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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (72747)	1/21/2000 8:38:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Although I have heard the assertion that each trial is independent, I have never understood it, and still do not, because of the counter assertion "although in the limit it converges to 1/2". After your explanation, it still seems contradictory to me. It may be that the business about weather is an old "granny's" tale, though, and I am content to be corrected.....

To: nihil who wrote (72747)	1/21/2000 9:20:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I did want to explain the reasoning in my (somewhat loose) comments. It is my understanding, perhaps faulty, that long term weather is a quasi- closed system of somewhat randomized factors. If that were not so, I do not know how anyone could assume a stable background against which to discern phenomena such as global warming, supposedly showing a gradual alteration in the system. Thus, although specific weather patterns would be unpredictable without direct observation and extrapolation, one could meaningfully speak or "normal" temperatures or precipitation for periods over time, and therefore assume a virtual "equilibrium function" when there are abnormal swings. How the adjustment came about would not be strictly predictable (the only force I can discern of the Bernoulli trial), but that there would be an adjustment would be so (the force of saying that there is a convergence "in the limit"). Since I am in no position to argue the matter, I advance this only to show the speciousness of my reasoning<VBG>....