"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:j1r5mu07emjtsagjd4c7sigpje9c5id87l at 4ax.com...>> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>> >"mat" <mats_trash at hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:43525ce3.0208200346.17c4045f at posting.google.com...>> >> mats_trash at hotmail.com (mat) wrote in message
>> >news:<43525ce3.0208031252.370db1e5 at posting.google.com>...
>> >> > No it won't you fool. Answer we this, and don't conveniently avoid
>it
>> >> > like the other difficult parts of my last post:
>> >> >
>> >> > If a coin is flipped twice am I certain to get one head and one tail
>> >> > (as would be the case according to your logic.
>> >> >
>> >> > If I flip a coin three times, what is the probability of getting at
>> >> > least one head?
>> >> >
>> >> > Just answer those questions and we know where we stand. Furthermore,
>> >> > if you don't answer you will confirm your inability to comprehend
>> >> > basic mathematics.
>> >>
>> >> Surely not that hard?
>> >
>> >Not only was your question answered a long time ago,
>>>> Nope.
>>>> >The probability of getting one head on the first flip is 0.5. The
>> >probability of getting two heads in a row are 0.5 x 0.5, or 0.25. Of
>> >getting three in a row is 0.125, etc.
>>>> That is not the right question. .125 is the chance of getting THREE
>> heads in a row on three coin tosses. The poster asked you the
>> probability of getting AT LEAST ONE head in three coin tosses. You
>> don't know the answer, do you?
>>>> The correct answer is .875. Now given the answer, can you tell us WHY
>> that is the correct answer? I've done half the problem for you, and
>> I'll bet you STILL can't solve it.
>>This is TOO funny. Using binomial probability to determine the probability
>of thousands of students getting ONE correct answer out of 4 multiple
>choices is a far different probability problem than using binomial
>probability to determine "AT LEAST ONE head in three coin tosses".
Yes indeed, and you answered neither of those questions. You answered
the chances of getting THREE, which is not what was asked.
>Nobody "guessed wrong on *his* question".
You claimed above - look right there "Not only was your question
answered a long time ago". You lied.
>The question is irrelevant to the original POINT.
Ah, but it IS relevant, as would have been shown to you when you
showed that you understood how to get the answer to this one. If you
don't understand this, you won't understand the more difficult
question that was going to follow. Those of us who have a little
understanding of math had a good idea where he was leading, but you
are, as usual, clueless.
>> But they aren't random any more than your wrong answer to his problem
>> was random. You misunderstood the question. This makes you no better
>> and probably worse than most of those female students you like to
>> insult.
>>Nobody misunderstood *his* question.
Then why did you get the answer wrong?
>Nobody denies you can use binomial probability
You've slung that buzz word around like you actually knew what it
meant. Now why do you think "binomial probability" applies to the
problem, and if you think it does, how do you solve the problem using
it?
>to calculate the answer to his question, and nobody denies that you
>(amazingly enough) actually calculated it correctly.
Actually, if you know how to solve the problem, which your BSing
indicates that you DON'T, then calculating the answer is really quite
trivial, using math that they teach around 5th grade. But you have to
know how to solve it first, which you don't.
>But *he* is supposed to be answering a *completely* different question.
No. HE posed the question, not you.
>This has utterly nothing to do with that question. This distraction from
>the original question accomplishes nothing. The question is, ASSUMING
>random guesses by thousands of students, what is the distribution of the
>responses going to be on a four part multiple choice question. Since nobody
>seems to *want to* [read: is able to] answer that question, here is the
>ANSWER:
>>25% plus or minus 2% will select A)
>>25% plus or minus 2% will select B)
>>25% plus or minus 2% will select C)
>>25% plus or minus 2% will select D)
Wrong answer. Which is quite evident by the fact that you pulled
those "2%"s out of your strange orifice.
>No matter how much you confuse yourself with all these other irrelevant
>points, there's no other possible distribution of the responses if they were
>completely random.
You clearly don't understand what "probability" means. There are
thousands if not millions of possible distributions of responses.
>Right?
Wrong.
lojbab
