Well, absolutely. And it's so easy to prove they are incompetent, isn't it?
The pronoun "one" I was not referring to "they". "One" had on the instant established his own incompetence.
I have devised a two player game called Hit-or-Miss using your maths establish its fairness. The field of play is two concentric circles: a 10 foot inner ring, and an 100 foot outer ring of stakes set 1 foot apart. The object of the game is to roll a ball between two of the stakes from within the inner ring. The first player hurls the ball without knowing which of the two posts the ball is supposed to roll through. The second player has to roll the ball through the same gap as the first player. The first player gains the point when ever the second player misses. The second player gains the point whenever he hits. I will be first player, and to illustrate my great skill, I shall play blindfolded.
Simple problem. A one in four chance occurring 1000 times in succession. What's the real answer, Iyx2no?
Which problem: (4
1000 - 1)/4
1000 ≡ 1 for all intents and purposes; (x - 1)/x = (x/x)- (1/x) = 1 - x
-1, which I already did; or the P of something that has happened of happening = 1?
The problem of pre-assessing the P of an event is not simple when it's not an entirely random event and the attractors are mostly unknown: I'm not competent to solve it. But I'm not so incompetent to not see so obvious a misapplication of probabilities.
Again, you are using information you clearly misunderstand to doubt a theory you clearly misunderstand. Why do you think that should convince me you've come to your doubt honestly?
I'm a sceptic: doubt is my starting gate. You are a cynic: doubt is your finish line.
It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon