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.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (551)	12/8/2000 5:21:36 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

Hi ahhaha; Thanks for the quick reply. I love discussing mathematics. (a) Re dif between "odds" and "probabilities". If the odds of an event are quoted as "m to n against", then the probability of the event is n/(m+n). You were using n/m, which is a pretty good approximation for m=263, but it is not correct, particularly if you are then going to (erroneously) apply number theory to the result. If you had used n/(m+n), you'd have gotten a denominator of 264, which is not prime, hence your comment about the primality of 263 was misdirected. Have I made this clear? I'd be happy to explain further, if needed. (b) Re: "The space of calculation is a finite integer space, so the "odds" which you can't define are exact." I'm not sure what you mean by "exact" here. Pi, is not an integer, but it is exact, at least it is to mathematicians. Perhaps the word you were looking for is "rational", (i.e. a ratio of integers). And just because the odds that Clark calculated was rational (and exact) doesn't mean that the figure that Clark quoted was exactly the same odds: The example I gave, a probability of 0.00379, which is most certainly rational (i.e. 0.00379 is "exactly" 379/100000), and this corresponds exactly to odds of 0.99621 to 0.00379. But odds are usually (a) reduced to integer form, and (b) approximated with small integers. So odds of 0.99621 to 0.00379 would be likely to be expressed by the approximation 263 to 1. Those odds could also be exactly expressed as 99,621 to 379, but since odds are used by people who are more practical than exact, they would likely be approximated as 263 to 1. Got it? As far as the universe of 3-letter words that Clark was using, I have no idea how he concluded that there were 264 of them. But it's pretty obvious that that's what he assumed. How many 3-letter words there are depends on who you ask, and when, and the counter is going to have some natural biases. Makes the presidential ballot counting look simple. The scrabble people want as many obscure 3-letter words as possible, (gives the home team advantage to the people who like scrabble a lot), so they naturally come up with a very long list. A good proportion of the 3-letter scrabble words are doubtful, if you ask me... -- Carl P.S. Here's some definitions for probabilities and odds, which will verify what I have stated above: 3. b.Statistics. A number expressing the likelihood that a specific event will occur, expressed as the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the number of possible occurrences. dictionary.com 2. a.The ratio of the probability of an event's occurring to the probability of its not occurring. dictionary.com