I challenge you to a coin toss, I will award you 1 million USD if this coin lands on tails

Beforehand, you may freely flip a coin as many times as you want.

Will flipping a coin until it lands on heads 5 times in a row increase your chance of landing on tails in the real coin toss against me?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No. Each flip is independent of the last.

Babby-level question for babbies who don't understand the independence of events.

Pseudo-intellectuals that think a theoretical mathematical technicality means that OP's method wouldn't increase your chances of winning in reality.

If you were actually smart you would question what you're told, even if it makes the sheep who don't call you dumb.

The fuck is a babby?

Chanspeak for baby, you must be really new here.

>3 replies, 3 posters

Hi OP. This thread is shit, and you're a brainlet.

You're the real brainlet who doesn't question anything he's taught.

You know for a fact that this would increase your chances of winning.

If this scenario happened to you in real life, you would have to be dumb as fuck not to pre-flip the coin to consecutively land on heads before challenging me.

The unquestioning dogmatic belief and faith you put into the mainstream accepted beliefs in modern-day science/math is borderline religious.

Kek brainlets, when will they learn?

Of course, it's basic physics and biology.
I think you're being trolled here. Good job baiting some brainlets though.

>is the gambler's fallacy real?
yes
next question

Hitting five heads in a row would make me suspicious of the coins fairness. (But that is paranoia not science.) There would have to be a few times more coin flips for me to even verbalize my suspicions in such a situation.

The game would be a bad idea for you even if an unfair coin was used. I have nothing to lose if I don't have to place a bet, and there is no amount of cheating that can guarantee you win.

The gambler's fallacy is bullshit and/or doesn't apply to OP's scenario.

Yeah it's bad for me, but would pre-flipping the coin increase your chances of winning?

The answer and logic behind this is simple, and the answer is yes.

dude how did u get so smart?
teach me senpai

Low quality bait

>gambler's fallacy
>"The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). "

op's question is quite literally the definition of the gambler's fallacy

There's been a lot lately. Like that guy who failed discrete math.

> if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future,

This is literally how things work for coin tosses.

Proof: Why is it nearly impossible to (fairly, no cheating) flip a coin 100 times in a row on heads?

Because with each consecutive flip of heads, the chance to land on heads again decreases, and the chance to land on tails increases.

that's why the gambler's fallacy is so enticing. it makes so much sense, but it's wrong.
be careful, your line of reasoning makes you REALLY susceptible to gambling addiction because you'll take a string of failures as a sign that success is guaranteed and lose shitloads of money chasing it

>tfw greatest life achievement is finishing CCS

please... moarrrrr

I already read about gambler's fallacy before posting here.

If you walked into a casino with slots that have a guaranteed 50% chance of winning or losing every time, and you saw someone get up after losing 10 times in a row, I would gladly sit down and play that slot machine.

You would consistently make money doing this.

Slots aren't a perfect 50% chance though, and people would get pissed at you if you actually did this at a casino.

but how is babby formed?

if you don't choose heads after it lands on heads 5 times in a row your an assblasted numskull

This actually worked for me at the Venetian in Vegas. Walked all day waiting for someone to get up after a losing streak. Immediately grabbed the seat, played exactly exactly 4 games each time and left. Cashed on about 25% of my pulls over an 8 hour period. Left with a little over $1,500 in winnings. Paid my travel costs.

good point

Slots aren't random

You're a fucking retard, OP. Thanks for the laugh.

Like nigga, do you think that landing on heads 5 times has some kind of physical effect on the coin that changes its chance of landing on heads again? What if you just pick it up and set it down on heads five times? Does that not count because it's not random? How is the universe supposed to know the difference when the coin flip is actually a deterministic process no matter what?

OP you are a fucking moron.
This is high school level statistics.
Probability 101.

Each coin toss is an independent event with a 50/50 chance. (Assuming the coin is not loaded - if it was loaded that would explain the heads 5 times in a row and would be even more reason to not bet for tails).

Fucking neck yourself.

probability is pseudoscience

...

tfw there's actually a small percent chance this isn't bait and someone actually believes this

The question is, does the chance that this is bait increase if you've just visited five non-bait threads?

depends, can I pick the coin?

>Will flipping a coin until it lands on heads 5 times in a row increase your chance of landing on tails in the real coin toss against me?
Yes, but not much in such a small sequence. Try a million coin flips.

Flipping a coin 100 times in a row and getting heads is equally like as getting 99 heads in a row and a tail. Any combination of tails/heads is equally likely for a given number of flips.

What? The probability is always 50/50 and independent from the previous outcome.

No it ain't

Probability of a coin flip does not follow a uniform distribution, it is a binary choice.

For n flips there is 1/2^n probability of any given sequence of outcomes.

True, but we are analyzing the distribution of random numbers here

Well yea, but then it isn't the same problem as the OP.

But you can use it to predict the next subsequence

yes, because its not the same thing.

if there are x bait thread on sci at any time thne

first thread visited x/150 chance of being bait
second thread visited if first wasn't bait has chance x/149
third x/148
...

Measure theory for finite measures is part of pure mathematics.

You have to realize that probability theory is rigorously defined and very close to real analysis.

>Will flipping a coin until it lands on heads 5 times in a row increase your chance of landing on tails in the real coin toss against me?

In any reasonable stochastic model you choose to model this question the result will be that the throws are independent.

This means that only the mentally insane (or baiter) would claim otherwise.

>and very close to real analysis.
it either is real analysis, or it isn't. truth-value is a dichotomic concept. there is no sliding scale of "trueness", there is no "mostly true".

>it either is real analysis, or it isn't.
Are you retarded?

A lot of the concepts (integrals, algebras, measures, etc.. ) overlap, and a lot of the theorems are shared e.g. Fubini or similar stuff.

They neither are the same nor are they completely different.

let it phrase me this way [math]\{Real \ analysis\} \cap \{ Probability \ Theory \}\neq \emptyset[/math]

your entire post is irrelevant. what does probability sharing values of other concepts have to do with it being "real analysis"? astrology shares values of astronomy.

you already said it yourself. it's not real analysis. in other words, it's fake analysis. truth-value is dichotomic. no amount of red-herring overlapping set values is going to change that.

>what does probability sharing values of other concepts have to do with it being "real analysis"?
Most of it is either the exact same or special cases of each other.
I explicitly mentioned concepts which are shared.

Integrals in Real analysis (e.g. lebesgue) are what you call "expected value" in probability theory.
A "measurable function" becomes a "random variable" in probability theory.

> it's not real analysis.
Parts are.

They share theorems and techniques.

Let me rephrase this: [math]0 < d(Real \ Analysis, Probability \ Theory)< \infty [/math]

This is actually the exact same for most mathematics. E.g. functional analysis shares a lot of its elements with topology, Linear algebra and analysis.

And as a reminder: Truth values are ONLY for statements. Eg. X is true is a statement which can either be false or wrong.
This does not mean that:
a) All statements have truth values
b) Or that something can not share parts of it self with other things

>not counting how many flips the coin makes on your standard toss and adjusting the height or position of the coin in your hand to maximize the probability of getting the right call
fukin plebans

and astrology shares a lot of elements with astronomy. you are still on a huge red herring tangent because you cannot accept that something you were taught in school is pseudoscientific.

>it's not real analysis, parts are
parts of astrology are accurate. probability theory doesn't describe anything real or consistent. it's not science.

>Truth values are ONLY for statements.
>This does not mean that
>All statements have truth values
you are betraying a lot of ignorance on the subject of "truth". all declarative statements contain truth value. interrogative or imperative statements may sometimes not. your statement was declarative, and inherently contains truth value. however, you are getting into semantics here which is yawn-tier and reflects that your argument might be weak, if you have to re-define concepts or words to shoehorn yourself into correctness.

the synonym for "truth" in this instance is "real". it is true analysis, or it is not. you claimed that it is "nearly true" analysis. this is logically equivalent to saying that it is not true analysis.

>Or that something can not share parts of it self with other things
nobody is claiming that things cannot have things in common here. this is why your previous post was all red herring and no relevance.

>and astrology shares a lot of elements with astronomy.
No.

Nice bait off yourself.

Also:
> all declarative statements contain truth value.
WRONG. What is the continuums hypothesis?
I can tell you a declarative statement with NO truth value:

Is there a set "bigger" then the natural numbers but "smaller" then the real numbers? (see the mentioned continuums hypothesis)

>your statement was declarative
And it was true.

>the synonym for "truth" in this instance is "real". it is true analysis, or it is not
Learn a bit retard. it is Real analysis because it is (other then complex analysis) about real numbers.


In all honesty your bait is pretty good (unless you are really mental ill and completely uneducated).

"planets have different behavior than stars"

>nice bait
straw man. you are experiencing cognitive dissonance at the idea that you may be wrong about something and are digging for excuses. this isn't bait, I am simply explaining reality to you.

>Is there a set "bigger" then the natural numbers but "smaller" then the real numbers?
this is an interrogative question. you are once again betraying your ignorance on this subject.

you are now avoiding the subject entirely, perhaps because it hurts to touch? you cannot have "almost real analysis". it is either real analysis, or it isn't. you have yet to explain how your sliding scale of "real" exists, and have succumbed to pure accusations of bait in desperation. probability theory describes nothing real. it is in no way scientific. claiming that it is scientific because it has characteristics that science has is a textbook example of converse error. it's fallacious reasoning, which is why I use astrology as an example.

I wonder what your views on determinism are and if they contradict your understanding of probability theory.

>What is the continuums hypothesis?
A proof that any interpretation of continuous random variables* as "an infinitesimal ratio of probabilities" will be inconsistent.

* under the usual interpretation that these random variables are Borel and real-valued

>straw man
No. It is not a staw man.
You dont know what that word means.

>you cannot have "almost real analysis".
I can. I already told you.
I can "almost" touch something. Meaning that it is NOT the same BUT I am very close.

> it is either real analysis, or it isn't.
It is NOT. that is what "almost" means. Learn English.

>probability theory describes nothing real
True.

>it is in no way scientific
Arguably math is not a natural science like physics.

>I wonder what your views on determinism are and if they contradict your understanding of probability theory.
You have absolutely no Idea about probability theory.
It is COMPLETELY independent of determinism.

That is the beauty of it. Probability theory is about measure theory (which is both plays a role in analysis and probability theory)

What you dont realize is that YOUR QUESTION HAS LITERALLY NOTHING TO WITH PROBABILITY THEORY. LITERALLY NOTHING.
And I know that because I have studied it, it is ONLY about finite measures on sets. ONLY

You are NOT asking a question that probability theory could POSSIBLY answer. It can ONLY make prediction if you give a model. Which you have NOT provided.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis

>No. It is not a staw man.
implying that my argument is something that it isn't in order to dismiss it is the definition of a straw man.

>I can "almost" touch something
this also means that you are not touching it. you either are touching it, or you're not. "almost" means nothing in this context.

>It is NOT.
yes, that's what I told you. it's not real analysis. why are you admitting this now?

>It is COMPLETELY independent of determinism.
nothing is independent of determinism if determinism is true.

>YOUR QUESTION HAS LITERALLY NOTHING TO WITH PROBABILITY THEORY.
what question are you referring to?

>And I know that because I have studied it
argument from authority, not logically valid.

>it is ONLY about finite measures on sets
how is this relevant as to whether or not probability theory is real analysis?

>You are NOT asking a question that probability theory could POSSIBLY answer.
what question are you referring to? all I've done is explain how probability theory is pseudoscientific.

>implying that my argument is something that it isn't in order to dismiss it is the definition of a straw man.
I didn't do that though.
I just accused you of baiting.

>this also means that you are not touching it. you either are touching it, or you're not. "almost" means nothing in this context.
As I said "almost" means NOT, but close.
Do you even understand english?

almost
ˈɔːlməʊst/Submit
adverb
not quite; very nearly.
"he almost knocked Georgina over"
synonyms: nearly, just about, about, more or less, practically, virtually, all but, as good as, next to, close to, near, nigh on, not far from, not far off, to all intents and purposes, approaching, bordering on, verging on, nearing;

It means IT IS NOT. I don think it is hard to grasp.

>nothing is independent of determinism if determinism is true.
This statement doesnt make sense.

>what question are you referring to?
>
>Will flipping a coin until it lands on heads 5 times in a row increase your chance of landing on tails in the real coin toss against me?

>how is this relevant as to whether or not probability theory is real analysis?
Because Real analysis is about infinite measures on sets.

>what question are you referring to? all I've done is explain how probability theory is pseudoscientific.
The one in the OP.
And I assume you are OP because you argue like him.

Again Probability theory like ALL OF MATHEMATICS is arguably not a natural science, but either ALL of mathematics is unscientific or none of it.
I dont care about your arguments about that though because you have no clue about mathematics.

>I didn't do that though. I just accused you of baiting.
and my argument isn't bait. hence, straw man. regardless, irrelevant.

>As I said "almost" means NOT, but close.
yes, this is what I described to you in the first place. I guess I've convinced you? probability theory is "almost" science, but it is not. probability theory is not science.

>This statement doesnt make sense.
explain how or your claim is meaningless. there is not a thing in existence that would be independent from deterministic consequence if determinism was an accurate description of the universe.

>Will flipping a coin until it lands on heads 5 times in a row increase your chance of landing on tails in the real coin toss against me?
I didn't ask this question. I simply stated that probability theory is false, because people were discussing it in this thread.

>Because Real analysis is about infinite measures on sets.
shame real analysis isn't relevant to probability theory, as you've set it yourself, probability theory is not real analysis.

>but either ALL of mathematics is unscientific or none of it.
mathematics is used for science, it is not science within itself. it is a tool that scientists use.

>I dont care about your arguments about that though because you have no clue about mathematics.
ad hom now? sad.

>yes, this is what I described to you in the first place. I guess I've convinced you? probability theory is "almost" science, but it is not. probability theory is not science.
I never said otherwise.
Probability is EXACTLY the same way science the rest of mathematics is. Which is arguably isnt.

>explain how or your claim is meaningless. there is not a thing in existence that would be independent from deterministic consequence if determinism was an accurate description of the universe.
Of course, but the universe will not change whether it is deterministic or not. So it is completely irrelevant question.

>Probability theory is false
That is not true. A mathematical theory can by definition NOT be false.
It can be inconsistent, but it is not (at least to our current knowledge).

>shame real analysis isn't relevant to probability theory, as you've set it yourself, probability theory is not real analysis.
It is in the same way relevant as shakespear is relevant to Orwell.
Orwell wasnt Shakespear, but they surely are connected on some level, even only because they wrote in the same language.

>mathematics is used for science, it is not science within itself. it is a tool that scientists use.
Arguably you are right, but I dont care for your opinion on that.

>ad hom now? sad.
It wasnt an insult. I was stating a matter of fact and I wasnt even trying to be rude. But just like I wouldnt want to have a in depth discussion about a book with someone who hasnt read it, I wont have a discussion about mathematics with someone who doesnt know much about mathematics.

>Probability is EXACTLY the same way science the rest of mathematics is.
>probability is not science
>probability is exactly like science
you are now directly contradicting yourself.

>So it is completely irrelevant question.
it is, I only speculated that you might hold determinism as an outlook, which directly contradicts probability theory at it's bases.

>Probability theory is false
typo on my part, I meant to say pseudoscience*

>It is in the same way relevant as shakespear is relevant to Orwell.
by your logic, sesame street is relevant to this discussion. you are all over the place.

>I wont have a discussion about mathematics with someone who doesnt know much about mathematics.
"ad hom" isn't dependent on an insult, you implied my argument can be dismissed because of your opinion of a trait of mine. that is textbook ad hom. and the fact is, you've done nothing but make fallacious arguments and contradict yourself this entire discussion, and I've demonstrated how your arguments are fallacious or contradict themselves. so I'm not sure if you can really claim that you know more on this subject than I do. I think you're just desperate.

this is the reality of your situation: I said "probability is pseudoscience". you went on a tangent trying to prove that it is not pseudoscience, only to end up agreeing with me that it is pseudoscience, and now you are upset and claiming that my opinions don't matter because you think I don't understand mathematics. you're being silly.

Who here /autism/?

>probability of 5 heads, and then tails

(1/2)^5 * (1/2)

>probability of 5 heads, and then heads

(1/2)^5 * (1/2)

nice thread

your cognitive inability to participate in our discussion has seeded envy, puny insect crawling in the soil.

>you are now directly contradicting yourself.
Wrong.
I said ONLY.
>>Probability is EXACTLY the same way science the rest of mathematics is.
Then I said that it is ARGUABLY NOT SCIENCE.
>>probability is exactly like science
I never said (or meant that)

>it is, I only speculated that you might hold determinism as an outlook, which directly contradicts probability theory at it's bases.
No. Functional analysis has nothing to do with determinism. And as I already said PROBABILITY THEORY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DETERMINISM.
Why? BECAUSE IT IS NOT ABOUT THE REAL WORLD.

>typo on my part, I meant to say pseudoscience*
That is still completely wrong.
It has NO aspirations to become a natural science, IT MAKES NO CLAIMS ABOUT THE REAL WORLD.

>"probability is pseudoscience
That is wrong, even by definition.
You MAY argue that mathematics is not a science and that is a reasonable argument but again. I dont give a fuck.

>"ad hom" isn't dependent on an insult, you implied my argument can be dismissed because of your opinion of a trait of mine. that is textbook ad hom. and the fact is, you've done nothing but make fallacious arguments and contradict yourself this entire discussion, and I've demonstrated how your arguments are fallacious or contradict themselves. so I'm not sure if you can really claim that you know more on this subject than I do. I think you're just desperate.
>this is the reality of your situation: I said "probability is pseudoscience". you went on a tangent trying to prove that it is not pseudoscience, only to end up agreeing with me that it is pseudoscience, and now you are upset and claiming that my opinions don't matter because you think I don't understand mathematics. you're being silly.

One giant strawman. I never tried to discredit ANY of your arguments. I only said that I WONT ARGUE SOMETHING WITH YOU.

You are right I am really autistic for trying to argue with that retard.

He has no clue about any thing and still tries to argue about it.

I should have realized long ago that everything I said he doesnt understand.

He still hasnt gotten to the point where he accept that probability is just a normal part of mathematics, whether he likes it or not.

>semantical rearrangement of your claims to shoehorn yourself into correctness

>That is still completely wrong.
yet you can't seem to explain how. you even admit yourself it describes nothing real. you realize claims made utilizing probability theory are unfalsifiable, right? we call that "pseudoscience".

>You MAY argue that mathematics is not a science
mathematics is an umbrella that probability theory falls underneath. to suggest probability theory being pseudoscience makes mathematics pseudoscience is converse error. but I have come to understand you do not have a very good grasp of logical validity throughout this discussion, and it doesn't surprise me that you would think this.

>I never tried to discredit ANY of your arguments
directly contradicting yourself again. I argued that probability is pseudoscience. you literally in this very post tried to discredit that argument. you are all over the place, dude.

>I only said that I WONT ARGUE SOMETHING WITH YOU.
obviously that's wrong because here you are, arguing something with me.

>I should have realized long ago that everything I said he doesnt understand.
aren't you the one applying converse error judgements to the mathematics field? I'm pretty sure I'm not the one between us that needs to do some studying.

>He still hasnt gotten to the point where he accept that probability is just a normal part of mathematics
a part of mathematics that is pseudoscientific when used to derive claims.

...

>yet you can't seem to explain how.
Okay. I get really sick of it of having to say it again and again.

You can believe:
a)Mathematics is a science
b)Mathematics is not a science

This includes Probability theory, okay?

>it describes nothing real.
It is mathematics.

>claims made utilizing probability theory are unfalsifiable, right
Any claim it makes is completely true. That is BECAUSE IT IS MATHEMATICS.

>obviously that's wrong because here you are, arguing something with me.
you idiot are equating something with everything. I said THERE ARE THINGS I WILL NOT ARGUE WITH YOU. If you had ANY grasp of logic that does NOT mean I wont discuss ANYTHING with you.
Learn Logic an english.

And now fuck this. I am getting tired of your shit.
You havent brought NOT ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT. All you do is argue whether you like or dislike my arguments.

Now explain to me why is probability theory "pseudoscience".

But firstly start by telling what YOU believe probability theory actually is.

Keeping in mind that:
A) It is a part of mathematics, so things can be proven
B) The basics of Probability theory are the same as the basics of real analysis.

...

see, you are still failing to grasp the converse error in your reasoning here. probability theory =/= mathematics, it is only a branch of mathematics. mathematics can have branches that are scientific, and branches that are pseudoscientific. because a branch is pseudoscientific does not mean that all mathematics is pseudoscientific. your reasoning is extremely flawed.

>It is mathematics.
no, it is a small piece of mathematics.

>Any claim it makes is completely true. That is BECAUSE IT IS MATHEMATICS.
mathematics is used to make verifiable claims constantly. what are you even talking about? are you seriously denying math can be used in science because you don't want to seem like you contradicted yourself?

>I said THERE ARE THINGS I WILL NOT ARGUE WITH YOU.
no you didn't. you said and I quote: "I WONT ARGUE SOMETHING WITH YOU."

you literally have to pretend you didn't say something you said to feel like you aren't contradicting yourself every single post.

>Now explain to me why is probability theory "pseudoscience".
it doesn't describe any real phenomenon, it doesn't make falsifiable claims, it can only make unfalsifiable claims. literally pseudoscience.

>It is a part of mathematics, so things can be proven
but probability theory cannot be proven. that's what makes it pseudoscientific. I feel like you are once again suffering from converse error, thinking that if probability is pseudoscientific, all mathematics must therefore be pseudoscientific. using the same logic you are using, all mammals are cats.

>The basics of Probability theory are the same as the basics of real analysis.
but you have already said probability theory is not real analysis. is it your goal to contradict yourself every single post? how is real analysis even relevant to probability theory? because measurements can both be applied to them? in that case, explain to me how probability is not pseudoscience, keeping in mind that the basics of probability and baking are the same.

I hate to repeat myself but:

Now explain to me why is probability theory "pseudoscience".

But firstly start by telling what YOU believe probability theory actually is.

Keeping in mind that:
A) It is a part of mathematics, so things can be proven
B) The basics of Probability theory are the same as the basics of real analysis.

>Now explain to me why is probability theory "pseudoscience".
it doesn't describe any real phenomenon, it doesn't make falsifiable claims, it can only make unfalsifiable claims. literally pseudoscience.

>It is a part of mathematics, so things can be proven
but probability theory cannot be proven. that's what makes it pseudoscientific. I feel like you are once again suffering from converse error, thinking that if probability is pseudoscientific, all mathematics must therefore be pseudoscientific. using the same logic you are using, all mammals are cats.

>The basics of Probability theory are the same as the basics of real analysis.
but you have already said probability theory is not real analysis. is it your goal to contradict yourself every single post? how is real analysis even relevant to probability theory? because measurements can both be applied to them? in that case, explain to me how probability is not pseudoscience, keeping in mind that the basics of probability and baking are the same.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS PROBAILITY THEORY?


sorry for the caps but before you tell me that we are not going anywhere.

"the branch of mathematics that deals with quantities having random distributions."

That is the oxford dictionary definition, very nice.

But that was not what I am asking.

Answer me this instead.
Do you think that probability theory has direct implications for the real world, or claims to have them?
Do you think a mathematician who believes in determinism would deny any claims made in probability theory?
Do you deny that any theorem in probability theory is also an interpretation (without any mention of randomness) in analysis?
What do you think IS randomness?

and, I forgot:
What do YOU believe is probability?

>Do you think that probability theory has direct implications for the real world
no
>or claims to have them?
often
>Do you think a mathematician who believes in determinism would deny any claims made in probability theory?
if they are not ignorant
>Do you deny that any theorem in probability theory is also an interpretation (without any mention of randomness) in analysis?
invalid question, the concept of randomness is inherent to probability theory
>What do you think IS randomness?
doesn't exist, has nothing to do with observable phenomenon, has nothing to do with science, cannot pertain to falsifiable claims.

"the branch of mathematics that deals with quantities having random distributions."

Let me rephrase that.

What do YOU think it means that something has a 50/50 chance of happening.

>>or claims to have them?
>often
You are wrong in that. There is no person (who took a class in probability theroy) or even a paper published that has made this claim without being wrong.

>the concept of randomness is inherent to probability theory
WRONG. You dont get it do you?
The way probability is described in probability theory is the EXACT SAME way area is described in real (or complex) analysis.
And I really mean the EXACT same.

>doesn't exist, has nothing to do with observable phenomenon
Nothing in there contradicts probability theory.
Probability theory also has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with randomness not in the slightest.
Even if you think it does.

that people are religious in thinking that randomness exists and can be quantified, and that believing so directly contradicts both deterministic and non-deterministic interpretations of the universe in separate ways, forcing the concept into utter senselessness.

>You are wrong in that.
there are literally people in this thread making claims utilizing probability theory. what the fuck are you talking about.

>There is no person (who took a class in probability theroy) or even a paper published that has made this claim without being wrong.
speaking of unfalsifiable claims, prove it.(you can't)

and I heavily doubt that nowhere in the history of humanity has someone taken a class on probability theory and then not made a claim utilizing the concepts. gambling comes to mind.

>WRONG. You dont get it do you?
"the branch of mathematics that deals with quantities having random distributions."

randomness is inherent to the concept of probability theory. probability theory concerns quantifying randomness. how am I wrong at all?

>Probability theory also has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with randomness not in the slightest.
"the branch of mathematics that deals with quantities having random distributions."
lol what

It is a good thing then that probability theory has NOTHING TO DO WITH randomness.

Let me demonstrate this to you:

Firstly a claim in probability theory:
|.| is a measure
O={0,1}
sigma(O)={{},{0},{1},{0,1}}
then |{0}|/|{0,1}|=1/2

This is a claim in probability theory. It is also true.

A claim NOT made in probability theory:
The chance of a coin flip landing on tails is 1/2.

>It is a good thing then that probability theory has NOTHING TO DO WITH randomness
"the branch of mathematics that deals with quantities having random distributions."

what the fuck are you talking about

>how am I wrong at all?
Very.
Read a book on probability theory and you will know why.

>"the branch of mathematics that deals with quantities having random distributions."
That definition is really bad in my opinion.


I will tell you this.
When I say "probability theory" you think about "Interpretation of probability theory".Have a look at this. Do you think the first claim is debatable?
It really isnt. It also mentions NO randomness, or chance that is what I mean when I say "probability theory".

When you say "Probability theory" you mean the second.

Now. There is a relation between these two.

The first one is one common way to MODEL the second claim.
But that is only a model, something which is inherently wrong.

Do you understand what I am saying? The math is in depended of randomness and you are confusing the model with the theory.
And do you see the other problem. One of these claims is debatable. The other isnt.

There are non-bate threads on Veeky Forums?

I will flip it for a couple years to wear down the coin in such a way that it will always land on tails, even if flipped over

>Read a book on probability theory and you will know why.
I have. are you unable to present arguments, so are resorting to "r-read pls!!"

>That definition is really bad in my opinion.
lmfao it's literally the first result on google

you have been utterly BTFO.

>Do you think the first claim is debatable?
yes, it implies that there is a 50% chance of either 0 or 1 occurring in a random distribution. to claim otherwise is semantical garbling. randomness doesn't exist. it has nothing to do with reality, it is pseudoscientific when attached to a claim. your equation has as much to do with reality as magic.

>The math is in depended of randomness and you are confusing the model with the theory.
the math is about randomness. it literally tries to demonstrate randomness between two variables. it is only "math" because people pseudoscientifically consider probability theory mathematics. it is only "true" in the same sense that astrological signs are considered true in astrology.

>I have.
No you dont.
Tell me what the Lebesgue measure is and how it differs from the borell measure.

>lmfao it's literally the first result on google
I know that.

>yes, it implies that there is a 50% chance of either 0 or 1 occurring in a random distribution.
NO DEFINITELY NOT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ANYTHING AT ALL????
The first claim is about PURE SET AND MEASURE THEORY. IT HAS NO DEFINITE RELATION TO PROBABILITIES.
>random distribution
I know that you didnt read a book because you use that term. It is plain wrong. It isnt even applicable to the situation.
>randomness doesn't exist.
no claim as such was made.
>your equation has as much to do with reality as magic.
good thing your car is driving on magic.


You are a disgusting liar who hides his stupidity and pure idiocy behind lies and ignorance. Pretending do hate something because you have A SEVER MISUNDERSTANDING about it is just plain stupid.

Your misunderstanding about a theory you dont even REMOTELY grasp makes me said.

I really dont want to talk to such an awful person.
I am deeply sorry that I ever responded to you.

i know that you will have another smug reply to this, but consider opening your brain to mathematics instead.

wow literally this entire post is red herring, ad hominem and basic contradiction.

reminder:
>It is a good thing then that probability theory has NOTHING TO DO WITH randomness
"the branch of mathematics that deals with quantities having random distributions."

this is what you are.

You're all retarded. Each time the coin lands on heads, the impact knocks off miniscule amounts of mass from the tails side, making it slightly more likely to fall on tails.

when two autists really really like each other, they cum in a cup together, which forms an OP, ie babby.

No serious mathematician believes probability theory is a pseudoscience. This guy posts this repeatedly. You are being memed.

>No serious mathematician believes probability theory is a pseudoscience.
and yet nobody can demonstrate how it isn't, only fallacious arguments such as this argument from authority you've just presented.

Probability theory is literally functional analysis using a specific measure. It is as rigorous and axiomatic as any other branch of mathematics.

you're probably not real but props for writing this

the specified measure in this instance is a fanciful abstraction that is as make-believe as a dr. seuss character.

I mean you could decide that every multiple of six in a result of a measurement that isn't a multiple ot ten should be subtracted into a multiple of ten, call it "hexareductive theory", based off of the incorrect idea that base-ten is inherent to reality, and have """true""" equations within the context of the made up structure that are in actuality utterly meaningless. maybe you'd even make a pseudoscientific claim utilizing it.

>axiomatic
careful with that word. the fact that you are religious about mathematics might become apparent when you use it.