[Archive!] Pure mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.: brain-training problems not related to trade in any way - page 325

New comment
 
Give it up, Programmer! You're messing with the terms. 99% is no problem. If it's 51%, then yeah.
;)
 
SProgrammer >>:

Да вопрос то не выграть - а что бы я НЕ ПОЗОРИЛСЯ ... :))
Может посчитать .. :)

Let's do the math. Do we count the correlation as zero?
// correlation of indicator light bulb readings between each other.
 
SProgrammer >>:

Дык а рачеты можно? :)) Хинт - если выпал орел, и из 100 лампочек только одна показывает павду, то есть горит, .... :) как-то вы странно считаете... Лож - это значит не все что- угодно а именно ложь ... :)


Mate
maybe leave the bulbs in your branch.
the profile's spiffy.
no hard feelings.
 
Here's how it works:
If all bulbs correlate 100% - the probability that most bulbs will show not true (at my inverter input) == 99%.
If the correlation is zero == 100% minus micro delta whatever.
In intermediate cases an intermediate result, depending on the correlation.
In short, a super-indicator. Soros is modestly smoking in the john.
 
MetaDriver писал(а) >>
Let's do the math. Do we count the correlation as zero?
>> correlation of the light bulb readings with each other.


Well that's it - decided, and like this is not the place - well, the correlation is just known. :)

 
Hi! Can we keep it simple? I can't concentrate, honestly. I'm just here for a minute.
Here's a serious question. Twice two is what you call it. I think the answer is 567. Right?
I'm wondering, honestly, did we win?
 
Ours must win. Ours are clever, honest, Russians. Russians are our name.
Let us live.
 
MetaDriver писал(а) >>
If the correlation is zero == 100% minus micro-delta whatever.


approximately 6*10^(-72)%
 
the probability that more than half of the indicator bulbs will show true<br/ translate="no">

The binomial scheme is. the exact answer is

Sum[n=51...100]{[number_of_100_to_n]*0.01^n*0.99^(100-n)}

the difference with zero is minuscule, an order of magnitude somewhere around 10^(-18), but still not 10^(-72)
 

Laplace's integral theorem, right! And what software ensured that accuracy?

1...318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332...628
New comment