Random probability theory. Napalm continues! - page 10
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Still... is the probability of a random event objective or subjective?
And is there an objective probability independent of subjects at all?
Information is primary, matter is secondary. Or rather, matter is tertiary and wave is secondary.
In other words, the order is as follows: information arises first, information gives rise to a wave, the wave gives rise to matter.
Even estimating the probability of seeing a dinosaur depends on your knowledge of who they are and what archaeological era it is. In the absence of that knowledge, your probability would be 0.5)
Nah. If I don't know what a dinosaur looks like, I definitely won't see one. But that's a conditional probability :)
It's Groundhog Day.
In general - there are subjective and statistical probability. Objective does not happen (:
Even an estimate of the probability of seeing a dinosaur depends on your knowledge of who they are and what archaeological era it is. In the absence of that knowledge, the probability for you would be 0.5)
So if I am not a palaeontologist and know nothing about palaeontology, then the probability for me to go out and meet a living dinosaur = 0.5? Come on.
This probability is the same for all people, regardless of their degree of awareness of palaeontology, and it is not 0.5 at all. This is an example of a "false" probability.
So, if I am not a paleontologist and know nothing about paleontology, then for me the probability of going out and meeting a living dinosaur = 0.5? Come on.
This probability is the same for all people, regardless of their degree of awareness of palaeontology, and it is not 0.5 at all. This is an example of a "false" probability.
You're just saying that because you know what a dinosaur is.
You have been told that in a state of complete lack of information about an object, you can only consider equal probability encounter/no encounter events
In a state of complete absence of probabilities, there is no assumption to accept the a priori hypothesis that there is a uniform probability distribution of the occurrence of the event. In this case, the hypothesis of uncertainty about the occurrence of the event is accepted.
For example, I do not know what a dorplp is, but I do not therefore accept the hypothesis that I will encounter this creature with a probability of 50% when I go out in the street.
In a state of complete absence of probabilities, there is no assumption to accept the a priori hypothesis that there is a uniform probability distribution of the occurrence of the event. In this case, the hypothesis of uncertainty about the occurrence of the event is accepted.
For example, I do not know what dorplp is, but I do not, because of that, accept the hypothesis that I will meet this creature with a probability of 50%.
There is no lack of probability, there is a lack of information.
What is "event uncertainty"?
I think you are confusing probability with statistics.
There is no absence of probabilities, there is an absence of information.
What is "event uncertainty"?
I think you are confusing probability with statistics.
This is sophistry - lack of information, lack of probabilities, lack of information about probabilities, etc., etc.
Nobody is confusing anything. An uncertain quantity is a non-deterministic quantity whose distribution function is unknown. The probability of encountering a dorplp, provided there is no information about the dorplp itself, is a non-deterministic quantity with an unknown distribution function.
Stop making fun of probability theory. Probability theory is not a philosophy. If the object is unknown, no a priori assumptions about the distribution function are made by the theorist, the theorist operates only and exclusively with numbers (observations etc.)
It's all sophistry now - no information, no probability, no information about probability, etc., etc.
Nobody is confused about anything. A non-deterministic quantity is a non-deterministic quantity whose distribution function is unknown. The probability of encountering a dorplp, provided there is no information about the dorplp itself, is a non-deterministic quantity with an unknown distribution function.
Stop mocking the probability theory.
I'm telling you, you're mixing it up with statistics.
I'm telling you, you're confusing it with statics.
the distribution function of a random variable is the object of the theorist's study.......
Stop mocking the theory of probability.
And don't make fun of mate statistics.