IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Tags probability

Reply
Old 25th February 2011, 08:38 AM   #161
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
No, you're not guaranteed that at all.

Because the question is actually one of predictability.

It may be impossible to predict, by looking at one keypress, which key will be pressed next, but still to be looking at a system which will never produce a single work of Shakespeare.
No. This is a very simple point that lies at the heart of your misunderstanding. As long as there is a non-zero chance for a particular outcome, whether it's a key being pressed, a coin landing up a certain way, or anything else, then that outcome is guaranteed to happen eventually given arbitrary time. This isn't up for debate, it's the very definition of non-zero probability. The only way a sequence can not be possible is if the system is set up so that at some point there is a probability of exactly zero involved.

The problem you seem to be having, as already noted several times, is that you're starting off with a system that is defined as always having a non-zero probability of every outcome, then arguing that at some point the probability magically changes to zero for no apparent reason. This argument simply doesn't make sense, especially since you've admitted to having absolutely no reason to think it is actually the case. It's a simple case of the null hypothesis and Occam's razor - there's no evidence it happens, so it's stupid to assume it does until such evidence is provided.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 08:13 PM   #162
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
As long as there is a non-zero chance for a particular outcome, whether it's a key being pressed, a coin landing up a certain way, or anything else, then that outcome is guaranteed to happen eventually given arbitrary time. This isn't up for debate, it's the very definition of non-zero probability.
That's right.

And in order for you to determine whether the very first phrase of your condition is accurate, you need to understand what the results-space of the physical system you're dealing with will be.

You cannot simply decide that a given system has a non-zero chance for any particular outcome. You have to have a reason to reach that conclusion.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 08:16 PM   #163
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Which has been done over and over again in this thread. It really is simple Piggy: as long as there is some non-zero chance that each flip will come up heads, then a streak of all heads is possible.
No, I'm sorry, but explaining this principle is not the same thing as demonstrating that it applies in this case.

If you want to apply this logic, you have to demonstrate that there is a non-zero chance of this particular physical configuration producing a streak of 100 heads. And if you're talking about a human brain, arm, and hand, on Earth, in real time, then how in the world do you intend to demonstrate that?
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 08:23 PM   #164
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,811
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
Is a sequence of 100 heads in a row literally impossible to get without cheating?

This was discussed in another thread but a mutual decision has been made to start a new thread about it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=200394

My position is that it is entirely possible to get that sequence without cheating.

Each flip is approximately 50/50, regardless of what came before. All heads is as likely as any other single sequence.
If it is impossible to get 100 heads in a row it is also impossible to get any other combination of 100 flips.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 08:24 PM   #165
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
There is a very big difference between biased and deterministic: I'm happy to accept the (rather far off) possibility that as streaks get longer people unconciously start affecting the flips in such a way that continuing the streak becomes less likely than predicted. That's very very different from saying that it becomes impossible. As I said, that requires 100% control of the flipping.
Rather far off?

Compared to the odds of flipping 100 heads in a row?

Not even close.

In any case, your definition of "impossible" has done a 180, it seems. When it came to outlandish streaks, a thing which we would not expect to happen in longer than the age of the universe had to be deemed "possible", but now something which is decidedly unlikely cannot be called possible?

And the ability to throw heads or tails at will is documented, so that's not out of the ballpark, either.

There's also no contradiction in undetectable limits on randomness. Rig every slot in Vegas to never let any "wheel" run a streak of 100, and the Gaming Commission would never detect it.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 08:27 PM   #166
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
urthermore, if this is your argument it seems that you concede that if, for instance, the human flipper were unaware of the outcome of the coin tosses (and thus any possible memory were taken out of the system) that all sequences would be possible, correct?
Well, that's an interesting system.

Physical fatigue might still loop the system back.

How would you know?
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 08:28 PM   #167
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
No, because one is a conclusion based upon what we actually know about the world and the system in question, and another is just something dreamed up.
Would you care to apply that same logic to what we know about the results of coin tosses, versus what people have dreamed up about them?
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 08:38 PM   #168
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by 69dodge View Post
It's not at all hard for me to believe that the chances of getting 100 heads in a row are about 1 in 2100. In fact, that's exactly what I believe. 1 / 2100 is very small, to be sure, but it's not zero.

It's much harder for me to believe that the chances are precisely zero, because that would imply that the 100th flip is qualitatively different from the first 99: each of the first 99 might come up heads or tails, but if they all happen to come up heads, then somehow the 100th flip inexplicably must come up tails. What could possibly be special about that particular flip, compared to all the others that have ever taken place in the history of the world, which makes it certain to come up tails?
Regardless, I would still take my bet of my life against a Lotto jackpot that everyone on earth flipping coins for 10 years wouldn't come up with that streak.

1/2^100 is a hyper-astronomical number. To keep with the coin theme, if a coin were flipped every 10 seconds, I figure you'd have to flip it a little over 400 sextillion years before you'd made 2^100 flips. That's some 26 trillion times the age of the universe.

And each person on earth would be facing the same odds.

As for what stops the streak, I have no clue. I'm not saying any such thing exists. I do know you can easily design a system to do that and to have results indistinguishable from true randomness. So unless we can fully describe the system, then we don't know what the results-space looks like.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 08:40 PM   #169
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by brainmeat View Post
It's been mentioned a few times, and I am baffled that the thread didn't stop dead...non-zero probability means possible. Why would not having perfect knowledge of a particular system mean anything, unless it somehow affected the probability of a given set of outcomes?

Is a given sequence possible? What's the probability of that? Oh, it's a real number between 0 and 1 that happens to not be zero? Then it is possible.
The question has been asked several times, in different forms, how that non-zero probability has been determined, and so far there's been no answer, merely assertions that it's non-zero.

Mind you, I'm not saying that it actually isn't.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 08:41 PM   #170
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
The only way your theory would work is if somehow the "human brain/arm/hand" idea reduced the heads possibility for a particular flip to zero.
That's right.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 08:48 PM   #171
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Regardless, I would still take my bet of my life against a Lotto jackpot that everyone on earth flipping coins for 10 years wouldn't come up with that streak.

1/2^100 is a hyper-astronomical number. To keep with the coin theme, if a coin were flipped every 10 seconds, I figure you'd have to flip it a little over 400 sextillion years before you'd made 2^100 flips. That's some 26 trillion times the age of the universe.

And each person on earth would be facing the same odds.

So what? The odds are exactly the same for each unique combination of 100 throws. And yet, each time we throw a coin 100 times, we get one such unique, equally probable or improbable combination.

Why is it so hard for you to see that?
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2011, 01:02 AM   #172
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Quote:
There is a very big difference between biased and deterministic: I'm happy to accept the (rather far off) possibility that as streaks get longer people unconciously start affecting the flips in such a way that continuing the streak becomes less likely than predicted. That's very very different from saying that it becomes impossible. As I said, that requires 100% control of the flipping.
Rather far off?

Compared to the odds of flipping 100 heads in a row?

Not even close.
Why are you comparing them? Neither I nor anyone else has suggested that flipping 100 heads in a row is likely. We all accept that it's phenomenally unlikely, so what's your point?
I simply said that your excuse for how it becomes impossible is less likely to be true than not, so if we are to sit here and try to figure out if it is actually impossible, even at this first step it's looking more likely to be possible than not.

But, as I said, even assuming that this unlikely thing is true, it still doesn't make streaks of 100 heads impossible.

Quote:
In any case, your definition of "impossible" has done a 180, it seems. When it came to outlandish streaks, a thing which we would not expect to happen in longer than the age of the universe had to be deemed "possible", but now something which is decidedly unlikely cannot be called possible?
What are you talking about? What did I say "cannot be called possible"? I specifically said "If this unlikely thing is true..."

Quote:
And the ability to throw heads or tails at will is documented, so that's not out of the ballpark, either.
Sure, but that's a different question. If you are saying "it's possible for a skilled coin tosser tossing coins forever to never get a streak of 100 heads, then I'll buy that as possible. But you are saying that people have 100% unconcious control of flipping without any prior training. And you have absolutely no evidence for that!
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2011, 01:04 AM   #173
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Well, that's an interesting system.

Physical fatigue might still loop the system back.

How would you know?
So, you are now suggesting that people getting tired makes coin flips come up tails 100% of the time?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2011, 01:05 AM   #174
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
That's right.
Any evidence of any possible mechanism that could cause that to happen?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2011, 01:38 AM   #175
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
The question has been asked several times, in different forms, how that non-zero probability has been determined, and so far there's been no answer, merely assertions that it's non-zero.

Mind you, I'm not saying that it actually isn't.
That bolded part is just wrong. Saying that 1 in 2^100 is non-zero is not 'an assertion'. It's mathematical fact. Having to demonstrate it happening in real life in order to prove that it's true is an arbitrary and unreasonable condition for you to apply.

Sheesh. When I originally chipped in to this thread I thought you were being misunderstood.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2011, 02:20 AM   #176
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,936
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Well, that's an interesting system.

Physical fatigue might still loop the system back.

How would you know?
Depeds. Is it a dime or a shilling?
__________________
"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
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2011, 02:26 AM   #177
alexi_drago
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,353
100 heads is still a random sequence from a huge list of sequences, there's not enough ink on the planet, even if the oceans were all ink, to write down a list of all possible sequences of 100 tosses. To select a single sequence and ask if it's possible is like selecting any other of the possible sequences from the list and asking if they are possible.
Is there a better chance of a sequence occuring just because it looks more random to you?

EDIT: There are more sequences in that list that look more random than ordered so the chances are that a sequence with a more random than ordered appearance will come up.
__________________
The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space.

Last edited by alexi_drago; 26th February 2011 at 02:44 AM.
alexi_drago is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2011, 03:38 PM   #178
Mobyseven
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
The question has been asked several times, in different forms, how that non-zero probability has been determined, and so far there's been no answer, merely assertions that it's non-zero.

Mind you, I'm not saying that it actually isn't.
That's not true -- I recall further up the thread someone explaining where it comes from. To wit: every time the coin is tossed there is a non-zero probability that it will come up heads. That, together with the fact that each coin toss is an independent event, gives you a non-zero probability that a run of 100 heads will occur.
Mobyseven is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2011, 03:47 PM   #179
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,774
Originally Posted by Mobyseven View Post
That's not true -- I recall further up the thread someone explaining where it comes from. To wit: every time the coin is tossed there is a non-zero probability that it will come up heads. That, together with the fact that each coin toss is an independent event, gives you a non-zero probability that a run of 100 heads will occur.
Exactly. With a coin with at least one head on it, there's always a chance on every single flip that the coin will come up heads. Therefore a sequence of any length of heads is possible from any coin with a head on it.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2011, 04:30 PM   #180
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Have we agreed on what "impossible" means yet, or is that what we're really arguing over?
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2011, 09:11 AM   #181
69dodge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Regardless, I would still take my bet of my life against a Lotto jackpot that everyone on earth flipping coins for 10 years wouldn't come up with that streak.

1/2^100 is a hyper-astronomical number. To keep with the coin theme, if a coin were flipped every 10 seconds, I figure you'd have to flip it a little over 400 sextillion years before you'd made 2^100 flips. That's some 26 trillion times the age of the universe.

And each person on earth would be facing the same odds.
I agree with all of that.

But I don't see how it makes my position any less likely, because my position is not that someone flipping a coin will get 100 heads in a row, but rather that the probability of his getting 100 heads in a row is 1/2100. So all of that improbability (26 trillion times the age of the universe, etc.) is built into my position already.

The question is not whether someone flipping a coin 100 times will or won't get 100 heads. He almost certainly won't. The question is whether the probability of getting 100 heads is 1/2100 or 0. All that's required for the the probability to be 1/2100 is that the coin be flipped fairly, which anyway everyone generally does assume is the case for normal coin flips. What's required for the probability to be 0 is that the coin, sometime before the hundredth flip, be wildly unfair. The latter seems much less likely to me than the former.
69dodge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2011, 09:25 AM   #182
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Depends. Is it a dime or a shilling?
Good point.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2011, 11:22 AM   #183
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
This discussion reminds me of those statements that quantum theory allows for some object to suddenly pop up on Mars with a non zero probability (meaning some highly unlikely to the extreme probability). It's an interesting concept, that if quantum theory is utterly correct, must be true. Such statements may give us some perspective about quantum theory even though they are of little practical value. I think the same can be said of the probability of "100 consecutive heads."
__________________
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2011, 12:15 PM   #184
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
This discussion reminds me of those statements that quantum theory allows for some object to suddenly pop up on Mars with a non zero probability (meaning some highly unlikely to the extreme probability). It's an interesting concept, that if quantum theory is utterly correct, must be true. Such statements may give us some perspective about quantum theory even though they are of little practical value. I think the same can be said of the probability of "100 consecutive heads."
Don't even think you need to invoke QM. With cosmic rays all over the place there is some small probability that Tom Hanks and a Wilson basketball will materialize, if only for an instant, at any point. Can the word impossible never be used?
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2011, 12:49 PM   #185
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
So what? The odds are exactly the same for each unique combination of 100 throws. And yet, each time we throw a coin 100 times, we get one such unique, equally probable or improbable combination.

Why is it so hard for you to see that?
It's not hard for me to see.

So given that fact, let me just ask you, why is it that there are innumerable combinations of sand grains on a beach which you would consider typical of what sand on a beach looks like, but if you were to walk out one day and find a perfectly regular pattern of sand, exactly smooth and arranged in neat rows and columns, this would catch your attention, to say the least?

The answer is that perfect regularity is not the way this kind of system behaves on that scale, which puts it into a different class of result from the enormous number of other possible patterns which are typical of how it behaves.

Ditto when you're using a radio dial. The space in between signals is characterized by its noisiness, and large-scale regularity and predictability -- whether that's a series of beeps or someone reciting the Declaration of Independence -- isn't characteristic of that system.

Would static ever spontaneously arrange itself into the sound of someone reciting the Declaration of Independence? I seriously doubt it.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2011, 12:52 PM   #186
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Why are you comparing them? Neither I nor anyone else has suggested that flipping 100 heads in a row is likely. We all accept that it's phenomenally unlikely, so what's your point?
I simply said that your excuse for how it becomes impossible is less likely to be true than not, so if we are to sit here and try to figure out if it is actually impossible, even at this first step it's looking more likely to be possible than not.

But, as I said, even assuming that this unlikely thing is true, it still doesn't make streaks of 100 heads impossible.
Why are you still discussing that particular point with me? I've already conceded that.

What I'm discussing now is a different question: Is it impossible (not just extremely unlikely) that a human being flipping a coin is not perfectly random and will not actually produce all possible combinations of, say 100 flips, no matter how long it goes on?
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2011, 12:54 PM   #187
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
So, you are now suggesting that people getting tired makes coin flips come up tails 100% of the time?
Nope.

But again, the question is not "Is this likely?" or "Would we expect it?" but -- just as with the run of 100 -- does this have a zero probability?
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2011, 12:55 PM   #188
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Any evidence of any possible mechanism that could cause that to happen?
Nope. See above.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2011, 01:00 PM   #189
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
That bolded part is just wrong. Saying that 1 in 2^100 is non-zero is not 'an assertion'. It's mathematical fact. Having to demonstrate it happening in real life in order to prove that it's true is an arbitrary and unreasonable condition for you to apply.

Sheesh. When I originally chipped in to this thread I thought you were being misunderstood.
You may have missed the part where the topic changed.

The question now is, what are the odds that a human flipping a coin, if it could go on indefinitely, would not in fact produce all possible combinations at any given scale? In other words, what are the odds that it is in some way biased in a way that would prevent extremely long streaks from happening?

I happened to ask, in one post, if the odds were less than 1/2^100 because it's already established that even those long odds do not equal zero.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2011, 01:02 PM   #190
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Mobyseven View Post
That's not true -- I recall further up the thread someone explaining where it comes from. To wit: every time the coin is tossed there is a non-zero probability that it will come up heads. That, together with the fact that each coin toss is an independent event, gives you a non-zero probability that a run of 100 heads will occur.
If you could guarantee that each flip were independent, I'd have no problem. I'm sure we could build machines to satisfy those conditions (or reasonably sure). But when dealing with a brain, arm, and hand, I can allow myself at least 1/1-nonillionth of a doubt.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2011, 01:44 PM   #191
alexi_drago
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,353
I think the problem is that most people perceive one random looking sequence to be more like another random looking sequence than one that looks like it has some sort of order.
Out of the 2^100 possible sequences the vast majority look more random than ordered and therefore it's more likely that a random looking sequence will be thrown.

I see it kind of like this:

Say there are 20 (or 2^100) evenly matched horses in a race, all are black except one which is brown, it's most likely that a black horse will win even though not one of those black horses has a better or worse chance than the brown horse. So do you have a better chance by betting on a black horse?
__________________
The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space.
alexi_drago is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2011, 04:18 PM   #192
Mobyseven
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,671
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
If you could guarantee that each flip were independent, I'd have no problem. I'm sure we could build machines to satisfy those conditions (or reasonably sure). But when dealing with a brain, arm, and hand, I can allow myself at least 1/1-nonillionth of a doubt.
To be honest, I don't even strictly need to guarantee independence of events, just that at each coin toss both sides have a non-zero probability of occurring. Doesn't matter whether it's a machine doing the flips or a human.

If you want to say otherwise, then either you've stopped talking about coins as we know them, or you mean something very different to the rest of us when you talk about a coin toss.
Mobyseven is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2011, 05:40 PM   #193
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Why are you still discussing that particular point with me? I've already conceded that.
I appologise, I thought you had conceded that it may be possible, but were continuing to argue that it may be impossible as well, and we simply can't tell either way.
I was making the argument that it cannot be impossible.

If you have accepted that it is impossible, I'm sorry for belaboring that point.

Quote:
What I'm discussing now is a different question: Is it impossible (not just extremely unlikely) that a human being flipping a coin is not perfectly random and will not actually produce all possible combinations of, say 100 flips, no matter how long it goes on?
Those are two different questions. It isn't necessary that a human being flipping a coin be perfectly random in order for enough iterations to produce all possible combinations. But Mobyseven says that better than I can.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 12:33 AM   #194
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
Nope.

But again, the question is not "Is this likely?" or "Would we expect it?" but -- just as with the run of 100 -- does this have a zero probability?
Does what have a zero probability? That people getting tired causes coin flips to come up tails 100% of the time? That's not a probability question. It's simply not possible. The "messiness" of the world rules it out, necessarily, as the coin is affected by things other than the tiredness of the tosser.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 12:36 AM   #195
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,040
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
You may have missed the part where the topic changed.

The question now is, what are the odds that a human flipping a coin, if it could go on indefinitely, would not in fact produce all possible combinations at any given scale? In other words, what are the odds that it is in some way biased in a way that would prevent extremely long streaks from happening?

I happened to ask, in one post, if the odds were less than 1/2^100 because it's already established that even those long odds do not equal zero.
As I said earlier I'm happy to accept that the odds may be less than 1/2100 and that there could be things influencing the system that we are not aware of.
However, as I and others have pointed out, in order for the odds of any particular combination to equal exactly zero, the odds of some particular flip in some particular circumstance coming up with a particular result have to equal 100%.
With a normal human executing a normal coin flip, I can't see that. Hell, even a trained coin flipper can make mistakes.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 04:58 AM   #196
Thabiguy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
What I'm discussing now is a different question: Is it impossible (not just extremely unlikely) that a human being flipping a coin is not perfectly random and will not actually produce all possible combinations of, say 100 flips, no matter how long it goes on?
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
The question now is, what are the odds that a human flipping a coin, if it could go on indefinitely, would not in fact produce all possible combinations at any given scale? In other words, what are the odds that it is in some way biased in a way that would prevent extremely long streaks from happening?
Although the "new question" may look superficially similar to the original thread topic, it is a very different question - here you are using the word "odds" in a way that requires another interpretation of the whole concept of probability.

Q1. Is it impossible (P1=0) for a sequence of 100 heads to come up when a coin is fairly tossed 100 times?

Q2. Is it impossible (P2=0) for "humans flipping coins" to be unfair in such a way that they are prevented from getting a sequence of 100 heads?

The first question asks about a fair, random experiment, and makes it clear what constitutes a trial and what constitutes a success. It implies frequentist interpretation of probability P1, and in that context, it can be easily and clearly answered. (The answer is "no, the probability is very low, but non-zero".)

The second question doesn't define any fair, random experiment. It isn't clear what constitutes a trial: are we somehow supposed to construct humans randomly (and what would still constitute "humans flipping coins"?) and analyze how often we may end up with humans unable to flip 100 heads in a row? That doesn't make any sense, and the question doesn't ask that anyway. It refers to a single scenario that's already been set up - existing humans either being prevented from flipping 100 heads in a row or not - and asks about the "probability" of the answer (which is already established but unknown to us) being this or that.

The second question therefore intrinsicially implies Bayesian interpretation of probability P2 and it is a question of our belief or confidence in something that we can't know.

Considering that results of real humans flipping coins are in principle affected by the entire observable universe (it's possible for a meteorite to fall nearby, shake the ground and alter the result; it's possible for a cosmic ray to strike a neuron controlling the arm and alter the result, etc.), the hypothesis that humans are prevented from flipping 100 heads is actually a statement about the entire observable universe being set up in a particular way that rules out humans flipping 100 heads. It would therefore seem that the upper bound of probability P2 (our confidence in this hypothesis) might be extremely low, dramatically lower than 2-100 (but let's not forget that probability P1=2-100 is a different kind of probability and the two can't be directly compared).

Could we rule out the hypothesis altogether, though (P2=0)? It seems that we can't, because, after all, we could always be living in a virtual reality which was for some weird reasons set up to prevent flipping 100 heads.

The answer to Q2 might therefore ultimately be the same as the answer to Q1 ("no, the probability is very low, but non-zero"), but it is important to note that the two probabilities P1 and P2 represent different concepts that cannot be directly mixed.
Thabiguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 03:52 PM   #197
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Mobyseven View Post
To be honest, I don't even strictly need to guarantee independence of events, just that at each coin toss both sides have a non-zero probability of occurring. Doesn't matter whether it's a machine doing the flips or a human.

If you want to say otherwise, then either you've stopped talking about coins as we know them, or you mean something very different to the rest of us when you talk about a coin toss.
It's not that, really. It's just that I can't tell you that there is not even 1/1-nonillionth of a chance that real human beings flipping real coins would not somehow unconsciously kill the streak if it lasted long enough.

I can tell you that I find the notion pretty far-fetched.

But I can't tell you that there's not some hyper-astronomical chance that it might actually turn out to be true.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 03:54 PM   #198
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Does what have a zero probability? That people getting tired causes coin flips to come up tails 100% of the time? That's not a probability question. It's simply not possible. The "messiness" of the world rules it out, necessarily, as the coin is affected by things other than the tiredness of the tosser.
Can you describe the system perfectly?

I can't. Don't know anyone else who can.

So I can't say that there is literally a zero chance, not even 1/1-nonillionth of a chance, that real coin-flippers would somehow sabotage extremely long streaks, were they to occur.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 03:56 PM   #199
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Thabiguy View Post
The answer to Q2 might therefore ultimately be the same as the answer to Q1 ("no, the probability is very low, but non-zero"), but it is important to note that the two probabilities P1 and P2 represent different concepts that cannot be directly mixed.
This is, indeed, all that I was trying to say.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 04:45 PM   #200
alexi_drago
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,353
Write down any random looking sequence of 100 heads and tails, the exact same discussion as has gone on here would apply equally to that sequence as well as the 100 heads.
__________________
The secret NASA doesn't want you to know - God makes rockets work in space.
alexi_drago is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.