I was raised in a neighborhood where if you had a problem with someone else in the neighborhood, THE PARENTS would stand the 2 of you nose to nose and toes to toes and let you duke out the problem. That type of parenting changed in the 80s when the law makers went on a law making rampage.
You really don't recognize the difference between
(a) parents explaining to their kids to "punch it out and end it, then shake hands" where boundaries and limits are clearly set, and both kids' parents are clearly just trying to get the kids to respect each other.
Vs
(b) 3 adult daycare workers throwing somebody else's 3 year old (a 3 year old left in their care), into a fight against some other aggressive 3 year old, to fight for their amusement while they cheer on. And whoever is the losing kid has no clue why they're fighting, but he's getting hurt and crying and crapping his pants, while a bunch of trashy adults are cheering the other kid on to humiliate him. And when he runs to an adult because he's had enough, gets thrown back in to get beat up some more? The kid has no idea why he's in A very REAL "fight or flight mode", terrified, no idea where he can escape, no idea whether this will end, no idea whether this is life or death or not. For all he knows he's gonna be killed. It's just a terrifying experience where adults whom his parents sent him to for care, are treating him like a piece of garbage, pushing him away & throwing him into a fight when he comes for comfort and forcing him to fight and laughing and cheering when he gets hurt. Clearly these caseworkers have extreme hostility towards the kids or the parents, and don't even look on these kids as children at all.
What kind of defective parent could not tell the difference between (a) and (b)?
Are you trolling?
Not that I approve of (a), but I understand that rationale. (b) is just horrific and infuriating. Those daycare workers need serious prison time for that.
The premise of the problem is that there is a 50% probability that any given child is a boy, and 50% probability of a girl, therefore the distribution of 2 child families is:
25% boy boy
25% boy girl
25% girl boy
25% girl girl
The father saying "Jamie is a boy does not say Jamie is the first child. It only says "at least one child is a boy, either the first or second, I'm not going to tell you which. However i can give you any number of useless details about the boy in order to conince you that you know him. Wanna know his name? I'll tell you regardless: it's one of an infinite number of possible names we could have chosen, and it's Jamie, btw. Wanna know which grandfather he takes after? He doesn't like mustard or cilantro. But sorry, I can't tell you whether he's the first child or second child. But I do have at least one boy. Jamie is his name. "
When the father makes the statement "Jamie is a boy" you are not specifying which child is a boy, because the name of the boy is an UTTERLY USELESS piece of information.
From a problem solving standpoint, the father saying "Jamie is a boy" is the equivalent of saying "I have a boy. His name is ~mumble~".
If I don't happen to catch the name, does it really affect the probability of the other kid being a girl? Was "~mumble~" information that helps me?
It's the same as the father saying "My child who likes pancakes more, who has blue eyes btw, here look at his picture, his favorite number is 4, and he is wearing a green shirt today, is a boy"
-
Comparing it to the two color dice problem:
If I roll two dice, and YOU DONT KNOW THE COLORS.
I volunteer this information: "A beige dice shows 6. What does the other dice show?"
Do you think the probability of the other dice being a 6 is 1/6? It's not. It's 1/11. Because "beige" tells you nothing. Color information never tells us anything about the numbers unless we are going to consistently report the information for that color.
- - - - - - - -
(this actually reminds me of a really silly card trick, using red and black) but it also makes a cool CON too. I am not promoting gambling and betting is illegal. This is all hypothetical. I dont know if Ive stumbled on this variation on the problem new or if somebody already has thought of and presented this before. This MAY END UP CONFUSING a few people, so don't attack this until you've concluded that the OP's solution is 1/11, or 1:10. This might trip up some more people (or it might not) but here we go:
I set up a game, the red die, green die game. I have a perfectly balanced 6 sided red die, and a perfectly balanced 6 sided green die.
Whenever I roll just one 6, if it is red I will TRUTHFULLY announce: "The Red die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." and even show you the die. Whenever I roll just one 6, if it is green, I will TRUTHFULLY announce: "The green die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." and even show you the die.
Whenever I roll two 6s, I get to randomly choose whether to say red or green (I choose to flip a coin to decide), and EITHER TRUTHFULLY announce that "The red die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." & show you the red die, OR TRUTHFULLY announce that "The green die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." and show you the green die.
Let's play:
(1) so I roll a few times and then truthfully announce "The red die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." I pull back the curtain and show you the red die is clearly 6.
(2) I roll a few more times and then truthfully announce "The green die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." I pull back the curtain and show you the green die is clearly 6.
No tricks here.
Should you take these bets?
Is it a sucker bet?
Yes it's a suckers bet. The odds are still 1/11, yet I only pay you off at $8 on the $1 bet.
Why is it still 1/11 ? Because I'm not giving you usable information when I tell you the color there. Just the illusion of useful information.
AUSTIN, Texas—U.S. Anti-Doping Agency chief executive Travis Tygart says the agency will ban Lance Armstrong from cycling for life and strip him of his seven Tour de France titles for doping.
Armstrong on Thursday night dropped any further challenges to USADA's allegations that he took performance-enhancing drugs to win cycling's premier event from 1999 to 2005.
I am not condoning people using other people children in this way. I am just pointing out parents sign their kids up for events that can get the kids just as hurt. This is all about consent.
No, not JUST consent.
At least as big a problem is that these kids are being set upon each other to fight against their will in a contest by Adult Authority figures in a fight where they do not know the limitations or boundaries of how much they can hurt or be hurt. Some are experiencing serious fear and have no idea whether they will be humiliated or seriously hurt.
If they cry or are hurt, they are likely being ridiculed by the adult authority figures, and while tasting pain, fear or blood, or pissing or crapping their pants, some ******* daycare giver is cheering on the other kid and laughing at the loser? Meanwhile the winner is being trained to be a bully, and rewarded with accolades from the daycare workers... which will also be a very negative teaching point for him as well.
The kids involved in one of these fights have no guidance, and have no perspective. There is absolutely no feeling of safety that would come with a parentally sanctioned martial arts contest, which children can potentially say "no" to. kids probably bite in these fights because they're scared and have no idea whether this is "play" of "real".
All they got is flight or fight with nobody to frame perspective.
I frankly think you're full of **** when you minimize this.
Some ******* adult having some other big kid slap my smaller kid around is just as bad as doin it himself.
@dcartist The Primitive Europeans dont know what they are missing, gender specific bathrooms allow us to have conversations we dont want the opposite gender to hear, mostly women unless its at a bar.
No need to get defensive and go on the attack, yeesh. Nobody said the European system is bad.
The care workers should be maximally punished for child abuse. They are fortunate that a hotheaded parent did not stumble on this because I know many men that would probably thrash or even kill a babysitter for "dog-fighting" their kid. Very rational men otherwise, but when children are involved, parents become different animals.
Precisely, getting informaiton changes the probability for ME.
The question was asking for the odds Ral had rolled 2 6s, and not the odds that I would be correct when guessing he had rolled 2 6s.
The odds Ral rolled 2 6s is 1:35.
The odds that I would guess he rolled 2 6s and be correct is 1:11, now that I know he had rolled at least 1 6.
Now that sounds like you're just trying to tapdance your way out of your bad answer and claim you understood all along.
The question was asking for the odds Ral had rolled 2 6s, and not the odds that I would be correct when guessing he had rolled 2 6s
That verb "had rolled" refers to a completed event after the roll and after the information is given. Because the outcome is already established as a reality, any probability questions are based around limited information.
Post rolling, which is where the entire question lives, there is only a question of outcome and probability from one POV: yours. Ral already saw BOTH dice so he knows the outcome, so there really is no probability to calculate for him. You have extra information about the dice in their current state, and the probability from your limited information POV that it's two 6s is 1/11.
When you ask "what is the probability that Ral HAS ROLLED two 6s, after you know at least one of the dice showed 6?" that probability is NOT just 1/36.
This persuade double talk may persuade an extremely lenient teacher in school to get half credit on a problem, but the answer was wrong, and there is no valid way to rationalize it as right with respect to the OP.
It's cultural. It may shift towards unisex... Or it may not. I'm highly skeptical of Anyvody suggesting European cultures are more "advanced" because they go unisex. They're just in a "different place" culturally with regards to gender divisions which is just one small piece of the entire cultural landscape and history.
A large part of the historical reason that they may have first evolved the public unisex bathroom in Europe is costs.
The toilet itself is a 20th century invention.
I'm sure that the public multiperson bathroom is probably an even later invention. What the cultural attitudes towards gender were right at the time of widespread major adoption may have influenced it as well.
Europeans don't have water to burn, dont have space to burn, don't have money to burn. In America, we probably had all 3 at the time that public bathrooms came into being and I bet they started at richer establishments with their cultural Mores.
Too many dysfunctional drug addict losers (and yes as a PCP user, her "mental health" issues are most likely more a result of her PCP habit.
Too few workers. You could triple the number of workers and it would no be enough to handle the endless stream of junkie, abusive moms and dads... Who are squirting out more abusive useless junkie moms and dads.
But the govt doesn't grant custody. Custody is the starting point. Then CPS, which has a 50-100 cases or more per worker caseload, has to take away custody if there is enough evidence to support that, based on spending a couple hours tops with that lady in a month...
That mom might have looked fine during that time period.
How many hours would you devote to investigating and screening each mom that looks to be "at risk" or "crazy-ish"?
Who is paying for the fulltime salaries of our new increased 250,000 worker CPS force?
Also, when you see a child with a mildly squirrelly appearing mom, where do you put them? Foster care system is creaking at the seams, Transfering kids to foster care is very psychologically damaging and we got all sorts of felons coming out of that system...
How well can you possibly judge whether to take a kid from a home of a woman who is only acting out of hand once in a whole, and you're not spending 24 hours with them?
I deal with this system all the time, and when there are neighborhoods in this country where almost every kid is born to single moms (increasing percentage every day) and to millions of underage moms, where half of the males are in the criminal justice system as cons, parolees, or freed felons waitin their turn to go back, etc. etc. where is the budget to babysit & police the parenting of this population and pull kids out of homes?
Asking the question has no effect on probability of rolling the two dice. There are 36 combinations when you roll 2 dice, so the odds of getting any single combination (this one being 6,6) is 1:35.
Say what?
The dice are already rolled.
Gaining truthful information about the results reduced the solution space.
So if you ask "is there at least one 6", and he looks at them and says "No", are you saying that the odds that he rolled a 12 are still 1:35?
No, The probability is now 0%.
If you ask "is it a 12?", and he looks at them and says "yep", are you saying that the chances are still 1:35?
No, The probability is now 100%
Of course getting information changes the probability for you.
^Grammar issues again. There's a difference between:
1) AT LEAST (i.e., either) one of the die is 6, and
2) One of the die is 6.
Let's say there's one blue and one red die. Saying that EITHER the red or blue die is 6 is different from saying that the blue die is 6.
people keep talking about this like it's a "grammar issue" and some kind of "fine print shenanigans" but it's not. The wording is not intended to be a "gotcha", and it's no "trick".
It's actually a demonstration of the failure of people's natural intuition, and their mentally failing to understand how to construct the problem.
The wording is precise and there is no ambiguity when somebody says "I looked at the dice and at least one is a 6! How likely is i that they're both 6s?"
Quote from izzetmage »
TomCat26: please show your professor pane 5 of this comic. Or my personal favorite, "Two people scratched your car. One of them is not me."
"One of them is a boy", followed by what are the phrase "what are the odds that the other is a girl" narrows down the sample space to BG or BB.
no. It reduces the solution space to BG or BB or GB.
Or it reduces it to BG or GB (making the probability 100%) if you're reducing the original statement to mean "exactly one is a boy".
When you say "one of them", and follow up with "the other", you're making it clear that the probability of the "other" child being female DEPENDS on the first child being male. Thus all sample spaces with the "first" child being female must be excluded.
Let's phrase it another way, but maintaining the important details:
"Jamie is a boy. What are the odds that Andy is a girl?" - phrased like this, there are only 2 possible scenarios:
Jamie is a boy, Andy is a boy.
Jamie is a boy, Andy is a girl.
What your professor is doing is including "Jamie is a girl, Andy is a boy" with all the above possibilities - pure nonsense.
i think you're mistaken. You're getting confused about what information is provided by the statement "Jamie is a boy. What are the odds that Andy is a girl?"
Let's consider the actual 4 families in the village:
Family 1:
Boy boy
Family 2:
Boy girl
Family 3:
Girl Boy
Family 4:
Girl girl
(order is birth order)
Father says "Jamie is a boy. "Jamie is a boy. What are the odds that Andy is a girl? Could We be family 3?"
Correct Answers are 2/3 and yes.
Nothing about "Jamie is a boy. What are the odds that Andy is a girl?" eliminates family 3.
In order for such a case to be considered, the question should be phrased as "One is a boy. What are the odds that I have 1 girl and 1 boy?" - making it possible to include "Jamie girl, Andy boy" in the sample space.
i dont think so.
Telling you the name of a boy does not change the solution space.
"One is a boy. What are the odds that I have 1 girl and 1 boy? ... <pause>... By the way the one boy I mentioned's name is Jamie. So I'm asking you whether the kid not named Jamie is a girl."
How does adding "By the way the One boy I mentioned's name is Jamie. So I'm asking you whether the kid not named Jamie is a girl." change anything? It changes nothing.
Is exactly the same thing as asking "Jamie is a boy. What are the odds that Andy is a girl?"
Solution space is still:
Boy-boy
Boy-girl
Girl-boy
(order is birth order)
There is nothing special about saying "the other" child, and saying you have A boy and providing a name provides no other information than the fact that you have at least one boy. It tells you nothing about whether he was the first or second kid. Look at my lotto example.
Prison system is so corrupt, that words can't do it justice.
While I am sure there are some fine people who work in Department of Corrections, I'd say that in 25+ years of interacting with a random sampling of guards working in the system, out of maybe 50 I've met in 4 states in 25 years, there are maybe 10 I'd have trusted not to bash my head in for $50.
Consider:
You know how people talk about people going into police force for the wrong reasons? Power tripping etc.? What would motivate most people to go into dept of corrections?
Taking the police comparison further: do you see how police interact with citizens vs how they act with KNOWN perps? What if EVERYONE were a perp?
I once sat down with two DOC guys escorting an ICU patient who was there to get some bowel surgery. They just sat there talking with me about how cool it was when they bashed the face of some "con" who was clearly up to something. The way they said it lead me twice as scared of them as I was of the guy handcuffed to the gurney.
Consider Abu Graib: remember how being made into a prison guard can transform otherwise mostly good people who signed up to be soldiers and defend their country, into monsters who are mistreating their prisoners? Well the prison system is the same thing... Minus the "mostly good people" going into it.
Unlike the police force, where accountability is paramount, there is very little accountability in prison: videotape or files just "disappear". The guards form small gangs or alliances under corrupt leadership covering up each others corruption. The Internal Affairs or other accounting agencies are a joke compared to the INternal affairs for cops. The IA for cops is an independent agency that is widely hated and feared by cops. The IA for prison guards in many areas is part of the same system. I dont want to repeat the specifics of stories I've heard for fear of repercussions to people I've known.
Consider the drug trade in prison: that cannot exist unless a huge percentage of the DoC officers are just corrupt as HELL, and assist in the importation of all of it.
Talking with so many bad officers (and a few good ones) the picture is clear. The prison system sucks, and it's a giant money making exercise without accountability, and nobody in govt gives a ****, because it's just cons.
Cons get SET UP to be raped or even killed. Guards let people gang rape rhe newbie under a blanket in the middle o the room and joke about it. Guards even get set up to be raped or killed themselves. You've read it in the news before. remember Platoon with Tom berenger and Willem Dafoe? Where one accuses the other of some corruption that could result in charges or loss of job? And one let's the other get killed or sets him up to get killed? It's EXACTLY like that. Exactly.
I wonder if when we privatize prisons, if it will (a) be less lacking in accountability - it couldnt be more (b) prison guards will be more or less corrupt (c) whether it will cost more.
In quantum field theory, which is the more fundamental form of quantum mechanics (for lack of a better word), particles are defined differently, so the idea of wave-particle duality is kinda of discarded.
VERY qualitatively, there're only fields, but because these fields are quantum, they cannot have any intensity. Instead it must always be a multiple of a certain quantity called the quantum of the field. A particle is simply a ripple (or "local excitation") of the field that has that minimum value of intensity and it kinda looks like a classical particle, but not quite. So the photon is a ripple in the photon field (also called electromagnetic field), the electron is a ripple in the electron field, the Higgs is a ripple in the Higgs fields, the graviton should be a ripple in the gravitational field (but damn you gravity!), and so on for all elementary particles. With this plus math you get the behaviour associated with wave-particle duality and more.
From an "intuition" standpoint (as much as intuition can mean anything here) that sounds about as reasonable as anything else in quantum mechanics.
The behavior is the empirically observed behavior.
The most useful math to predict what we observe is the math we use.
Why should any phenomena or "events" that occur on a scale far below what we normally experience follow any kind of analogy to anything we know well?
Why should a particle behave in any way "like a pingpong ball" or move in a "straight lines"? What does "straight line" mean anyway? It's at least as vision/human perception bound a concept as point particle, and may have no analog in reality. Heck what straight OR curved "line" occurs in the universe?
Does the concept of "continuous" (which is required for the concept of "line" ) even really mean anything other than a kind of estimation or way we parse information into a neat, single concept? Isn't everything composed of vast numbers of "discrete" things?
Images on an LCD TV screen are composed of discrete pixels that just have distinct values for their color. Concepts like lines & shapes don't really exist on that meta-universe of the TV. Must lines and the concepts of shape underly any meta-universe including ours?
It's strange. We acknowledge a billiard ball (or any solid thing) is not continuous, not round, but really composed of vast numbers of "particles" interacting with each others... Yet why do we insist on thinking of those "particles" as acting a little like our old concept of billiard balls? Especially when just 2 seconds ago, we already did away with the concept of a billiard ball as meaningless.
So the whole universe might be a bunch of fields and particles are just manifestations of those fields and act nothing like billiard balls? Cool.
(a) parents explaining to their kids to "punch it out and end it, then shake hands" where boundaries and limits are clearly set, and both kids' parents are clearly just trying to get the kids to respect each other.
Vs
(b) 3 adult daycare workers throwing somebody else's 3 year old (a 3 year old left in their care), into a fight against some other aggressive 3 year old, to fight for their amusement while they cheer on. And whoever is the losing kid has no clue why they're fighting, but he's getting hurt and crying and crapping his pants, while a bunch of trashy adults are cheering the other kid on to humiliate him. And when he runs to an adult because he's had enough, gets thrown back in to get beat up some more? The kid has no idea why he's in A very REAL "fight or flight mode", terrified, no idea where he can escape, no idea whether this will end, no idea whether this is life or death or not. For all he knows he's gonna be killed. It's just a terrifying experience where adults whom his parents sent him to for care, are treating him like a piece of garbage, pushing him away & throwing him into a fight when he comes for comfort and forcing him to fight and laughing and cheering when he gets hurt. Clearly these caseworkers have extreme hostility towards the kids or the parents, and don't even look on these kids as children at all.
What kind of defective parent could not tell the difference between (a) and (b)?
Are you trolling?
Not that I approve of (a), but I understand that rationale. (b) is just horrific and infuriating. Those daycare workers need serious prison time for that.
The premise of the problem is that there is a 50% probability that any given child is a boy, and 50% probability of a girl, therefore the distribution of 2 child families is:
25% boy boy
25% boy girl
25% girl boy
25% girl girl
The father saying "Jamie is a boy does not say Jamie is the first child. It only says "at least one child is a boy, either the first or second, I'm not going to tell you which. However i can give you any number of useless details about the boy in order to conince you that you know him. Wanna know his name? I'll tell you regardless: it's one of an infinite number of possible names we could have chosen, and it's Jamie, btw. Wanna know which grandfather he takes after? He doesn't like mustard or cilantro. But sorry, I can't tell you whether he's the first child or second child. But I do have at least one boy. Jamie is his name. "
When the father makes the statement "Jamie is a boy" you are not specifying which child is a boy, because the name of the boy is an UTTERLY USELESS piece of information.
From a problem solving standpoint, the father saying "Jamie is a boy" is the equivalent of saying "I have a boy. His name is ~mumble~".
If I don't happen to catch the name, does it really affect the probability of the other kid being a girl? Was "~mumble~" information that helps me?
It's the same as the father saying "My child who likes pancakes more, who has blue eyes btw, here look at his picture, his favorite number is 4, and he is wearing a green shirt today, is a boy"
-
Comparing it to the two color dice problem:
If I roll two dice, and YOU DONT KNOW THE COLORS.
I volunteer this information: "A beige dice shows 6. What does the other dice show?"
Do you think the probability of the other dice being a 6 is 1/6? It's not. It's 1/11. Because "beige" tells you nothing. Color information never tells us anything about the numbers unless we are going to consistently report the information for that color.
- - - - - - - -
(this actually reminds me of a really silly card trick, using red and black) but it also makes a cool CON too. I am not promoting gambling and betting is illegal. This is all hypothetical. I dont know if Ive stumbled on this variation on the problem new or if somebody already has thought of and presented this before. This MAY END UP CONFUSING a few people, so don't attack this until you've concluded that the OP's solution is 1/11, or 1:10. This might trip up some more people (or it might not) but here we go:
I set up a game, the red die, green die game. I have a perfectly balanced 6 sided red die, and a perfectly balanced 6 sided green die.
Whenever I roll just one 6, if it is red I will TRUTHFULLY announce: "The Red die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." and even show you the die. Whenever I roll just one 6, if it is green, I will TRUTHFULLY announce: "The green die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." and even show you the die.
Whenever I roll two 6s, I get to randomly choose whether to say red or green (I choose to flip a coin to decide), and EITHER TRUTHFULLY announce that "The red die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." & show you the red die, OR TRUTHFULLY announce that "The green die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." and show you the green die.
Let's play:
(1) so I roll a few times and then truthfully announce "The red die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." I pull back the curtain and show you the red die is clearly 6.
(2) I roll a few more times and then truthfully announce "The green die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." I pull back the curtain and show you the green die is clearly 6.
No tricks here.
Should you take these bets?
Is it a sucker bet?
Yes it's a suckers bet. The odds are still 1/11, yet I only pay you off at $8 on the $1 bet.
Why is it still 1/11 ? Because I'm not giving you usable information when I tell you the color there. Just the illusion of useful information.
thoughts? Justice?
Or a big mistake?
At least as big a problem is that these kids are being set upon each other to fight against their will in a contest by Adult Authority figures in a fight where they do not know the limitations or boundaries of how much they can hurt or be hurt. Some are experiencing serious fear and have no idea whether they will be humiliated or seriously hurt.
If they cry or are hurt, they are likely being ridiculed by the adult authority figures, and while tasting pain, fear or blood, or pissing or crapping their pants, some ******* daycare giver is cheering on the other kid and laughing at the loser? Meanwhile the winner is being trained to be a bully, and rewarded with accolades from the daycare workers... which will also be a very negative teaching point for him as well.
The kids involved in one of these fights have no guidance, and have no perspective. There is absolutely no feeling of safety that would come with a parentally sanctioned martial arts contest, which children can potentially say "no" to. kids probably bite in these fights because they're scared and have no idea whether this is "play" of "real".
All they got is flight or fight with nobody to frame perspective.
I frankly think you're full of **** when you minimize this.
Some ******* adult having some other big kid slap my smaller kid around is just as bad as doin it himself.
Its just different.
That verb "had rolled" refers to a completed event after the roll and after the information is given. Because the outcome is already established as a reality, any probability questions are based around limited information.
Post rolling, which is where the entire question lives, there is only a question of outcome and probability from one POV: yours. Ral already saw BOTH dice so he knows the outcome, so there really is no probability to calculate for him. You have extra information about the dice in their current state, and the probability from your limited information POV that it's two 6s is 1/11.
When you ask "what is the probability that Ral HAS ROLLED two 6s, after you know at least one of the dice showed 6?" that probability is NOT just 1/36.
This persuade double talk may persuade an extremely lenient teacher in school to get half credit on a problem, but the answer was wrong, and there is no valid way to rationalize it as right with respect to the OP.
A large part of the historical reason that they may have first evolved the public unisex bathroom in Europe is costs.
The toilet itself is a 20th century invention.
I'm sure that the public multiperson bathroom is probably an even later invention. What the cultural attitudes towards gender were right at the time of widespread major adoption may have influenced it as well.
Europeans don't have water to burn, dont have space to burn, don't have money to burn. In America, we probably had all 3 at the time that public bathrooms came into being and I bet they started at richer establishments with their cultural Mores.
Somebody can google to confirm or refute this.
Too few workers. You could triple the number of workers and it would no be enough to handle the endless stream of junkie, abusive moms and dads... Who are squirting out more abusive useless junkie moms and dads.
But the govt doesn't grant custody. Custody is the starting point. Then CPS, which has a 50-100 cases or more per worker caseload, has to take away custody if there is enough evidence to support that, based on spending a couple hours tops with that lady in a month...
That mom might have looked fine during that time period.
How many hours would you devote to investigating and screening each mom that looks to be "at risk" or "crazy-ish"?
Who is paying for the fulltime salaries of our new increased 250,000 worker CPS force?
Also, when you see a child with a mildly squirrelly appearing mom, where do you put them? Foster care system is creaking at the seams, Transfering kids to foster care is very psychologically damaging and we got all sorts of felons coming out of that system...
How well can you possibly judge whether to take a kid from a home of a woman who is only acting out of hand once in a whole, and you're not spending 24 hours with them?
I deal with this system all the time, and when there are neighborhoods in this country where almost every kid is born to single moms (increasing percentage every day) and to millions of underage moms, where half of the males are in the criminal justice system as cons, parolees, or freed felons waitin their turn to go back, etc. etc. where is the budget to babysit & police the parenting of this population and pull kids out of homes?
The dice are already rolled.
Gaining truthful information about the results reduced the solution space.
So if you ask "is there at least one 6", and he looks at them and says "No", are you saying that the odds that he rolled a 12 are still 1:35?
No, The probability is now 0%.
If you ask "is it a 12?", and he looks at them and says "yep", are you saying that the chances are still 1:35?
No, The probability is now 100%
Of course getting information changes the probability for you.
people keep talking about this like it's a "grammar issue" and some kind of "fine print shenanigans" but it's not. The wording is not intended to be a "gotcha", and it's no "trick".
It's actually a demonstration of the failure of people's natural intuition, and their mentally failing to understand how to construct the problem.
The wording is precise and there is no ambiguity when somebody says "I looked at the dice and at least one is a 6! How likely is i that they're both 6s?"
no. It reduces the solution space to BG or BB or GB.
Or it reduces it to BG or GB (making the probability 100%) if you're reducing the original statement to mean "exactly one is a boy".
i think you're mistaken. You're getting confused about what information is provided by the statement "Jamie is a boy. What are the odds that Andy is a girl?"
Let's consider the actual 4 families in the village:
Family 1:
Boy boy
Family 2:
Boy girl
Family 3:
Girl Boy
Family 4:
Girl girl
(order is birth order)
Father says "Jamie is a boy. "Jamie is a boy. What are the odds that Andy is a girl? Could We be family 3?"
Correct Answers are 2/3 and yes.
Nothing about "Jamie is a boy. What are the odds that Andy is a girl?" eliminates family 3.
i dont think so.
Telling you the name of a boy does not change the solution space.
"One is a boy. What are the odds that I have 1 girl and 1 boy? ... <pause>... By the way the one boy I mentioned's name is Jamie. So I'm asking you whether the kid not named Jamie is a girl."
How does adding "By the way the One boy I mentioned's name is Jamie. So I'm asking you whether the kid not named Jamie is a girl." change anything? It changes nothing.
Is exactly the same thing as asking "Jamie is a boy. What are the odds that Andy is a girl?"
Solution space is still:
Boy-boy
Boy-girl
Girl-boy
(order is birth order)
There is nothing special about saying "the other" child, and saying you have A boy and providing a name provides no other information than the fact that you have at least one boy. It tells you nothing about whether he was the first or second kid. Look at my lotto example.
Former olympian in judo, She's also legitimately cleaned out female MMA at 135, beating every opponent in the first round.
I wonder if she can beat the cyborg (the roid-less version). Anybody else seen & like her? Rousey's fights are all over YouTube.
While I am sure there are some fine people who work in Department of Corrections, I'd say that in 25+ years of interacting with a random sampling of guards working in the system, out of maybe 50 I've met in 4 states in 25 years, there are maybe 10 I'd have trusted not to bash my head in for $50.
Consider:
You know how people talk about people going into police force for the wrong reasons? Power tripping etc.? What would motivate most people to go into dept of corrections?
Taking the police comparison further: do you see how police interact with citizens vs how they act with KNOWN perps? What if EVERYONE were a perp?
I once sat down with two DOC guys escorting an ICU patient who was there to get some bowel surgery. They just sat there talking with me about how cool it was when they bashed the face of some "con" who was clearly up to something. The way they said it lead me twice as scared of them as I was of the guy handcuffed to the gurney.
Consider Abu Graib: remember how being made into a prison guard can transform otherwise mostly good people who signed up to be soldiers and defend their country, into monsters who are mistreating their prisoners? Well the prison system is the same thing... Minus the "mostly good people" going into it.
Unlike the police force, where accountability is paramount, there is very little accountability in prison: videotape or files just "disappear". The guards form small gangs or alliances under corrupt leadership covering up each others corruption. The Internal Affairs or other accounting agencies are a joke compared to the INternal affairs for cops. The IA for cops is an independent agency that is widely hated and feared by cops. The IA for prison guards in many areas is part of the same system. I dont want to repeat the specifics of stories I've heard for fear of repercussions to people I've known.
Consider the drug trade in prison: that cannot exist unless a huge percentage of the DoC officers are just corrupt as HELL, and assist in the importation of all of it.
Talking with so many bad officers (and a few good ones) the picture is clear. The prison system sucks, and it's a giant money making exercise without accountability, and nobody in govt gives a ****, because it's just cons.
Cons get SET UP to be raped or even killed. Guards let people gang rape rhe newbie under a blanket in the middle o the room and joke about it. Guards even get set up to be raped or killed themselves. You've read it in the news before. remember Platoon with Tom berenger and Willem Dafoe? Where one accuses the other of some corruption that could result in charges or loss of job? And one let's the other get killed or sets him up to get killed? It's EXACTLY like that. Exactly.
I wonder if when we privatize prisons, if it will (a) be less lacking in accountability - it couldnt be more (b) prison guards will be more or less corrupt (c) whether it will cost more.
Is it meaningless to save you from drowning right now because you're going to be dead 1 to 50 years from now anyway?
Everybody born before the American civil war is now dead. What was the point of their living?
From an "intuition" standpoint (as much as intuition can mean anything here) that sounds about as reasonable as anything else in quantum mechanics.
The behavior is the empirically observed behavior.
The most useful math to predict what we observe is the math we use.
Why should any phenomena or "events" that occur on a scale far below what we normally experience follow any kind of analogy to anything we know well?
Why should a particle behave in any way "like a pingpong ball" or move in a "straight lines"? What does "straight line" mean anyway? It's at least as vision/human perception bound a concept as point particle, and may have no analog in reality. Heck what straight OR curved "line" occurs in the universe?
Does the concept of "continuous" (which is required for the concept of "line" ) even really mean anything other than a kind of estimation or way we parse information into a neat, single concept? Isn't everything composed of vast numbers of "discrete" things?
Images on an LCD TV screen are composed of discrete pixels that just have distinct values for their color. Concepts like lines & shapes don't really exist on that meta-universe of the TV. Must lines and the concepts of shape underly any meta-universe including ours?
It's strange. We acknowledge a billiard ball (or any solid thing) is not continuous, not round, but really composed of vast numbers of "particles" interacting with each others... Yet why do we insist on thinking of those "particles" as acting a little like our old concept of billiard balls? Especially when just 2 seconds ago, we already did away with the concept of a billiard ball as meaningless.
So the whole universe might be a bunch of fields and particles are just manifestations of those fields and act nothing like billiard balls? Cool.