|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
29th July 2012, 07:10 PM | #1 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
How do you define "Probability" without using a synonym?
I know that in a Bernoulli Trial situation, probability can be defined as the relative frequency of successes if the trial is repeated indefinitely.
But how do we define probability in one-off situations (for example, predicting that a certain event will take place at a certain date)? The concept of probability is still meaningful in these situations because if you can accurately calculate the probability of one-off events you can (in the long run) make money by betting on one-off events. Even though it may be possible to accurately calculate the probability of a one-off event, defining probability in this situation is still problematic. Many text books define probability as a "degree of belief" but that seems to me to just be a synonym for probability. Can anybody do better? |
29th July 2012, 07:31 PM | #2 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,620
|
|
29th July 2012, 07:41 PM | #3 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
29th July 2012, 07:50 PM | #4 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,031
|
|
29th July 2012, 08:02 PM | #5 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,753
|
I don't understand how, or why, you are differentiating between a synonym and and a definition. What is wrong with defining "probability" as a quantification of certainty about a proposition on a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 is certainty that the proposition is false and 1 is certainty that the proposition is true, and in between, the probability of a proposition is proportional to our certainty of it. It follows, for instance, that a probability of .25 means that we are three times as confident that the proposition is false as we are that it is true.
Jay |
29th July 2012, 08:09 PM | #6 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
29th July 2012, 08:17 PM | #7 |
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,352
|
Aren't all situations one-off situations? I mean, the Red Sox and the Yankees are tied right now. One of them will win. Bookmakers are giving odds on the game. Their odds are based on the individual player histories, the franchise history, the manager's history ... but there's only one time in the history of the world the Yankees will play the Red Sox on July 29, 2012 and the winner of that event cannot yet be known. Nor can it ever be known how well the odds-makers predicted the outcome, or how likely a different outcome would have been. All we know is that on this one day, one set of events will happen. They're all one-offs in my opinion. ETA: And they're going to extra innings. |
__________________
I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader |
|
29th July 2012, 08:23 PM | #8 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,753
|
I don't understand that statement either. What do you mean by "measure" probability? What do we measure it with?
I think you've got it backward. We measure (ie, quantify) our degree of certainty by probability, not the other way around. Probability is quantitative; it's the ruler. Certainty is thing needing measuring, like the length of a desk.
Quote:
Jay |
29th July 2012, 08:39 PM | #9 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Here's another variation:
Probability is a measure of the degree of confidence that we assign to an event's occurrence. We assign 1 for certain confidence and zero for no confidence and any number in between, which depends on the confidence level. |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
29th July 2012, 08:56 PM | #10 |
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,060
|
|
29th July 2012, 09:53 PM | #11 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 1,133
|
I think the Bayesian probability as such is quite a simple consept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability The problem arises as described in the article between objectivist and subjectivist approaches to it. I somehow feel that there is an "objective" probability to an event, if everything would be known, without it still being 1. But of course we can never know everything, so it seems that there has to always a certain subjective relationship to judging the odds. Having no mathematics this is just a common sense view, of course, and I would be interested to read comments by mathematically literate persons here... |
29th July 2012, 11:04 PM | #12 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,508
|
I guess you could define it as “largeness of opportunities”. Imagine a ball that falls from a random position above 4 slots. If the slots are evenly spaced, there are 4 options with equal “size”, so they have equal probability. If you double the width of slot 4, you still have 4 options but now slot 4 has twice the “size”, so it has twice the probability. Slot 4 has a greater “largeness of opportunities”. Similarly, if there are 5 slots of equal size numbered 1,2,3,4,4, there are still 4 options, but 4 has twice as many “opportunities”, so it has a has a greater “largeness of opportunities”.
The word “opportune” is from the Latin meaning “favorable” from the phrase ob portum veniens “coming toward a port”. Each slot has an opportunity to get the ball, but some may be more opportune or favorable than others based on their size or frequency. Just as wind drives a ship into a harbor, probability drives a ball into a slot. The problem with this analogy is that it tends to anthropomorphize things. Is there some god who decides which options are the most favorable and who drives the ball to the most favorable slot most of the time? If not, then what does? What drives the ball? The word “probability” comes from the Latin “probare” meaning to test or try. This is similar to the definition you quote of “degree of belief”. The word “chance” comes from the Latin “cadens” meaning “to fall”. Like that ball I mentioned above. And in English has come to mean both “opportunity” and “randomness”. I think the puzzle you are facing is not the definition of “probability” but rather the definition of “randomness”. We can calculate the probability that an event can happen, but in a one-off test there can only be one result. What determines the result is “randomness”. In the real world, we don’t see randomness. People can learn to flip coins to get a certain result. Rolling dice is more difficult, but we could build dice rolling machines that get certain results fairly accurately. Even computers don’t generate truly random numbers. Perhaps in quantum physics there is something random in the real world that is truly random, but I don’t think we understand that yet. So the “randomness” that determines the result of a one-off event is the very “vague intuitive idea” that you are trying to avoid. I don’t think we can avoid it. But I also don’t think it is a difficult concept. |
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley |
|
29th July 2012, 11:07 PM | #13 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,620
|
If I was explaining it to adolescents, I would tell them it's a way of guessing how likely or unlikely something was using actual available details that help me to form an educated guess.
|
30th July 2012, 02:36 AM | #14 |
Knave of the Dudes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,936
|
"Given the information available, the probability of something is our estimation that it will occur."
I guess you could also say that it describes the relative frequency of an event in an infinity of multiverses where all of the information you know holds true. |
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy |
|
30th July 2012, 11:39 PM | #15 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
Originally Posted by various posters
Originally Posted by some other posters
I know how to teach the concept of probability to children. You run a number of scenarios by them (eg "rolling a 7 on a die") until they can correctly apply such words as possible/impossible, certain/uncertain, likely/unlikely or even chance to the scenarios. From there, it is a simple matter to introduce them to the probability scale. Unfortunately, a definition of probability will probably elude them - even if they become skilled statisticians. |
31st July 2012, 05:37 AM | #16 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,753
|
As I explained in #29, in the Bayesian sense, probability is degree of belief scaled from 0 to 1. That is close to one definition you had (you also had a reasonable frequentist definition) all along. But for some incomprehensible reason that you have refused to explain, even when specifically asked, you have dismissed it as being a "synonym." You also made an incoherent objection (something about "measure") to my definition in #29, to which I objected, and you just ignored the objection and went on complaining that no one has given you a proper definition yet.
The fact is, we have given you a definition. It is now your job to either accept it, or to explain coherently why it is inadequate. Just repeating "it's a synonym" or it's how we "measure probability" (whatever that means) isn't good enough. We've done what you've asked. The ball is now in your court.
Quote:
Jay |
31st July 2012, 06:03 AM | #17 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
It would appear that I inadvertently brushed you off. Sorry about that.
I will deal with your previous post now. "quantify" is a better choice of words. I would have thought that "probability" was like the word "charge" in which it could be the thing or the measure/quantity of the thing. I'm not disputing your use of the word but I have never heard it expressed that way before. I was just hoping that probability could be generally defined in purely mathematical terms just as it can be in the Bernoulli Trial case. I guess the best that can be done is to use some generalized formula. |
31st July 2012, 06:09 AM | #18 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
"randomness" is something else altogether. I'm not sure that there is anything such as a purely "random" force but it is not germane to the definition of "randomness".
If the outcome of an event can neither be predicted nor controlled then it can be considered random. Many computer games make use of a pseudo-random number generator which is not random at all. However, since the average user knows nothing about the seed or algorithm of the generator, it is a truly random event for the user. |
31st July 2012, 07:17 AM | #19 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
|
Proper pseudo-random number algorithms pass tests that show their distributions don't significantly deviate from random expectations.
However, they can be stretched too far easily if you don't know their limitations. I once did a simulation of some Dungeons and Dragons combat. This used the C rand() function built on one very well-known pseudo-random number generator. I forget the details, but for some hit percent, say 10%, the longer you ran it, the longer the chain of most hits in a row you would get. Fair enough. However, at some point, you got to 9 in a row, but never, ever got 10, no matter how long you waited, including many times longer than 10x what it takes to see 9 in a row. If your simulation relies on such strings, look for better generators. |
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? |
|
31st July 2012, 07:24 AM | #20 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
|
For the nerd: The internal value of the seed is 32 bit and the generator just returns the low (?) 16. The algorithm then generates the next based on that seed and returns the low 16 again.
The seed for the next number is just the full 32 bit of what was returned to you on the previous call. When you call srand you're just initializing this value. Typically it generates numbers 55 at a time, so every 55th call to rand() will take some extra time. Anyway, this immediately suggests a random loop of 4 billion-ish then it repeats. Hence you would not be likely to see too many runs with a probability much lower than 1/4 billionish. If there were a lot of those, then the algorithm would fail random statistic checks, and would not have been used, of course. |
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? |
|
31st July 2012, 07:50 AM | #21 |
The Clarity Is Devastating
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
|
The probability of an event is the maximum fraction of a dollar you should stake to win a dollar payoff if the event occurs, if you don't want to lose money in the long run.
Respectfully, Myriad |
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote |
|
31st July 2012, 08:12 AM | #22 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Quote:
The ratio of the occurrence of a specific outcome to all possible outcomes. |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
31st July 2012, 08:15 AM | #23 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,753
|
I suppose that the word "probability" can be used in a colloquial sense to mean a qualitative likelihood or degree of certainty, but you were asking for a definition of "probability" in its mathematical sense. Our degree of confidence in a belief is not obviously quantitative. A rigorously justified quantification of subjective degree of confidence was not worked out until the mid-20th century (to the best of my knowledge). So "probability" in its mathematical sense is a quantification of a concept that isn't obviously quantitative, and furthermore, it is a specific quantification—a scale ranging from 0 to to 1.
Quote:
|
31st July 2012, 08:17 AM | #24 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
The problem with that is the definition of the word "occurrence" as a variable that can take a continuous range of values, which is very different to the commonly used definition. In effect, you're using "occurrence" as, in part, a synonym for "probability".
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
31st July 2012, 08:28 AM | #25 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Nonsense! The words occurrence and probability and quite apart from synonymous. There is no sense in which the word occurrence takes on a continuous range of values -- there is nothing preventing an interpretation of discrete values in my sentence.
Addendum: For example, consider a die: The probability of rolling 3 is the ratio of the occurrence of 3 to the occurrence of all the numbers. |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
31st July 2012, 08:49 AM | #26 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
Discrete or continuous is not the point. The point is that the common definition of the word "occurrence" is "that which occurs", which does not allow any range of values; something either is, or is not, an occurrence, according to the common definition. Using that definition, your addendum would of course be nonsensical; so the definition of the word "occurrence" you've used is clearly more complicated than that. In fact, the definition of "occurrence" you've used in your addendum is "the number of times a certain outcome occurs in a given number of repetitions of the process", which - going back to the OP - is undefinable for a process that occurs only once. So, again going back to the OP, you can only define "occurrence" for a one-off event in terms of the probability of a certain outcome occurring, which means that the definition is circular. Hence, your definition of "occurrence", while not synonymous with "probability", is dependent upon its definition.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
31st July 2012, 08:52 AM | #27 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
31st July 2012, 09:02 AM | #28 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
31st July 2012, 09:05 AM | #29 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,753
|
|
31st July 2012, 09:15 AM | #30 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,753
|
|
31st July 2012, 05:37 PM | #31 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
Obviously! However, it technically meets the requirements of the OP and defining both in terms of money adds an interesting dimension for students.
ATM I choose to deal only with senior high school students studying level 3 mathematics (the highest level). Not only is competition for such students low but ego is less of a problem for these students. I believe that I could also be successful with primary school children but I am less interested in making a game out of everything and there is much more competition for primary school students (teachers making money on the side etc.) |
31st July 2012, 05:40 PM | #32 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
31st July 2012, 05:51 PM | #33 |
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 686
|
I think this is one of the accepted definitions. A slight modification, which avoids the issue of "long run," is
The probability of an event is the fraction of a dollar you should stake to win a dollar payoff to make a fair bet. ("Fair bet" may be easier than "long run.") |
31st July 2012, 06:14 PM | #34 |
boy named crow
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,205
|
This thread may speak more to the difficulty of defining words in general than anything else.
|
31st July 2012, 07:34 PM | #35 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,753
|
I believe you misinterpreted Perpetual Student's suggestion. He did not mean "counting outcomes," at least not in the sense you are using that ambiguous phrase. For instance, his suggestion works for the following problem: A random experiment has two possible outcomes, A and B, that have either empirical or theoretical frequencies of x and 2x, respectively (for some non-negative x); then P(A)=1/3 and P(B)=2/3.
Jay |
31st July 2012, 07:46 PM | #36 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
31st July 2012, 07:49 PM | #37 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
31st July 2012, 09:02 PM | #38 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Exactly.
If we consider the universe of possible outcomes of some event, it makes no difference if possible outcomes are equally likely or not. Simply take the ratio of the number of occurrences of interest to the universe of all outcomes. If the die were loaded, repeated experiments would give us our answer in any case for that particular die. |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
1st August 2012, 10:21 PM | #39 |
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 284
|
My math ran out before formal set theory, but isn't that the way to go? The probability of an outcome "A" is the ratio of the ways outcome "A" can occur to the universe of all possible outcomes. In basic probability problems there are many simplifying assumptions. Take die rolling. Most statistics problems assume that the probability of any given number 1-6 coming up in the roll of a d6 is 1/6. That ignores what one would consider the die "coming up" or "showing." What if it is cocked against another die, the side of a box that the die is rolled in, character sheets, pencils, D&D manuals on the table, etc. Not to mention my friend's cat that would occasionally pounce on a die and and whack it into some dark corner. Bemoaning dismissiveness as an easy-out is a bit dismissive in itself. The probability of an event A that satisfies conditions of outcome "A" IS the ratio of the outcomes satisfying "A" to all possible outcomes.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|