Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?

0110001101101000 wrote:

I never mentioned the lottery or a sequence of events. I started with basics and worked up.

From what you said, I assume you disagree with #5.

Previously I skipped around, but you still disagreed. You disagreed for reasons I didn't use like saying I wanted to use infinite time or I had decided philosophically that anything is possible to begin with.

To clarify my stance, and to narrow down where we disagreed, I listed statements. If you don't want to go through them and agree or disagree that's fine, but that's my reasoning laid out step by step. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

Excellent! And my counter arguements are not directed specifically towards yourself. Your views get expressed quite convincingly. My view is quite unconventional, sometimes not presented in a coherent fashion I'm aware.

I've searched for a term which would define my view, but have been unsuccessful.

I've heard a few original ones like nut-job and screw-ball. I am able to to have a good laugh on occasion.

I think I can kind of see what you're getting at, but like you said I'm not thinking of it that way. I sort of have my own way of thinking. Yes of course I think my way is good  But I realize not everyone sees it that way.

Maybe you can help me out here 011 with the math. I agree with by example, a deck cards with10 million different ones, a possibility exists that a specific card could be drawn. Given the odds of 1 in 10 million, how many coin flips is needed (resulting in the same side appearing everytime) to reach the 1 in 10 million?

Where I'm going with this is, I can agree with the 1st example. At some point (where the line gets delineated ??) In the 2nd example, the coin flip, with the same odds it becomes impossible. I agree with Oprah, at some point statistics and logic (conventional) do not apply. The reality is the the coin flip reaccuring will never happen, the card being drawn a minimum possibility, while each share the same odds.

The way probability works is that the chance of a collection of events happening is the product of the chance of each of those events happening. It makes more sense with an example:

Each coin flip is a 1 in 2 chance (assuming perfectly balanced coins, etc.), so the probability of getting one heads is written as 1/2 (an event with certain probability is 1). Therefore, the chance of flipping two coins and getting heads on both is (1/2)*(1/2) = 1/4. This can be generalized as (1/2)^n, where n is the number of coins being flipped.

For the answer, (1/2)^23 is 1/8388608, and (1/2)^24 is 1/16777216, so at 24 coin flips, the chance of getting all heads is smaller than the chance of picking out a specific card from a ten million card deck (which is 1/10000000).

Thanks Blarg. Your description was of 24 coins being flipped and all landing on the same side. I was talking of flipping 1 coin landing on the same side after repeated flips. Do the odds same odds still apply?

Flipping 24 coins, all landing heads is ONE time event.

Flipping a single coin repeatedly and everytime landing the same necessitates the same event recurring. The same odds may apply to both, but I am of the mind that the chanches of the later happening is less. In other words, the likely hood of the same event recurring is less than the likely hood of something happening in a single time frame.

Go ahead and call this rational irrational. I understand it to be unconventional. It has to do with Time I suppose. A single moment in time, or over a period of time, the chanches of possibilty change while the math remains the same.

Yup, it's the same either way. The neat thing with probability is that the outcome of any previous event has no effect on the probability of any future events (unless you actually bent the coin or something). Whether the coin has landed on heads once or 9999999 times in a row before, the chance of it landing on heads is still 1 in 2. Likewise, whether you flip the same coin 24 times or you flip 24 coins once each (sequentially or at the same time), the odds are the same. The only difference between the 1st coin flip and the 57804th coin flip is in the human mind. You could have 10000000 different people flipping coins, you could destroy and recreate the coin for each flip, you could do the flips simultaneously, or seconds apart, or centuries apart, you could do them in the same room or in different star systems. The probability is always the same.

Oh, and to correct what you said above, the 1/16777216 odds are for 24 heads. 24 of any result would be twice as likely, since there are two allowable outcomes: all heads and all tails. That's another principle with probability: when you add together the probabilities of all possible outcomes, it totals 1. The odds of getting all heads on 24 coin flips is 1/16777216, because there are 16777216 outcomes that are all equally likely. It's the same odds as of you got tails for flips 3, 16, and 22, or you got all tails except for flips 2, 5, 12, 17, and 18, or any specific combination. One outcome becoming less likely would mean one or more other outcomes becomes more likely. If HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH became less likely, the euqally-likely HHHTHTTTTTHTHTHTTHHHTHTH would have to become less likely as well, by the same reasoning. But they can't all do that. The only difference between any of them is in the human mind. all heads only seems special in particular because it stands out. We don't notice anything special about random assortments of heads and tails, even though each one, too, is unique.

Thanks! I will have to listen to it when I'm more awake!

I get the probabilities, the math involved. I do not agree with the the conclusions drawn, that the math accurately describes what the reality is.

I also hold that, there is a distinct difference between flipping 24 coins at the same time resulting in a HT random pattern, or flipping 1 coin 24 times resulting in the same HT pattern. Can it be proven? No. I understand the probabilities, how the math works. The universe changes from one moment to the next. Mathamatical probabilities are reliable for a one time event. Imo, they are not reliable over a period of time; ie. flipping the same coin repeatedly.

It's sort of like saying "I understand the chemistry involved, but I don't believe gasoline can be used as fuel."

That's your choice, but all the time, everywhere, statistics are used in practical applications.

Practical applications. Most certainly.

Ok, so on a philosophical level, gasoline can't be used as fuel, I got it now

Whatever. Nice talking. I'm not here to convince anyone of agreeing with my theory. Understanding the nature of time is in its infancy, how it effects space, energy and gravity

It effects probabilities.

Maybe there was no other way to take it, but I didn't mean for it to be rude.

"I disagree with this conclusion. Once the realm of the absurd is reached, the chanches in reality are 0. At what point is this realm reached?"

It's quite relative, really, as I have said. A 1 in 10^50 chance of something happening would be laughable in this world. But in a world where humans lived for 10^100 years, you can't just laugh a chance like that off -- you'd have to think about the prospect of that absurdity happening in your lifetime. In either case the theoretical possibility was always there just as much; just that you might react differently to it depending on your situation.

From post #4795: "Who says nothing is impossible?"

I say that nothing that is not self-contradictory is impossible. And the fact that you listed "squaring a circle," despite the fact that I have said countless times that squaring a circle would in fact be impossible, shows to me that you are not listening to my posts and/or just don't understand this distinction that I have been giving. Getting 50 heads in a row is not a violation of physical laws, while a square object also being a circle would be. Those are two very different things and you're acting as if I never brought them up, even though I've brought them up so many times in this long thread.