Math Question

[SacDuc]

the math just don't add up on that one

Sure it does. Look, take 2000 miles (driven) divided by 3 days (total trip time) minus 142 mph (indicated) and then multiply the whole thing by the square root of retarded. And the answer is 999.

Easy.


sac

[GAAN]

Cool! Thanks mitt! Now I might actually sleep tonight.

sac


/the rest of you can go to hell!   

C18H21NO4 + C16H13ClN2O + C20H21N = Sn0rE

[lethe]

Sure it does. Look, take 2000 miles (driven) divided by 3 days (total trip time) minus 142 mph (indicated) and then multiply the whole thing by the square root of retarded. And the answer is 999.

Easy.


sac

retarded equals 47.98070339340654

which is roughly 6 more than.....42
which was the sixth post after your first in this thread....what does it mean?

[mitt]

I am not a statistician, but I play one at work, so the answer is not guaranteed.    

If you access to excel, there are some good functions and help in there.  Your link was good too, and goes above what I usually do.  

An easy example of what are the odds (confidence) that you get at least one 5 rolling the dice.  

1 side probabilty is 1/6 = 16.7%
any other side is 5/6 = 83.3%

rolls   odds of at least one 5 side
1        1 - .833^1 = .167 = %16.7 (makes sense since it is the same as original 1 side above)
2        1 - .833^2 = .306 = %30.6
3        1 - .833^3 = .422 = %42.2
4        1 - .833^4 = .519 = %51.9
etc
etc

If you plot it out to say 20 rolls, you can see it is converging to 100%, but it will never get there.

[SacDuc]

So, I am pretty sure your answer is 299 times.

n = ln(.95)/ln(1-.01) = 289.07


mitt

Two things, 1) I know nothing about natural logarithms  2)  289 trials to be 95% sure that something is a 99:1 shot seems really really low.

Please show your work.

sac

[Rameses]

Two things, 1) I know nothing about natural logarithms  2)  289 trials to be 95% sure that something is a 99:1 shot seems really really low.

Please show your work.

sac

You would be correct.

[Adamm0621]

Why does this triangle look like that triangle?







BECAUSE IT make the beast with two backsING DOES!!!!

[RAT900]

I did this shit for a living way back when....probability statistics for sizing networks

with a make the beast with two backsing calculator...figuring blocking probabilities based on offered peak volume attempts and carried volume and blocking percentages

make the beast with two backs you for reminding me of this torment, next time rub one out...or 2 or 3 if necessary and go to sleep ...here chew on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution

or  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlang_distribution

[ungeheuer]

if they all build arks, wont they be over capacity by 50%??

[mitt]

Two things, 1) I know nothing about natural logarithms  2)  289 trials to be 95% sure that something is a 99:1 shot seems really really low.

Please show your work.

sac

The wording is like this: In 298 attempts you will find at least one 1% event 95% of the time.  


I might have had a typo above, I need to double check, but here is how to get 298:

n = ln(1-.95)/ln(1-.01) = -3.00/-0.0101 = 298


lets try it with dice.  95% of the time to find a 1/6 (18%) event (getting a 5 side)

n = ln(1-.95)/ln(1-.18) = -3.00/-0.182 = 16.4 = 17 times - that matches the graph I posted. 

In words:  You need to roll a dice 17 times to guarantee at 95% of the time you will find at least 1 five side. 



mitt

[SacDuc]

mitt,

I've probably stated the question poorly. Let me try again.

Let's say someone tells you that an independent has is a 99:1 shot.  You know that is in the ballpark, but you want to verify that claim and be 95% sure that your finding it is correct. How many trials do you need to run to be 95% certain that this event does in fact happen 1% of the time?


sac

[Drunken Monkey]

As someone else has already said, this is what binomial distributions are for.

There are some nice prepackaged formulas built into excel for this.

I used these in a whitepaper once to show that a VP was a complete twat.

I wish the prof in my statistic class had told me I could do that with these formulas as I might have paid more attention at the time.

[derby]

I used these in a whitepaper once to show that a VP was a complete twat.

i'd love to read that. haha.

[SacDuc]

As someone else has already said, this is what binomial distributions are for.

There are some nice prepackaged formulas built into excel for this.

I used these in a whitepaper once to show that a VP was a complete twat.

I wish the prof in my statistic class had told me I could do that with these formulas as I might have paid more attention at the time.

Okay. I don't know anything about binomial distributions. How does one apply them to this question:

Let's say someone tells you that an independent has is a 99:1 shot.  You know that is in the ballpark, but you want to verify that claim and be 95% sure that your finding it is correct. How many trials do you need to run to be 95% certain that this event does in fact happen 1% of the time?

Please show your work.

Thanks.


sac

[RAT900]

Sac...this behavior is all very reminiscent of how John Forbes Nash began his dreadful  slide into the abyss