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: Bilow who wrote (552)	12/8/2000 8:57:30 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

(a) You were using n/m, Really? Just where in my post did I say that? You argue to your own assumptions of what you did. Have I made this clear? You didn't answer the question. Also, you responded to your own assertion. This is a continuing failure on your part to read. (b) I'm not sure what you mean by "exact" here. That's clear. Pi, is not an integer, but it is exact, at least it is to mathematicians. I am a mathematician. If Pi is exact at what fraction does it resolve? Computability isn't a criterion for exactness, because the computation could take forever to complete and thus, it never does, and so Pi isn't exact. This doesn't have anything to do with what I said. It's a digression of your's into the lack of rigor in your own arguments. 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: Odds are exact. Probability isn't. I didn't think you knew the difference. That's why you skipped my request to define the two and went off criticizing your own assertions. 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. You embarrass yourself. 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? How can anyone get a falsity?