Dice Probability

[Cile]

"Why? Almost every poster like this has lacked both."

I was in no way questioning BGA; just commenting on the "random" dice, and used the word in quotes.

care to tell us the lotto nmbrs for tmw? I mean, since you know my education and intent without having met me. Bravo "well played:. Note the use of quotation marks again

Care to link the tables where this happened? No amount of snark is going to put someone in their place nearly as well as simply showing the receipts.

[RobertBr]

the prob came from one of my prob stat books. Chat Gpt confirmed the figure ...

... I was in no way questioning BGA; just commenting on the "random" dice, and used the word in quotes.

Wow, just wow. Our poster thinks ChatGPT is a useful source of information and apparently does not understand what putting quotation marks around something conventionally means.

Its not useful to engage with people like this. If the OP accepted they were wrong (which since they know very little about what they are discussing and are being corrected en masse by people better informed should be apparent to them), and asked others to explain *why* they are wrong, not demonstrate that they are, then by all means that is worth doing. But its not useful trying to argue with conspiracy theorists - in any context where you are usefully teaching somebody something the teaching begins with an assumption on the students part that they don't understand, that they are wrong, and that is always absent in conspiratorial thinking.

The ChatGPT remark is just a wonderful example of that - its like telling an astrophysicist you are sure the world is flat because you asked your 4 year old nephew to check your reasoning.

[robinzig]

The ChatGPT remark is just a wonderful example of that - its like telling an astrophysicist you are sure the world is flat because you asked your 4 year old nephew to check your reasoning.

No need to insult 4-year-olds like that - even a 6-month-old monkey has considerably more reasoning ability than any LLM has or ever will

[Strode]

The ChatGPT remark is just a wonderful example of that - its like telling an astrophysicist you are sure the world is flat because you asked your 4 year old nephew to check your reasoning.

No need to insult 4-year-olds like that - even a 6-month-old monkey has considerably more reasoning ability than any LLM has or ever will

Well then no need to worry about them taking away our jobs or anything like that.

[Nekojin]

The biggest problem that people have with probability is that they're trying to integrate past events with future events - specifically, they're trying to say that because X has happened too many times, it MUST be not-X next time. This is a common mathematical mistake, called the Law of Averages. Despite the name, it's not actually any form of law, it's a fallacy.

I've rolled 2d6 seven times, and it's come up 7 all seven times. What are the odds that it will do it again? It has to not be seven again, right? Wrong. Past results do not influence future events. The odds of the next die roll being a 7 is the same as it always was - 6 in 36, or 1 in 6.

The mistake is in thinking that talking about past events is still talking about probability. Past events are not probability, they have now become results. They are what they were, and will always be so. That doesn't change probability, it doesn't represent some mistake or error in probability. Probability is talking about unknown events in the future with a predictable spread of results - that's all.