I'm not leaving until this question is solved once and for all.
I'm not leaving until this question is solved once and for all
Jaxson Young
Jose Peterson
Hope you're ready to die because google boy girl paradox. There is no right answer.
Jeremiah Gomez
Mastering it now
Luke Green
It's 50% crit. chance for every enemy individually.
Doesn't mean that when you hit 2 enemies in a row you'll get at least one crit. garantueed.
Christopher Morales
That post in the pic is fucking retarded
>you can't have "at least one is a crit" AND "50% crit"
Yes you can, it's basic conditional probability, the answer is 1/3.
Matthew Sanders
It's 1/3
Think about it like this 2 coins are flipped. If you flip 2 coins the expected value is 1 head and 1 tails. If I told you I ALREADY flipped 2 and one of them is heads there are only 3 outcomes HH HT TH all with equal chance. So for both heads h it would be 1/3 chance.
Joseph Cook
It's 3/4 desu. One hit at a 100% chance and one hit at a 50% chance. I've seen the answer posted multiple times in these threads and OP has never acknowledged it once, because he knows he can't meme on it for (you)s.
Austin Campbell
it is 1/2 idiots
Camden Nguyen
Because it's stupid.
>There is no right answer.
That's false. The formally correct answer to the boy/girl paradox is 1/3.
The answer could be 1/2, but from a formal point of view it is 1/3.
Jordan Perry
Probability is a Junk science.
And is always misused.
It can tell you nothing of the odds of single events. If you took 10,000 hits, it could tell you 50% were crits, it can only tell you EXZACTLy that.
It does not tell you the odds of any single hit, or series of hits. You could not even take hit sequences, say hit 334/10000 and hit 335/10000 and state odds.
It only tells you the odds of the /same/ data set meaning if you took /another/ 10,000 hit sample with all the same conditions you should expect the same 50% to come out, but the crit order would be completely different
Charles Cox
1 x 0.5 is 0.5 you fool. Even if the question is valid, the answer is 50%, not 75%.
Mason Lewis
The question is equivalent to:
>I've hit an enemy twice, I know for certain that I've got a crit on either one of them, but I'm not gonna tell you the other outcome. The chance of getting a crit for each hit is 50%
>what is the chance that I've got crit on both of them?
All possible outcomes in this situation are:
>crit, crit
>no crit, crit
>crit, no crit
No crits on both are impossible in this scenario as we know from the information given that one hit was already crit.
Another reason why it's 1/3 is because we don't know which hit was a crit. It could be the first one, or the second one, or both, but it can't be none of them.
Dylan Diaz
Just flip a pair coins 10,000 times lol. Embarrassing display of brainpower
Juan Jenkins
>crit, crit
>no crit, crit
>crit, no crit
God dam it- crit, no crit,AND-no crit, crit ARE THE SAME DAM THING, why is everyone so dumb, (btw it says one of the hits, not both hits)think of it this way if it helps, you are throwing dice, the order of the numbers doesnt matter.
.
So that leaves crit/crit, or crit/no crit. So the chances are 50/50.
Expect that Impies if you flip a coin 500 times the odds are 50% you would get heads 500 times in a row, which is wrong, it is 50%*50% which equals 25%. Chance.
Note I am only going by the math standard , and maths is wrong and the brainlet answer, check here for the real answer
Isaac Cook
They aren't the same thing.
If it helps.
Flip a coin once. Flip it another time.
Your chances are:
>Head, Tails
>Head, Head
>Tails, Head
>Tails, Tails
TH and HT are different scenarios, which is why it is twice as likely that you have H/T rather than H/H or T/T. If they were the same thing, it wouldn't be twice as likely for that to happen.
The math isn't wrong in the 1/3 answer.
Isaiah Gray
Except it is twice as likely for there to be one head rather than HH. Think about it, if you know your first roll is H then you expect the second to be T. If your first roll is T you expect the second to be H. With a 50/50 chance of either H or T it is more likely that the coins will be HT or TH than HH. In an actual distribution, it would like something like
HH 2500
HT 2500
TH 2500
TT 2500
Eliminating the TT, HH is 2500/7500, or 1/3.
Ethan Baker
all of you are fucking retarded as both 1/2 and 1/3 are correct.
Nathaniel Diaz
No you are the retard. 1/3, 1/2, 1/4 1/8, and 3/4 are all correct answers.
Xavier Mitchell
3/4 is wrong and retarded.
1/4 and 1/8 are wrong too, but not as retarded.
1/2 is not the most correct, but okay.
1/3 is correct.
Ian Morales
It was solved in the very first thread. Get with the shit buddy.
Julian Robinson
How is 1/2 okay
Jordan King
It's okay because depending on how you read the problem, it might make sense.
For example, the only way of knowing that at least one shot was crit before you shoot the second is that it is the first one was crit. In this case, it'd make sense that you have a 1/2 probability of hitting two crits since you have to just calculate the chances of the 2nd event.
It's a stupid way to read the problem in my opinion, but hey.
But, formally, this user is correct:
Jace Davis
other way around, 1/3 is okay. the chance that your first coinflip is heads is 1/3, however the overall chance for both of them to be heads or rather one not being heads is 1/2
Luke Cruz
>it's poorly worded
>you can't have "at least one crit" AND "50% crit"
>it's literally impossible for both of these statements to be true and to then measure probability
[citation needed]
Austin Mitchell
The chance of your first coinflip being head is 1/2.
The chance of both being head is 1/3, given that "at least one is head".
Xavier Ortiz
So in other words 1/2 is okay if you misread the problem. If 1/3 is correct, 1/2 is incorrect. They cannot both be true. Once you see the logic for 1/3, you see the mistake in logic for 1/2
Kayden Morris
Both are possible depending on how you imagine you find out that "at least one is head".
In my opinion, the most reasonable one is 1/3, which is the most formally correct.
Henry Rivera
The middle paragraph in the bottom panel has no argument and a horrible analogy. Obviously that poster made the pic.
>muh that make no sense
Embarrassing
William Martinez
It is most correct in real world, google Gamblers fallacy. If it wasnt you could just watch the rolettle screen and place large bets on black every time red has a string of wins, say 4 in a row, because then by using the logic here
Black would be much more likely, because red and black have equal chances, and even if you lost some, over time, if this logic was right, you would win out.
Also see my other posts showing why probabitky is a junk science and miss used when used to predict sequencing of events.
This makes science tards rage because so much of what they do in certain fields is based on it
Camden Morris
Even if someone shows the coin that has the head, there will only be a 1/2 chance of H if the coin is flipped AFTER you saw the first coin. But the problem states that the event occurred already, so it cannot be 1/2.
Isaac Bell
>The intuitive answer is 1/2. This answer is intuitive if the question leads the reader to believe that there are two equally likely possibilities for the sex of the second child (i.e., boy and girl), and that the probability of these outcomes is absolute, not conditional.
And why would I believe otherwise?
Andrew Johnson
theoretically 1/3 practically 1/2, as there's only a 50% chance of one of them missing. it depends on the one which hits being predetermined to hit and the chance related one not being able to cancel the predetermined one out.
Brandon James
Your other post is retarded, though. You are not repeating one action 10,000 times, but two. You flip two coins 10,000 times. Each combination
HH
HT
TH
TT
occurs 2500 times. The probability that a pair selected out of the pairs containing at least one H is 1/3. You are retarded.
Carter Perry
Oh what the fuck I get it now, I feel like such a brainlet
It's clearly 1/3
This looks like one of those probabilistic problems that pigeons instinctively solve better than humans
Nathaniel Fisher
Because it is wrong. You imagine it like this
>I have two children. One is a boy. What are the chances the other one is a boy too?
So you imagine to solve it like this:
>Child 1 = Boy; Child 2 = Girl
>Child 1 = Boy; Child 2 = Boy
1/2 chance.
While formally it is:
>Child 1 = Boy; Child 2 = Girl
>Child 1 = Boy; Child 2 = Boy
>Child 1 = Girl; Child 2 = Boy
1/3 chance.
Chase King
No, the probability of /each/ outcome is 1/3, but the probability of any of the each outcome is 50%.
You have 30 seconds to explain why you are not using your logic to become a billionaire at the Vegas roulette tables
Jason Hughes
I'm scared of getting killed by casino niggers
Grayson Diaz
See The event has already occurred. This is not an instance of the gambler fallacy.
Nicholas Wilson
user.
Each coin flip has a 50/50 chance of being H or T.
Obviously, if we had a sequence of 9 H, and we flipped the coin again, we had no way to know if it was H or T - would be a 50/50 chance.
If we looked at the events afterwards, tho, and we were told:
>I flipped a coin 10 times. At least 9 were H. What are the chances they were all heads?
We'd have 10 ways of fucking it up
> T H H H H H H H H H
> H T H H H H H H H H
> H H T H H H H H H H
etc.
And one way of doing it right.
So our chances of having a 10 H series are 1/11.
That's why we say it's 1/3. Not because the first coin flips influences the following one.
Jackson Stewart
I'm so high right now and reading that image has legit upset me I'm so fucking confused
Joshua Lopez
You can write a program to experimentally verify with a ridiculous number of trials that the probability is one third. It takes a minute at most.
In fact, fuck it. I'll do it for you:
repl.it
Grayson Garcia
You dont stay at the same casino too long.
>already occurred
This is where you are misusing statistics and trying to apply it to the real world. The order doesnt matter, and you are getting hung up on temporalitys, you can not logically argue knowing the first flips effects the odds of the next flips without admitting the problem is stupid.
Reread above.
You could also think of it as flipping them at the same time or throwing dice, order doesnt matter in the real world
Stats only works with LARGE data sets, like when you prove theroms using r throwing random darts to produce curves.
You can not extract two point of data out and make any predictions about it, you can only say if you did this 10,000 times, 50% would be crits. And any one has a 59% chance (even that is a stretch) but you can not say any two has any odds besides 50%. This is not the math book answer, try to think
Noah Rogers
The bottom panel has no argument within the middle paragraph, though.
Saying
>that makes no sense
does not suddenly make it so
Owen Ramirez
there is a 100% chance, i guess they never miss huh
Nathaniel Wood
I see most people here say they have high IQ or see themselves as intelligent people but then there are these threads, the average r9k user is a brainlet apparently
Ayden Parker
Lot of words, no substance. Bait or retarded
Cooper Torres
>redicuculous number of trials.
Again all that proves is in a large set of data the probability is 1/3, it doesnt say ANYTHING that after trial 200, trial 201 would be 1/3, any single roll is always 50% in any single case
Austin Sanders
The solution 1/4.
The chance for a crit is 1/2 and you have to get two crits, so you have to multiply 1/2 with 1/2.
Joseph Rivera
Says the name caller
David Nguyen
You know that at least one is crit. Not correct.
Go back.
Anthony Lewis
It's 1/4.
If the first hit isn't a crit (50% chance) the second one will be a crit (100% chance) either naturally or because a crit is guaranteed, but it doesn't matter because neither results in two crits.
So, 50% chance for one crit so far.
If the first hit is a crit (50% chance) the second one can be a non-crit (50% chance) or a crit (50% chance).
So, 25% additional chance for one crit and 25% chance for two crits.
Total: 75% chance for one crit and 25% chance for two crits.
Joseph Cruz
>100% chance
This goes against the problem that says that each shot has a 50/50 chance of being hit or crit.
And also makes no sense.
Wrong, go back.
Carter Martin
no robot xD
i also thought this is correct answer. the problem is poorly worded, imo, because it makes you think, that CH is guareanted after NH, but its not. it's about "knowing" that one of the attacks was critical. you can still achieve NH/NH combo.
Grayson Reyes
The 50% crit chance is overridden by one crit being guaranteed.
>inb4 how do you know it's not the opposite
By using logic. It just doesn't make sense the other way around so you have to assume it's this way.
Wyatt Baker
Why havent you responded to this post yet?
Sebastian Walker
It doesn't make any sense, user.
You can't change the chances of the shots while they're happening.
You either look at the events afterwards, and then you know 1 crit is guaranteed, hence 1/3.
Or look at it after the first one, and you know the first one was crit, so you get 1/2.
You can't have 1/4.
Xavier Price
Read the thread very carefully
Dominic Brown
2/3 is the correct answer. It isn't worth the effort to explain it to you imbeciles.
Logan King
>that is why we say
>"we say"
Yes, you can say that, and that is why I said in the real world it is wrong, I also used the words "most correct in real world"
If you were doing gene modeling on a computer it might be useful, but not in the real world
Remember all models are wrong, some are useful.
>itt undergrads cant deal with probability and most advanced math is part belief and always limited(self referential)
Hunter Ross
>You can't change the chances of the shots while they're happening.
What the hell is this supposed to mean?
>You either look at the events afterwards, and then you know 1 crit is guaranteed, hence 1/3
That's assuming you could never roll 2 non-crits, rather than what would've been 2 non-crits becoming 1 crit because of the guaranteed crit.
>Or look at it after the first one, and you know the first one was crit, so you get 1/2.
How would you know the first one was a crit?
Not an argument.
Ryan Watson
>What the hell is this supposed to mean?
You can't shoot one time, and that shot being hit and not crit magically modifies the chances of the next one being crit. It makes no sense, that's not how life and probability works.
>That's assuming you could never roll 2 non-crits
No, that's assuming the events already happened and you know that there weren't 2 non-crits because you're told so.
>How would you know the first one was a crit?
It's an assumption you make because it's the most reasonable way you'd ever know that at least one was crit.
Kayden Long
Again, thanks for nothing.
Obviously stats and probability is not applicable on a case by case scenario.
We're asked to calculate a probability, not to go on a rant about our personal feelings about probability.
Evan Jenkins
>you cant change the shots while they are happening...
>you know...
>look after the first one
You are still trying to augue the first flips effect the second flips while pretending they dont. You have to admit the chance is 50% or be in a gambling fallacy.
Think of it this way, science is based on the illrational belief that because we can not precive everything at nice, things like "time" and "cause and effect" exist.
Math should use the god perspective (just as a thought experiment) and these auguments break down. It doesnt matter what you know or when you know it.
Take this, we have a combat log that shows the results, and you ask some people what the odds are before you show them, and you ask other people what the odds are but show them the first hit was a crit and then you ask other people what the odds are showing them the second hit was a crit. The odds should be the same in every case, the events havent changed, but you would say they have, which at some level is just magical thinking
Adrian Edwards
I think it's this, but I suck at maths so whatever
Christian Roberts
But to state the odds you have to state your propbablitly belief system
en.m.wikipedia.org
Noah Taylor
One of the 2 hits is a guaranteed crit. Let H be a normal hit and C be a crit. There are two initial outcomes, a 1/2 chance that is it the first hit which is a guaranteed crit and a 1/2 it is the 2nd. In the first instance, the possibilities are CC and CH and in the 2nd instance, the outcomes are CC and HC. 2/4 outcomes give the wanted result so there is a 1/2 chance
Samuel Watson
dude where is this stuff coming from?
This is my fetish.
Please explain.
Owen Morgan
I modeled your statement in code. It's still a third.
Oliver Baker
>the first hit is guaranteed to be a crit
Yeah, thats not in the problem kiddo
Connor White
Leo Gray
I don't think the first flip influences the second. If we have to calculate the probability of a single shot being hit or crit, we have 1/2. No gambler fallacy.
>The odds should be the same in every case, the events havent changed
Your knowledge of events changed, so you change the way you calculate the probability including the new variables you know.
Before you start shooting, if you're going for 2 shots, the odds of having 2 crits is 1/4.
If the first shot is crit, the odds of having 2 crits is 1/2.
Jordan Morris
One crit is guaranteed. You then have a 50% chance to make the second crit. Don't be a retard.
Chase Walker
Can you show any mathematical proof user?
Kevin Roberts
Try reading the thread before you start calling others retards. You could be the retard, yourself
Wyatt Perez
T. Frequentist probability
Luke Lee
The correct answer to the question is simple.
In order to assume 50% crit chance in a sample
of two hits, that would have to mean one is a crit
and the other isn't. With that being the case, the chance of two crits
is 0%.
Daniel Harris
Anons, I figured this thing out. The reason people are getting two answers depends on whether they consider two fails to be an option. Some people think the question implies the two fails (not crits) can never happen, so they get 1/2. Others consider two fails to be an option and that the observation from the question was made previous to the events so they get 1/3. We can all stop now
Adrian Cruz
Wrong in every way. 1/3 is right when the observation is made after the event. If NN or TT were included, the answer would be 1/4.
HH 25
HT 25
TH 25
TT 25
Of those containing at least one head, the chance of HH is obviously 1/3. Remove the condition and the answer is 1/4
Oliver Taylor
>and that shot being hit and not crit magically modifies the chances of the next one being crit
The shot being a hit doesn't modify it, without the guaranteed crit the next one would be a 50/50 of course, but because we know that the first hit isn't a crit, and one of the hits is a crit, that means the second one has to be a crit.
>No, that's assuming the events already happened and you know that there weren't 2 non-crits because you're told so.
Yea but that's just disregarding the 2 non-crit scenario, the way I see it is that it can happen but the guaranteed crit turns it into a 1 crit. So there's 3 different ways to get 1 crit and 1 to get 2 crits. Hence 1/4.
>It's an assumption you make because it's the most reasonable way you'd ever know that at least one was crit.
Ok I get what you mean. I guess if that's how you interpret the problem 1/2 is the only correct answer. I'm just going off the interpretation that you just know the conditions beforehand and so I believe are most posters.
Dominic Evans
>that means the second one has to be a crit.
So the first shot being crit magically modifies the chances of the 2nd being crit.
>So there's 3 different ways to get 1 crit and 1 to get 2 crits.
Nope.
There are 2 different ways of getting one crit, and one of getting C|C.
>S1 C, S2 C
>S1 C, S2 NC
>S1 NC, S2 C
No other possible scenarios.with at least 1 Crit.
Owen Mitchell
>Its an assumption you make because its the most reasonable way you'd ever know that at least one was crit.
You have to assume that the second hit could also be the crit. How is the first even more reasonable? They are both equally reasonable, and you have to include the possibility of both.
Logan Diaz
I do not understand why there is so much debate about this. If you really want to know, just look at the wikipedia article for the boy-girl paradox because this is just another way of phrasing the question.
The question is rather ambiguous because it doesn't say how you learned the information that "at least one" is a crit. If you know that one is definitely a crit, but don't know which hit it was, the answer is 1/3 because there are 3 possible outcomes. If you know at least one is a crit because you learned that a specific hit was a crit, the answer is 1/2 because there are only 2 possible outcomes.
That's really all there is to it. Otherwise, the math has already been done and the probabilities are undeniable. I don't see what is left to argue about
Brody Miller
IRL, the only way for you to know that in a sequence of 2 shots there was at least one crit while the events are happening is if you witnessed the first being crit.
I agree with you that formally it is 1/3.
Adam White
1/4 u fucking brainlets. where is the noncrit? it doesn't just go away.
Joseph Rogers
>If the first shot is crit, the odds of having 2 crits is 1/2.
The. " first shot is a crit" vs "one of the shots is a crit" being different is a red herring.
If you made a probability tree, the results would be the same, you would just be moving branches of the tree around a little. It makes no sense to pretend they are different senarinos from a objective standpoint
Josiah Thompson
>If you know at least one is a crit because you learned that a specific hit was a crit, the answer is 1/2 because there are only 2 possible outcomes.
Right, but the answer is ambiguous on purpose, leading you to the correct answer of 1/3.
Parker Morales
>If you made a probability tree, the results would be the same
No?
First hit is crit:
CN or CC = 1/2
At least one is a crit:
CC or CN or NC = 1/3
Robert Powell
>S1 C, S2 C
>S1 C, S2 NC
>S1 NC, S2 C
Maybe I shouldn't have said 3 ways for 1 crit, but the point was that those 2 ways you get 1 crit could be what would be 2 non-crits becoming 1 crit due to the guaranteed crit.
It would be 1/3 if the question was like "out of the outcomes with at least one crit, what is the chance for 2 crits?" but it's not, when it says guaranteed crit you have to consider the possibilities where it wouldn't be a crit, in this case just 2 non-crits, and think about how it becomes 1 crit. Not by disregarding it, but just think of it as magically transforming to 1 crit, because that's what the guaranteed crit clause does.
Jacob Jackson
You have to explain how knowing about the events changes the probability. Why does the propbabitly change before the event or after?
If this is hard, think about a delayed broadcast coin flip game, you can make odds before you see the game, but after it was recorded, why do the odds change if you watch halfway through and know info?
Why do they change if you hit random on the video and it plays you a crit but you dont know if that was the first or second shot?
To say the odds are different depends on some magical thinking
>If the first shot is crit, the odds of having 2 crits is 1/2.
The. " first shot is a crit" vs "one of the shots is a crit" being different is a red herring.
If you made a probability tree, the results would be the same, you would just be moving branches of the tree around a little. It makes no sense to pretend they are different senarinos from a objective standpoint
John Miller
Yes, I agree. The *more* correct answer is 1/3 because the syntax implies you dont know which is which. However, taken intuitively, in almost any conceivable scenario, you would know that "at least one is a boy" is because you learned about the specific child but didnt learn about the other. So its not surprising that most people jump to the answer of 1/2, because in most real world situations this would be correct.
Dominic Bailey
Even if you see the boy, you dont know if he is the first child or the second child. You have to know that information for the answer to be 1/2.
Ryan Rivera
>You have to explain how knowing about the events changes the probability.
Let me try to explain. I think its easier if you use the monty hall symbols of doors and cars/goats, because its an easier thing to visualize.
So, there are two doors. The probability of there being a car behind the door, or a goat behind the door, is 50% for each door. I tell you that at least one is a car. What is the probability that both are cars?
In this case the answer is 1/3 because of 3 outcomes:
car/goat
goat/car
car/car
Jason Taylor
>the guaranteed crit.
There's no guaranteed crit, user. We're either looking at the outcomes after they happened and we're told it's not the H/H one, or we're looking at hit after the first shot happened and we know the first one was C.
You're pretending that after the S2 is shot, with a chance of being hit or crit of 50%, some magical force changes it into a 100% crit because the Gods want it.
It makes absolutely no sense. The idea that a shot can be 100% crit negates the fact that we know a shot is 50/50 Hit or Crit.
Sebastian Myers
Cn and nc are the same result
Mason Reed
but then i open one of the doors, and show the car. NOW what is the probability that both are cars?
the answer has changed to 1/2 because now there are only TWO possible outcomes
goat/car
car/car
So do you see why knowing the SPECIFIC one makes a difference? Because it eliminates one of the outcomes. if you don't know which is which, there are 3 possible outcomes. But knowing the specific one makes a difference.
Colton Butler
>It makes no sense to pretend they are different senarinos from a objective standpoint
Beside the fact that they are, because in one case we have
>S1 C, S2 H/C
And in the second we have
>S1 C, S2 H/C
>S1 H, S2 C
They're different scenarios.
Jaxon Gomez
One crit is more likely than two crits
Jayden Cook
>Even if you see the boy, you dont know if he is the first child or the second child.
It doesnt matter if he came first or second. The order doesnt matter. What matters is that learning about the boy specifically first, eliminates about 1/4 of the scenarios where you would see a girl first and thus obviously reduce the chances to 0.
Kayden Thompson
>Casinos, bookies, banks, mortgages, insurance agencies generate profit out of thin air and jewish magic
Christopher Torres
If you see a boy, chances are the other one is a girl. Imagine a family had 15 kids, and you saw 14 of them were boys. Wouldnt you bet that the 15th is a girl?