Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (324)	1/15/2000 9:04:00 PM
From: IEarnedIt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Jeff, thank you for your discourse. Now would you please just answer the questions. JD

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (324)	1/15/2000 9:10:00 PM
From: Harry Simpson	Respond to of 1397

In simple math terms, if two events must take place for something to happen, and there is a 50% chance for each, the odds both events happened is not 50%, it's 25%. Add a third event and we're talking 12.5%. String together a bunch of low priority events and the odds become almost prohibitive. Which is why I am slowly coming around to the alien-abduction-gone-wrong theory.....:^) In all seriousness, I stick with the bungled robbery theory. I will leave it to the wise here to construct the myriad of facts/acts that fill out the scenario. Harry

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (324)	1/15/2000 10:36:00 PM
From: VivB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Jeff, Does this mean that 20/20 is planning to do, or has already done, a segment on this case? You said: <<Peter told me early on that he talked to lots of reporters.... He says he still gets requests for interviews, such as recently by the show 20/20, but refuses because he isn't interested in seeing his face splashed across TV screens nationwide. >> If so, it would be interesting to watch and/or read a transcript of this show. Viv

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (324)	1/17/2000 3:47:00 AM
From: MNI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1397

In simple math terms, if two events must take place for something to happen, and there is a 50% chance for each, the odds both events happened is not 50%, it's 25%. Add a third event and we're talking 12.5%. String together a bunch of low priority events and the odds become almost prohibitive. Oh, come on Jeff, you ARE too much of a scientist to go with that! The probabilities of UNCORRELATED events do multiply for the probability of the joint event. This assumption is sometimes called the 'objectivity of nature', or, otherwise, the 'unintentionality of nature'. (There may be other and better terms, but basically, the idea is that when you do experiments, nature does not act like a demon that wants to show you some results). However, chains of human actions ARE CORRELATED. I am sure by analysing your curriculum vitae in the way you proposed, we would find a probability of only one in a zillion for your to have survived up to now - that is if we assume there is equal probabilities for you to decide for a suicidal action like driving after haven drunk too much alcohol etc. But the opposite is true: after you have drunk, your decision whether or not you will drive depends on your earlier decision on whether you drink that additional beer or not. (Only for sake of example, not to allude anything but your alcohol use or driving styles.) In a situation where one intentional entity, i.e. a thinking and wishing person, takes decisions, the joint probability for two events, that both have 50% probabilities as single events, is still 50%, if we assume perfect intentionality of the person (it means, if the person's doesn't gamble with their life), and thereby install a 100% correlation between the two events. What you wrote most lately about Peter Stein as a suspect seems otherwise reasonable - assuming that you don't have any interest to protect him? Regards MNI.