Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Counter-Intuitive Science
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 166 of 182 (601499)
01-20-2011 9:41 PM


The nocebo effect.
Saw this on Pharyngula.

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 167 of 182 (601533)
01-21-2011 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by RAZD
01-20-2011 7:55 PM


Re: Counter-Intuitive Math
RAZD writes:
Curiously, you do not walk away with the car. You still have the option to swap or stay, whether you have a possibility of winning or not.
I think the only disagreement we have is in regards to how the question is phrased and not on what the answer is.
1:3 chance of winning the car.
Stay/Swap is 50:50.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2011 7:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by petrophysics1, posted 01-21-2011 9:48 AM Panda has replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 182 (601540)
01-21-2011 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Panda
01-21-2011 6:59 AM


Re: Counter-Intuitive Math
You are correct except that what happened to your 1/3 odds when the goat was seen in one of the doors is your odds for your original choice became 2/3.
If you switch they become 1/2.
If you stick they are 2/3, why would you lower your odds?
The problem is covered in the movie "21", if you are like me and count cards you will understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Panda, posted 01-21-2011 6:59 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Panda, posted 01-21-2011 12:17 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 169 of 182 (601553)
01-21-2011 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by petrophysics1
01-21-2011 9:48 AM


Re: Counter-Intuitive Math
petrophysics1 writes:
...except that what happened to your 1/3 odds when the goat was seen in one of the doors is your odds for your original choice became 2/3.
Imagine there were 3 people playing this game:
You pick Door 1. Monty picks Door 2. I pick Door 3.
We all have a 1:3 chance of winning the car.
But you are claiming that if Monty randomly shows a goat, then my chances of winning drop and yours increases, which is clearly not true.
Remember, this is not the same as the standard Monty Hall question - Monty doesn't know where the car is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by petrophysics1, posted 01-21-2011 9:48 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Noetherian Atheist
Junior Member (Idle past 4553 days)
Posts: 7
From: London
Joined: 08-19-2010


Message 170 of 182 (601595)
01-21-2011 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by cavediver
01-20-2011 6:57 PM


Re: More counterintuitive Maths
Cavediver,
Well, the 2/3 is obvious
Well, I suppose. No, there's no trap. But I find a lot of people expect it to be 1/2. Sorry it was too intuitive!
I'm not sure where you get 0.25 from.
Me too. You are "correct" in your approaches to getting 1/2 & 1/3. Clearly this can be extended to any value in between. But 1/4 is new.
The thing is, you can't use lines to space fill ! Lines are not infinitessimally thin, they have zero width. Hence the "paradox". The whole question is ill-defined anyway. You cannot just "randomly" draw lines across circles without giving some concept of measure, some distribution function. There is no obvious "uniform distribution" that one could just assume is meant by the questioner.
What? You mean I haven't convinced you that 1/2 = 1/3?
Myself, I'd question the whole basis of a probability of choosing any one element of an infinite subset, from a larger set, and finding the answer is "1/3". I thought about an argument based on assuming finitely wide strips, and then limiting, but again, does a probability carry across a limit (or an integral)? Functional analysis is not my area.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by cavediver, posted 01-20-2011 6:57 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by slevesque, posted 01-23-2011 2:43 AM Noetherian Atheist has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 171 of 182 (601684)
01-23-2011 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Noetherian Atheist
01-21-2011 7:40 PM


Re: More counterintuitive Maths
Myself, I'd question the whole basis of a probability of choosing any one element of an infinite subset, from a larger set, and finding the answer is "1/3". I thought about an argument based on assuming finitely wide strips, and then limiting, but again, does a probability carry across a limit (or an integral)? Functional analysis is not my area.
I would guess that it does, or at least that there is a way of finding the correct probability.
I remember my physics teacher last year asked us the following math question: given a stick that is a meter long, what is the probability that, by cutting it in 3 parts, I can take those three parts and form triangle.
Which is kinda similar to your question, since there are, mathematically, infinitely many ways to cut a stick in three pieces. Yet there was still a real answer.
Yet I still do feel quite confident about my 1/4 answer, I have given much thought into it and it still feels like the right approach. While something which I can't put my finger on is missing in the two other reasonings who give 1/2 and 1/3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Noetherian Atheist, posted 01-21-2011 7:40 PM Noetherian Atheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by cavediver, posted 01-23-2011 4:24 AM slevesque has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 172 of 182 (601687)
01-23-2011 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by slevesque
01-23-2011 2:43 AM


Re: More counterintuitive Maths
Yet I still do feel quite confident about my 1/4 answer
It's actually the method I started to look at when looking for the 1/3 and 1/2 answers - but the methods behind those answers suddenly became obvious and I forgot about this first idea. It is very elegant, especially as it seems to put the chords in one-to-one correspondance with the points of the circle... but there is an issue that occurs to me
And there is still the other issue of distribution function - how are these lines being chosen? Is your answer based on the most natural distribution? For example, your distribution would have 1/10 of all lines drawn being within 1/20 of the radius from the circumference! Does that sound reasonable? (and one half of all lines are within 3/10 of the radius from the circumference)
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by slevesque, posted 01-23-2011 2:43 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by slevesque, posted 01-23-2011 3:17 PM cavediver has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 173 of 182 (601706)
01-23-2011 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
01-09-2011 8:50 PM


Ice
jar writes:
That ice floats.
Even more counter-intuitive is that ice also sinks. There are various solid phases of ice, some of which have a density higher than that of liquid water, which causes it to sink.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 01-09-2011 8:50 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 174 of 182 (601722)
01-23-2011 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by cavediver
01-23-2011 4:24 AM


Re: More counterintuitive Maths
It's actually the method I started to look at when looking for the 1/3 and 1/2 answers - but the methods behind those answers suddenly became obvious and I forgot about this first idea. It is very elegant, especially as it seems to put the chords in one-to-one correspondance with the points of the circle... but there is an issue that occurs to me
That all points aren't born equal ? I have been thinking that an infinit number of lines can have there middle-point be at the middle of the circles. While this is not true for any other lines drawn, as their middle points will be unique to them. (at least that's how I see it, my visualisation could be wrong)
And there is still the other issue of distribution function - how are these lines being chosen? Is your answer based on the most natural distribution? For example, your distribution would have 1/10 of all lines drawn being within 1/20 of the radius from the circumference! Does that sound reasonable? (and one half of all lines are within 3/10 of the radius from the circumference)
I couldn't answer those questions. I actually asked the question to ''Dr.Math'' and they sent me back this answer:
All three answers are equally valid. It depends entirely on how
you 'define' a random chord. It is a classic illustration of the
fact that 'randomness' is not a completely fixed concept
like 'length' or 'weight'. The difficulty in getting a random sample
from a population is well-known and accounts for the many occasions
that poll ratings fail to predict the actual outcome. The usual
definition of a random sample includes the requirement that EVERY
member of the population has an equal chance of being in the sample.
It is not easy to decide between the three methods of defining a
random chord which is the most valid.
Which seems to be about what you are saying.
I've never had any course in probabilities and statistics, and so when I happen to do problems like these I go with my intuition. This is a case where the reality of the problem was counter-intuitive; randomness isn't just 'randomness', and defining it in different ways will lead to different results all equally valid.
But the question still remains for me: how can we know which one is more valid ? If we can extend the survey analogy, there should be only one actual outcome in reality. How can we know which one it will be ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by cavediver, posted 01-23-2011 4:24 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by cavediver, posted 01-23-2011 6:06 PM slevesque has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 175 of 182 (601733)
01-23-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by slevesque
01-23-2011 3:17 PM


Re: More counterintuitive Maths
I have been thinking that an infinit number of lines can have there middle-point be at the middle of the circles. While this is not true for any other lines drawn, as their middle points will be unique to them.
That's the issue that was bothering me.
Which seems to be about what you are saying.
Yep
But the question still remains for me: how can we know which one is more valid ?
But none are more valid than any other, becuase the question itself is not sufficiently well-defined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by slevesque, posted 01-23-2011 3:17 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 176 of 182 (607599)
03-05-2011 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Noetherian Atheist
01-19-2011 8:51 PM


Re: More counterintuitive Maths
One involves 3 plain cards with faces coloured red/red, red/green & green/green. Now if one card is chosen at random and placed on a table so that you can see one side (red say), what it the probability that the other side is also red?
1/3. The chance of it being green is 1/6. The easiest way to comprehend this is to consider that you are always going to bet that the card is the same colour on the other side. Seeing as two of the three cards are the same colour on the other side, your chances of winning are automatically 2/3.
I know it sounds strange, but it actually isn't. Another way of seeing it ; 3 cards have six sides in total. Chances of pulling out red/red? 1/3. Multiplied by the chance of it showing red? One. One times 1/3 is 1/3. Chances of pulling out red/green? 1/3. Multiplied by the chance of it showing red? 1/2. 1/2 times 1/3 =1/6.
As for the Monty Hall problem, the best way of understanding it is to remember that Monty knows where the car is- so it's kind of like Monty "owning" two of the doors, and you only own one.
Monty's always going to have a goat to reveal (there's only one car) but when you switch you are literally exchanging your 1/3 shot for Monty's 2/3.
If Monty doesnt know, and reveals a goat, your chances remain at 1/3- change or swap. All it means is that Monty's 1/3 shot revealed a goat. It doesn't change your odds.

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Noetherian Atheist, posted 01-19-2011 8:51 PM Noetherian Atheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-22-2011 6:16 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 177 of 182 (607601)
03-05-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
01-09-2011 7:38 PM


or one that can travel directly upwind, powered by wind
RAZD, I assume you are referring to a yacht tacking. I hate to be pedantic but that isn't "directly" into the wind. However, it is pretty mindblowing that a wind-powered vessel can travel into the wind, directly or indirectly.
My personal favourite is that smoke is heavier than air, and will flow downwards out of a test-tube.

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2011 7:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 03-13-2011 2:28 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 178 of 182 (607602)
03-05-2011 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
01-09-2011 6:47 PM


that it is entirely possible to make a vehicle that travels directly downwind, powered only by the wind, and goes faster than the wind
Okay Arachnaphilia, you got me. Elaborate.

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 01-09-2011 6:47 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by arachnophilia, posted 03-05-2011 9:51 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 179 of 182 (607675)
03-05-2011 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Kaichos Man
03-05-2011 6:02 AM


LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You
basically, you make a cart such that the wheel powers a propeller (that rotates against the wind). the wind will push the cart because the prop acts as a dead sail at first, but as the wheels power the prop, the the added force of the wind and the prop cause the cart to move faster than the wind.
Edited by arachnophilia, : spalling

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Kaichos Man, posted 03-05-2011 6:02 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 180 of 182 (608765)
03-13-2011 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Kaichos Man
03-05-2011 6:00 AM


Hi Kaichos Man
RAZD, I assume you are referring to a yacht tacking. I hate to be pedantic but that isn't "directly" into the wind. However, it is pretty mindblowing that a wind-powered vessel can travel into the wind, directly or indirectly.
Nope.
A vessel with a propeller that is spun by the wind powers a propeller that drives the vessel directly upwind. Same principal as the vehicle going downwind faster than the wind.
another idea | Boat Design Net
Page Not Found
Page Not Found
quote:
The 36 foot catamaran, Revelation II, is powered by 3 20-foot long carbon fiber propellers on a 30 foot rotating mast. The windmill transmits power to a 6 blade propeller underwater, with the net result that the boat can make way even directly into the wind.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Kaichos Man, posted 03-05-2011 6:00 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024