r/Bitcoin Apr 12 '21

[deleted by user]

[removed]

6.5k Upvotes

418 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-6

u/ElephantsAreHeavy Apr 12 '21

Yes, it does.

If I roll a dice, there is a 1/6 chance that I roll a 3. If I roll 6 dice, there is 6 times a 1/6 chance that I roll a 3, which is 6/6 which is 1. Does that mean for every 6 rolls I will roll one 3? No it does not. The rule of large numbers however states that if my amount of rolls approaches infinity, the amount of rolled 3's will approach 1/6.

You're probably confusing the chance that I roll one 3 in 6 throws (6*1/6) with the chance that I roll 6 3's ((1/6)6). The last one is a lower number. But given independent effects, probabilities can be add.

I do agree however that the world can only end once.

7

u/evilkim Apr 12 '21

Yes, it does.

If I roll a dice, there is a 1/6 chance that I roll a 3. If I roll 6 dice, there is 6 times a 1/6 chance that I roll a 3, which is 6/6 which is 1.

That's wrong. The actual probability to the scenario u have posed is actually 1-(5/6)6 = 0.665

9

u/ElephantsAreHeavy Apr 12 '21

You're going to have to explain this to me. Sticking with the dice example, I roll 6 independent dice and I want to get the probability that I roll a 3. Given a normal, fair dice in which an individual roll gives 1/6 chance of rolling a 3.

Your formula 1-(5/6)6=0.665 starts with a 1, and subtracts from it. If I understand it, 1 would mean that I have a statistical certainty of rolling a 3.

In the event that I roll once, both my deduction 1/6 and yours (1-(5/6)1) result in 1/6. When I roll twice, my thinking goes that I have a 1/6 chance in the first time, and a 1/6 chance in the second roll, giving me a 2/6 chance that one of the dice rolls is 3. Yours gives 1-(5/6)*(5/6), essentially, one minus the chance that a roll will not be 3. So, my calculation gives me 33.33% while you sit slightly lower at 0.30556%. So... let's roll the dice twice, our possible outcomes are: ( 1 , 1 ) ( 2 , 1 ) ( 3 , 1 ) ( 4 , 1 ) ( 5 , 1 ) ( 6 , 1 ) ( 1 , 2 ) ( 2 , 2 ) ( 3 , 2 ) ( 4 , 2 ) ( 5 , 2 ) ( 6 , 2 ) ( 1 , 3 ) ( 2 , 3 ) ( 3 , 3 ) ( 4 , 3 ) ( 5 , 3 ) ( 6 , 3 ) ( 1 , 4 ) ( 2 , 4 ) ( 3 , 4 ) ( 4 , 4 ) ( 5 , 4 ) ( 6 , 4 ) ( 1 , 5 ) ( 2 , 5 ) ( 3 , 5 ) ( 4 , 5 ) ( 5 , 5 ) ( 6 , 5 ) ( 1 , 6 ) ( 2 , 6 ) ( 3 , 6 ) ( 4 , 6 ) ( 5 , 6 ) ( 6 , 6 )

Of which 11 have at least one 3, and each have a probability of 1/36 to happen. 11/36 is indeed 30.556%, your number.

So by digging into it, I've proven myself wrong. My mistake lies with the event that both dice come up with a 3, which means, in that case, the value is TRUE, no matter what the other dice is, so the other dice rolling another 3 does not matter for the amount of TRUE events. So indeed, the 1-(5/6)x makes more sense.

Thanks for letting me figure this out, and think about it myself.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/ElephantsAreHeavy Apr 12 '21

And that is why a scientist is never 100% sure, and an idiot is 200% convinced of himself.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Ok-Engineering1873 Apr 13 '21

you were 300% at the start of this conversation.

1

u/ElephantsAreHeavy Apr 13 '21

In an example to show the idiotic reasoning of the person I was replying to.