Math and Logic Errors

[freshmanjs]

True dat, a 90% FT shooter makes a FT 90% of the time. It's rare for them to miss.

A 10% FT shooter makes 10% of their FT attempts. It's not common for them to make a FT.

The chance a sperm fertilizes an egg is 1 in 200-600 million (depending on source). It is rare for a baby to be conceived. (except it's not).

[Jeffrey]

Don’t know if this is the right thread for this but I heard an amusing puzzle recently. Apparently, the only people who can get it right are psychopaths. Give it a try, then scroll down for the answer.

While at her own mother's funeral, a woman meets a guy she doesn't know. She thinks this guy is amazing — her dream man — and is pretty sure he could be the love of her life. However, she never asked for his name or number and afterwards could not find anyone who knows who he was. A few days later the girl kills her own sister – but why?

She wanted to meet the guy again.

Why would the guy attend her sister's funeral? He did not know her.

[Jeffrey]

The chance a sperm fertilizes an egg is 1 in 200-600 million (depending on source). It is rare for a baby to be conceived. (except it's not).

Why are you completely changing the subject? This was the concept you introduced in your first post, which started this thread...

When JJ Redick played at Duke and was a 90% FT shooter, he was taking 10+ FT per game. Yet, inevitably, when he missed a FT, the comments followed like "Wow, a rare miss for JJ Redick." When, in fact, a miss at some point during the game was very likely.

My response to your first post...

a 90% FT shooter makes a FT 90% of the time. It's rare for them to miss.

A 10% FT shooter makes 10% of their FT attempts. It's not common for them to make a FT.

[swood1000]

Why would the guy attend her sister's funeral? He did not know her.

All she knows is that the guy has some connection to the family. She doesn't know what that is, but there is at least a chance that he will show up at another family funeral. She's got nothing to lose and might as well give it a try. If she guessed wrong she's not out anything. (If you can't wrap your mind around that reasoning then it's supposed to show that you don't think like a psychopath.)

[BLPOG]

The chance a sperm fertilizes an egg is 1 in 200-600 million (depending on source). It is rare for a baby to be conceived. (except it's not).

This comparison is wrong. It is equivalent to saying "it is rare that a foul shot be made," which is not what anyone said.

[-jk]

How does a thread on math devolve into a semantics showdown? I guess it's true about math depts...

-jk

[freshmanjs]

This comparison is wrong. It is equivalent to saying "it is rare that a foul shot be made," which is not what anyone said.

No, no one said that it is rare that a foul shot be made. They said it's rare for JJ Redick to miss a foul shot, based on the % chance of 1 trial missing. Ignoring the fact that there are a lot of trials. It's true that my analogy requires flipping from negative to positive outcome, but otherwise it holds.

The entire debate comes down to: when determining if it's rare for JJ Redick to miss, should we consider how often he shoots? Or should we ONLY look at his %?

[freshmanjs]

Why are you completely changing the subject? This was the concept you introduced in your first post, which started this thread...



My response to your first post...

You can't conclude whether it is rare for him to miss without knowing how often he shoots. Take a shooter who makes 90%, but only shoots one shot every 100 years. It is much more rare for him to make a shot than for JJ to miss one.

[OldPhiKap]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...ACB3&FORM=VIRE

A classic. A modern classic (and yes, I’ll go post that phrase as one I hate on the Words thread):

https://youtu.be/Qhm7-LEBznk

[Jeffrey]

You can't conclude whether it is rare for him to miss without knowing how often he shoots. Take a shooter who makes 90%, but only shoots one shot every 100 years. It is much more rare for him to make a shot than for JJ to miss one.

When JJ Redick played at Duke and was a 90% FT shooter, he was taking 10+ FT per game. Yet, inevitably, when he missed a FT, the comments followed like "Wow, a rare miss for JJ Redick." When, in fact, a miss at some point during the game was very likely.

During the course of the game, the announcers were talking about the last FT JJ took when they said, "Wow, a rare miss for JJ Redick." I agree with their logic. JJ made 90%.

[OldPhiKap]

The chance a sperm fertilizes an egg is 1 in 200-600 million (depending on source). It is rare for a baby to be conceived. (except it's not).

“How do we do it? Volume, volume, volume!!!”

[jimsumner]

Three statisticians go duck hunting.

They see a duck.

The first guy shoots and misses, 10 feet high.

The second guy shoots and misses, 10 feet low.

The third guy says "we can go home now, we got him."

[OldPhiKap]

Three statisticians go duck hunting.

They see a duck.

The first guy shoots and misses, 10 feet high.

The second guy shoots and misses, 10 feet low.

The third guy says "we can go home now, we got him."

https://youtu.be/IUK6zjtUj00

(Some lyrics not suitable for work)

[Jeffrey]

“How do we do it? Volume, volume, volume!!!”

Charlie Sheen quote?

[freshmanjs]

During the course of the game, the announcers were talking about the last FT JJ took when they said, "Wow, a rare miss for JJ Redick." I agree with their logic. JJ made 90%.

So, if you were announcing the once in a hundred years shooter and he made a shot, would you say "That was an extremely common made shot for Centurion man?"

[Jeffrey]

Three statisticians go duck hunting.

They see a duck.

The first guy shoots and misses, 10 feet high.

The second guy shoots and misses, 10 feet low.

The third guy says "we can go home now, we got him."

Was the third guy Dick Cheney?

[jimsumner]

Charlie Sheen quote?

A famous SNL skit, with Kevin Nealon promoting the "Change Bank," filling all of your change needs.

How do we make a profit? Volume, volume, volume.

[OldPhiKap]

A famous SNL skit, with Kevin Nealon promoting the "Change Bank," filling all of your change needs.

How do we make a profit? Volume, volume, volume.

I forgot about the change skit, which is great. I was thinking of those old car commercials where I grew up.

“How can we stay in business selling cars so low? Volume, volume, volume!!!!!”

[BLPOG]

How does a thread on math devolve into a semantics showdown? I guess it's true about math depts...

-jk

Maybe some people are purely arguing semantics. I pointed out a flaw in an analogy. The way a proposition is phrased is important in logic and analogies.

No, no one said that it is rare that a foul shot be made. They said it's rare for JJ Redick to miss a foul shot, based on the % chance of 1 trial missing. Ignoring the fact that there are a lot of trials. It's true that my analogy requires flipping from negative to positive outcome, but otherwise it holds.

The entire debate comes down to: when determining if it's rare for JJ Redick to miss, should we consider how often he shoots? Or should we ONLY look at his %?

I'm not engaing in the other discussion about "rare" and "common." The flaw that I pointed out isn't about positive or negative outcome.

The example referred to fertilization generally and is meant to be false. The usage of the example was to demonstrate that prior examples involving foul shots were also false. The analogy is wrong because the examples are not equivalent, not because of outcome (positive or negative result) but because of the constraints on the set. The set of all foul shots and the set of foul shots conditional on a player are two different things, just as the set of all fertilizations and fertilizations by one actor (or pair of actors) are two different things. Even under the condition that context is not a factor in the appropriate descriptive (e.g. common, rare) choice, such that both scenarios would be described the same way for a given probability, the analogy would still be invalid.

[freshmanjs]

Maybe some people are purely arguing semantics. I pointed out a flaw in an analogy. The way a proposition is phrased is important in logic and analogies.



I'm not engaing in the other discussions about "rare" and "common." The flaw that I pointed out isn't about positive or negative outcome.

The example referred to fertilization generally and is meant to be false. The usage of the example was to demonstrate that prior examples involving foul shots were also false. The analogy is wrong because the examples are not equivalent, not because of outcome (positive or negative result) but because of the constraints on the set. The set of all foul shots and the set of foul shots conditional on a player are two different things, just as the set of all fertilizations and fertilizations by one actor (or pair of actors) are two different things. Even under the condition that context is not a factor in the appropriate descriptive (e.g. common, rare) choice, such that both scenarios would be described the same way for a given probability, the analogy would still be invalid.

Great, use fertilizations by one actor (or pair of actors).