:15 No.13590591 Report

Quoted By: >>13590626

>>13590432
Doesn't follow. If they are equal that means a male is as likely to croak as a female, i.e. probability 0. But then the answer is undefined since the condition has probability 0. So your answer wasn't correct even if we make your silly assumption.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 11:57:54 No.13590599 Report

Quoted By:

>>13590551
Proof?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 12:07:53 No.13590626 Report

Quoted By: >>13590663

>>13590591
>If they are equal that means a male is as likely to croak as a female
No, you brainlet. For each individual croak distribution the value would differ, but you don't know what it is, and if you aggregate all the possibilities, the contribution of this factor just cancels out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 12:20:23 No.13590661 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586106
Yeah, what the hell?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 12:20:34 No.13590663 Report

Quoted By: >>13590689

>>13590626
If you take the average over a flat distribution of probabilities then you get ln(2), not 2/3. Not knowing the probability of male croaking doesn't allow you to claim the probability is 1/2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 12:28:38 No.13590689 Report

Quoted By: >>13590728

>>13590663
Suppose this fucking frog croaks once in a trillion years. You heard only one croak. How much more likely is it that one of the frogs is female, than that both are male?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 12:40:28 No.13590728 Report

Quoted By: >>13590734

>>13590689
The probability the pair contains a female is 1/(1+e^(-t/1000000000000))

Where t is the amount of time in years you were listening.

So very close to 1/2, not 2/3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 12:43:09 No.13590734 Report

Quoted By: >>13590857

>>13590728
>So very close to 1/2, not 2/3.
Holy shit, you are ACTUALLY fucking disabled. But nevermind that. Very close to some simple fraction that you're too dumb to figure out. Okay, what if it's a quadrillion years?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 12:52:25 No.13590763 Report

Quoted By: >>13592003

>>13587012
Yup I'm wrong
Now post it

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 12:53:58 No.13590768 Report

Quoted By: >>13591962 >>13592003

>>13587043
Need to see the full ID to verify its even legit. I can print out the Harvard logo on a card too

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 13:09:37 No.13590800 Report

Quoted By: >>13591962 >>13592003

>>13587043
I saw the same ID posted on /pol/. Fucking larp. Either specialize it to /sci/ (with full ID, obviously blot out identifying information), or stfu.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 13:43:08 No.13590857 Report

Quoted By: >>13590867

>>13590734
You're an idiot, the fraction depends on how long you were listening.

>Okay, what if it's a quadrillion years?
1/(1+e^(-t/1000000000000000))

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 13:48:56 No.13590867 Report

Quoted By: >>13590898

>>13590857
What happens if it's a quintillion years? Are you trying to tell me there's infinitely many options to drag that average arbitrarily close to this mystical fraction that you're too fucking dumb to figure out?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 14:03:19 No.13590898 Report

Quoted By: >>13590925 >>13590937

>>13590867
It should be obvious by now what the formula is:

1/(1+e^(-rt))

Where r is the rate of croaking. This approaches 1/2 as r approaches 0.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 14:11:10 No.13590925 Report

Quoted By: >>13590964

>>13590898
>This approaches 1/2 as r approaches 0.
Which conclusively proves that your formula is wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 14:13:10 No.13590937 Report

Quoted By: >>13590968

>>13590898
What is r if the frog constantly croaks?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 14:23:37 No.13590964 Report

Quoted By: >>13591048

>>13590925
How so?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 14:24:38 No.13590968 Report

Quoted By: >>13591054

>>13590937
Infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 14:49:02 No.13591048 Report

Quoted By: >>13591090

>>13590964
Because the correct answer is 2/3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 14:51:14 No.13591054 Report

Quoted By: >>13591098

>>13590968
>Infinite rate of croaking
Retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:00:12 No.13591090 Report

Quoted By: >>13591093

>>13591048
You got 2/3 by assuming that two males are as likely to produce exactly one croak as one male, meaning e^(-rt)=1/2. So saying this conflicts with the answer you get when e^(-rt) approaches 1 is a non sequitur. Of course they are going to conflict if you make different assumptions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:01:09 No.13591093 Report

Quoted By: >>13591106

>>13591090
lol brainlet learn to count

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:02:17 No.13591098 Report

Quoted By:

>>13591054
>the frog constantly croaks
You're the one who suggested it. Why are you complaining about your own stupidity?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:04:14 No.13591106 Report

Quoted By: >>13591137

>>13591093
Learn basic algebra and you won't be confused when a function outputs different numbers when the input is different.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:10:05 No.13591137 Report

Quoted By: >>13591154

>>13591106
lol but your function is wrong because the correct answer is 2/3. What's your education, brainlet?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:15:28 No.13591154 Report

Quoted By: >>13591163

>>13591137
The function calculates 2/3 if we input your unjustified assumption that the probability of a male croaking is 1/2. So it doesn't even disagree with your answer. I have a BS in biology and math, not that anything above high school is necessary for such a simple problem. What's your education and why did it fail you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:17:33 No.13591163 Report

Quoted By: >>13591167

>>13591154
>I have a bullshit in biology
fuck off brainet just because the problem mentions frogs doesn't mean your meme education is relvant

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:18:43 No.13591167 Report

Quoted By: >>13591170

>>13591163
>doesn't even know what a BS is
OK kid, tell me when you graduate and we'll continue this discussion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:19:52 No.13591170 Report

Quoted By: >>13591182

>>13591167
lol kiddo i have a phd in statistics. go back to dissecting frogs. the real answer is 2/3 and your formula is wrong

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 001.jpg, 51KiB, 600x467

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:22:23 No.13591182 Report

Quoted By: >>13591185

>>13591170
>lol kiddo i have a phd in statistics
Sure you do, that's why you don't know basic algebra, basic probability theory, or what undergrad degrees are. You're a literal child.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:23:44 No.13591185 Report

Quoted By: >>13591193

>>13591182
if i'm the one who can't handle basic math, how come i got the right answer in 10 seconds while you've been struggling with it for hours?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:26:25 No.13591193 Report

Quoted By: >>13591197

>>13591185
But you didn't get the right answer, you just made an unjustified assumption. Same as the 1/2ers. And no I haven't been struggling with this problem at all. I'm the OP. Now do your homework, child.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:27:18 No.13591197 Report

Quoted By: >>13591283

>>13591193
>you didn't get the right answer
lol then how come it matches the objectively correct solution while yours doesn't? pure coincidence?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1600453622386.png, 324KiB, 557x557

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:29:25 No.13591201 Report

Quoted By:

/sci/ still getting trolled by a poorly written math riddle from Ted-Ed

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:47:19 No.13591283 Report

Quoted By: >>13591304

>>13591197
The objectively correct solution is 1/(1+x) where x is the probability of a male not croaking. So no, you didn't get the objectively correct answer, you made an assumption that x is a specific value when we don't have that information. So 2/3 is no more or less correct than any other number between 1/2 and 1. This is tiresome, so I'm not going to be responding to any more of your childish posts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 15:51:46 No.13591304 Report

Quoted By:

>>13591283
That's wrong, though. You are making an incorrect assumption in your false formula. The answer is 2/3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 16:13:48 No.13591387 Report

Quoted By: >>13591393

>>13589639
>P(1 total croak | FF)
Not part of the set.

>1/4*P(1 total croak | MM)
probablity is 1/2, because it's known one is male.

You're basically basing this entirely of that you could receive a croak from a female, which you can't.
Because the order doesn't matter, the only possible combinations is MF and FM, which means it's 50% chanse.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 16:15:41 No.13591393 Report

Quoted By: >>13591919

>>13591387
Total number of combinations of frogs is.
MM
MM
FF
FF
MF
FM

Cancel out all that are the same, because order does not matter

MM
FF
MF

Cancel out the impossible combination FF.

MM
MF

Both of these have 1/2 chance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 17:22:55 No.13591593 Report

Quoted By: >>13591737 >>13591932 >>13591936

It's 2/3
Here is the solve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpwSGsb-rTs&ab_channel=TED-Ed

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 18:15:14 No.13591737 Report

Quoted By: >>13591757 >>13591936

>>13591593
ummm no sweaty
the objectively correct solution is 1/(1+x) where x is the probability of a male not croaking. trust me i'm a harvard graduate

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 18:22:02 No.13591757 Report

Quoted By: >>13591805 >>13591948

>>13591737
No the answer (both are males) is (1-p)/(2-p) where p is probability of male croaking. This is not equivalent to yours with x = 1 - p

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 18:37:11 No.13591805 Report

Quoted By:

>>13591757
it's all about the probability of the male croaking, i tell you. this is 100% relevant

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:05:52 No.13591919 Report

Quoted By:

>>13591393
>MM
>MM
>FF
>FF
Why are you listing the same thing twice?

>Cancel out all that are the same, because order does not matter
What order?

>Both of these have 1/2 chance.
No, two males are not equally likely to produce one croak as two females. A random pair is also twice as likely to be a male and female vs. two males.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20191026-145504_Gmail.jpg, 536KiB, 1080x1909

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:09:36 No.13591932 Report

Quoted By:

>>13591593
The video is wrong. I actually conversed with the professor that made it and he admitted it's wrong since the croaking mechanism is correlated with the sex of the pair.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20191026-151508_Gmail.jpg, 183KiB, 1079x870

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:10:38 No.13591936 Report

Quoted By:

>>13591593
>>13591737

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:13:28 No.13591948 Report

Quoted By:

>>13591757
>No the answer (both are males)
That would be the probability of you not surviving. The question asks for the probability of surviving. If you need help with basic algebra, refer to >>13588950

And don't forget to apologize.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:16:22 No.13591962 Report

Quoted By:

>>13590768
Why would I post my class year and face...
>>13590800
what the fuck, link. I took that picture yesterday dumbass. It's impossible to photoshop a date that looks as realistic as that. I'll post the full ID with blanked out stuff

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 4chan_id.jpg, 90KiB, 807x596

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:23:24 No.13592003 Report

Quoted By: >>13592100

>>13590800
>>13590768
>>13590763

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:30:52 No.13592031 Report

Quoted By: >>13592037

>>13586039
little do you know that after mating, the species' females will climb to a higher grownd to avoid predators, while males will drop down from exhaustion, as they tend to mate with 2+ females at a time.
there is no cure there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:32:20 No.13592037 Report

Quoted By:

>>13592031
it'd be the other way around, actually.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:34:18 No.13592048 Report

Quoted By: >>13592071

>>13587012
proof

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:39:04 No.13592071 Report

Quoted By: >>13592091

>>13592048
its literally three posts up dumbass

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:44:52 No.13592091 Report

Quoted By: >>13592094

>>13592071
not of you being a faggot, but of one set being bigger than the other.
you've proven you suck dick for a living with your posts alone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:45:55 No.13592094 Report

Quoted By:

>>13592091
i can sense the envy and jealousy

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:47:27 No.13592100 Report

Quoted By: >>13592112

>>13592003
>supposedly graduated from Harvard
>doesn't know basic math or probability theory
>can't explain how his quantized time objection is even relevant
How embarrassing...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:49:53 No.13592112 Report

Quoted By: >>13592117 >>13592178

>>13592100
Harry Lewis (the guy who FB was initially named after and who taught mark and zuck) was on my thesis committee. I'm pretty sure he can judge my math better than you LMAO. If you work hard and stop being an idiot you can achieve success too. brb, going to go spend my 18,000 dollar paycheck I get every two weeks

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:50:59 No.13592117 Report

Quoted By:

>>13592112
zuck and gates* lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 19:51:35 No.13592120 Report

Quoted By: >>13592189

If we have two males, and the probability of a male croaking exactly once over a given time interval is 'p', then the probability of hearing one croak from two males is 2*p*(1-p).

If we have one male and one female, it's p.

The first scenario accounts for one possibility, while the second scenario accounts for two. Overall, the probability of having two makes if you hear one croak is 2*p*(1-p)/(2*(p*(1-p)+p))=(1-p)/(2-p), so the probability of having one female is 1-(1-p)/(2-p). We don't know what p actually is, but assuming any value is as likely as any other, you can integrate that expression for all possible p and arrive at the average of log(2).

TL;DR: the only value you can rightfully assign is log(2).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:08:17 No.13592178 Report

Quoted By:

>>13592112
>all this boasting while completely failing to defend your mistakes and unproven claims
How embarrassing...

Did anyone actually check the math in your thesis? Did you remember to "quantize time?"

LOL

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:11:00 No.13592189 Report

Quoted By:

>>13592120
>If we have two males, and the probability of a male croaking exactly once over a given time interval is 'p', then the probability of hearing one croak from two males is 2*p*(1-p)
No, based on your definiotion 1-p is the probability of croaking 0 times or multiple times. So you gave the probability of hearing one croak from one male and 0 or multiple croaks from the other.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1610225321593.jpg, 51KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:14:09 No.13592207 Report

Quoted By: >>13592240 >>13592259

I am the autist who created the spicy mayo frog picture. Let me bite on my own bait

You start with 4 possible sets (equally likely before considering the croak): FF, FM, MF, MM

Hearing a croak indicates there is at least one male. FM = 1/3, MF = 1/3, MM = 1/3.

Now. Can hearing a croak, and one croak only, give us a hint on the weights of each possibility? Let's investigate.

If there are two males, wouldn't it be twice as likely to hear a croak than with any set with only one male?
Put it this way, we have these 3 equally likely sets, FM, MF, MM.
Each male is as likely to croak as the other. 1/2 of the males we hear would come from the MM set.
That would give us 1/2 chance of survival.

Using the same logic however, wouldn't the fact that only one croak was heard make it more likely for the 2nd frog to be a female?
Given that the croak distribution and listening time interval are unknown, We would have to cover the range of possibilities.
Since they are unknown, let's assume both the interval between croaks and listening could be infinite or infinitesimal.
With that mind, we can infer that we end up a probability of hearing a 2nd croak (if the 2nd frog is a male) that sits in ]0,1[.
Refer to Harvard-anon if you want to argue about infinity and shit, i don't really care about this.

The point is that as long as the croak distritbution and listening time interval are undefined, there is nothing we can do a bout the weights of each probability.
If anything, the chance of survival is at least 1/2, and if you die, at least you got to lick some spicy mayo frogs.

But most importantly, I am thrilled to see other anons continually share this because I personally get banned every time.
I knew retarded anons would bite. The frog problem is a known bait.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:25:59 No.13592240 Report

Quoted By: >>13592261 >>13592269

>>13592207
So close. Just realize that the weighting on each side is not the same, because the neuron activity of the brains isn't a continuous function (if even the fastest thing in the world isn't continuous, then we know this obviously isn't either) and you realize the answer is undetermined.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:30:15 No.13592259 Report

Quoted By: >>13592302

>>13592207
>1/2 of the males we hear would come from the MM set.
This is false since two males in a pair are not twice as likely to produce a single croak as one male in a pair. One of the males has to remain silent so it's not a simple matter of counting total males.

I am the original poster of the frog problem by the way, thank you for simplifying it and putting it into an image.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:30:54 No.13592261 Report

Quoted By: >>13592268

>>13592240
>and you realize the answer is undetermined
yeah i just said that

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:32:48 No.13592268 Report

Quoted By: >>13592274

>>13592261
Yes, I never said you didn't, I'm just saying the answer is incomplete without what I said; if you treat brain activity as continuous, then the answer is 1/2

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:32:55 No.13592269 Report

Quoted By: >>13592277

>>13592240
Why have you repeatedly failed to explain how any of this is relevant to the solution?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:34:26 No.13592274 Report

Quoted By: >>13592293

>>13592268
It can't be 1/2, since a female frog does not have the same probability of croaking as a male, or if it does, the answer is undefined.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:35:01 No.13592277 Report

Quoted By: >>13592289

>>13592269
I'm not answering this again; I've explained it multiple times. You've failed to understand it.
You know, a big part of growing up and becoming smarter is admitting when you're wrong, or at least being open to the possibility.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:36:30 No.13592289 Report

Quoted By:

>>13592277
>I've explained it multiple times
Where?

>You know, a big part of growing up and becoming smarter is admitting when you're wrong, or at least being open to the possibility.
So when are going to grow up?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:37:04 No.13592293 Report

Quoted By: >>13592323

>>13592274
It does, since if you assume that the activity is continuous, this means that there are infinite distributions between any two real numbers. The time [0, x] where x is the time between you noticing the frog and now and (x, infinity) have an equal number of distributions (infinity) so they cancel out, and it's 1/2

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:40:03 No.13592302 Report

Quoted By: >>13592357

>>13592259
>This is false since [some bullshit]
ok

>I am the original poster of the frog problem by the way, thank you for simplifying it and putting it into an image.
You're welcome. I hope you like the mayo addition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:43:14 No.13592323 Report

Quoted By: >>13592335 >>13592346

>>13592293
>It does, since if you assume that the activity is continuous, this means that there are infinite distributions between any two real numbers.
This is gibberish. Do you mean there are infinite real numbers between any two real numbers? Infinite intervals?

>The time [0, x] where x is the time between you noticing the frog and now and (x, infinity) have an equal number of distributions (infinity) so they cancel out
What cancels out? You're not actually saying anything mathematical, just spouting vague statements.

If p0 is the probability of a male not croaking in time x, then the answer is 1/(1+p0). I already proved this and you had no response. How does time being quantized effect the solution? It's a simple fucking question that you, a supposed genius, have failed over and over to answer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:45:09 No.13592335 Report

Quoted By: >>13592368

>>13592323
not going to bother answering if you didn't understand my previous answers
>herr derr look at me i used a variable p0 instead of plain English this means I'm obviously right since math is about fancy symbols!111

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:47:23 No.13592346 Report

Quoted By: >>13592376

>>13592323
whats your answer to the balls problem

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:49:41 No.13592357 Report

Quoted By: >>13592374

>>13592302
>>This is false since [some bullshit]
Not an argument, try again.

The probability of a pair of two males producing one croak is 2*p0*p1. The probability of a lone male producing one croak is p1. Yes?

This immediately tells us that LESS than 1/2 of the males we hear would come from the MM set. Specifically 2p0p1/(2p1+2p0p1) = p0/(p0+1) of the males come from the MM set.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:51:20 No.13592368 Report

Quoted By: >>13592372

>>13592335
>not going to bother explaining my gibberish if you didn't understand my gibberish
Wow, what an enlightened academic!

Nice LARP, no one believes you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:52:25 No.13592372 Report

Quoted By: >>13592399 >>13592435

>>13592368
Ignoring me for a second - If you made more money and had more success in projects that millions of people use, would you care what some anonymous posters on 4chan thought of you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:52:44 No.13592374 Report

Quoted By: >>13592385

>>13592357
wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:52:53 No.13592376 Report

Quoted By: >>13592388

>>13592346
Daily washing with soap.

You mean Bertrand's box? It's obviously 2/3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:53:54 No.13592385 Report

Quoted By: >>13592394 >>13592416

>>13592374
Not an argument, thanks for admitting I'm right.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:54:26 No.13592388 Report

Quoted By: >>13592407 >>13592411

>>13592376
ok and now same problem but picking the 2nd ball from any of the boxes

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:56:13 No.13592394 Report

Quoted By: >>13592416 >>13592441

>>13592385
>Not an argument
it is an argument, i literally just refuted your claim

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:56:37 No.13592399 Report

Quoted By: >>13592430

>>13592372
If you didn't care about what some anonymous 4chan posters thought of you, would you be posting your (fake) credentials instead of making a valid argument?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 20:59:37 No.13592407 Report

Quoted By:

>>13592388
(2/3)(1/3+(1/3)(1/2))+(1/2)(1/3) = 1/2

Trivial.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 21:00:43 No.13592411 Report

Quoted By: >>13592435

>>13592388
(2/3)(1/3+(1/3)(1/2))+(1/3)(1/3) = 4/9

Trivial.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 21:01:43 No.13592416 Report

Quoted By: >>13592441 >>13592523

>>13592394
See >>13592385

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 21:07:48 No.13592430 Report

Quoted By: >>13592519

>>13592399
I posted them to make you feel bad about yourself, not so I could feel better about myself. Clearly it worked judging on how envious you are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 21:09:43 No.13592435 Report

Quoted By:

>>13592411
Very well, i was just making sure. This makes you not retarded, which makes the other anon >>13592372 retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 21:10:45 No.13592441 Report

Quoted By: >>13592523

>>13592416
see >>13592394

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 21:23:18 No.13592487 Report

Quoted By:

This is just Monty Hall

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 21:35:19 No.13592519 Report

Quoted By: >>13592537

>>13592430
But they just make me feel better about myself because if real I am smarter than a Harvard undergrad and if fake, you're a pathetic LARPer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 21:36:20 No.13592523 Report

Quoted By:

>>13592441
See >>13592416

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 21:39:22 No.13592537 Report

Quoted By: >>13592607

>>13592519
You judge how smart you are based on if you're right on a 4chan thread? I feel bad for you

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 21:57:56 No.13592607 Report

Quoted By: >>13592665

>>13592537
No I judge how smart I am based on being able to solve a basic probability problem a supposed Harvard grad can't solve or even grasp.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 22:12:12 No.13592665 Report

Quoted By: >>13592750 >>13592814

>>13592607
According to you. What qualifications do you have from other esteemed mathematicians? If none, what substantial projects have you built?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 22:37:02 No.13592750 Report

Quoted By: >>13592875

>>13592665
what's your answer to the gold and silver balls problem, where the second pick can be from any of the boxes?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 22:50:17 No.13592814 Report

Quoted By: >>13592875

>>13592665
According to a mathematical proof you have failed to respond to. You realize every post you make in which you fail to explain and prove your argument further cements your stupidity, right? I'm a published scientist, not that it's relevant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 23:05:07 No.13592875 Report

Quoted By: >>13592876

>>13592750
I've never seen that problem until now, but 2/3rds. I'm curious as to know why this is a popular problem, what is the false reasoning that people use if they don't answer 2/3rds?
>>13592814
>published scientist
means nothing. first author? last author and only contributed data analysis? what journal? what field? you can be published in biology for simple as hell empirical observational studies that require zero iq.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Sep 2021 23:06:10 No.13592876 Report

Quoted By: >>13593087

>>13592875
oh I didn't see the any of the boxes. I just googled "gold and silver balls problem" and used this, I assume its the same question:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gold+and+silver+balls+problem&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS866US866&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjR4r3J8N7yAhWpKFkFHTxsADYQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1745&bih=852#imgrc=qn6hDFWrstHtCM

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Sep 2021 00:04:42 No.13593087 Report

Quoted By: >>13593266 >>13593349

>>13592876
yes. 2/3 is the answer if the 2nd pick is from the same box.
in this case I want to know your answer to the version in which the 2nd pick is drawn from any of the boxes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Sep 2021 01:11:28 No.13593266 Report

Quoted By: >>13593349

>>13593087
He's a retarded LARPer, just ignore him.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Sep 2021 01:38:48 No.13593349 Report

Quoted By: >>13594433 >>13594435

>>13593087
No need to answer it when the solution is 10 posts above. Would be meaningless because you would think I copied it either way.
>>13593266
I have a job. I don't spend all day on here, sorry that not replying for an hour got you so concerned. loser

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Sep 2021 09:23:15 No.13594268 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586039
0.5*0.5 = 1/4

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Sep 2021 10:54:27 No.13594387 Report

Quoted By:

>>13586295
What if males croak more to attract a female mate?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Sep 2021 11:35:18 No.13594433 Report

Quoted By:

>>13593349
>I have a job.
Site you do, LARPer. Still waiting for you to answer my question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Sep 2021 11:36:20 No.13594435 Report

Quoted By:

>>13593349
>I have a job.
Sure you do, LARPer. Still waiting for you to answer my question.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches