Not that unlikely. Eg very often when I look at the time it is the same number(s) - granted, not a majority of the times, of course, but far more often than statistically it would occur at random. There is an inner calculation anyway (unconscious).I'm baking cookies. Three batches. Eleven minutes. First batch, timer beeps.
Second batch: "I wonder how close they are to done?" [Looks at timer] 42 seconds.
Third batch: "I wonder how close they are to done?" [Looks at timer] 42 seconds.
Coincidence? Or do I have some uncanny sense for when baked goods are 42 seconds from completion?
Not that unlikely. Eg very often when I look at the time it is the same number(s) - granted, not a majority of the times, of course, but far more often than statistically it would occur at random. There is an inner calculation anyway (unconscious).
Hypothesis = The probability of looking at the timer 42 seconds from completion is higher than other times.I'm baking cookies. Three batches. Eleven minutes. First batch, timer beeps.
Second batch: "I wonder how close they are to done?" [Looks at timer] 42 seconds.
Third batch: "I wonder how close they are to done?" [Looks at timer] 42 seconds.
Coincidence? Or do I have some uncanny sense for when baked goods are 42 seconds from completion?
Some such repeats are statistically next to impossible (anything that has 1/142 chance of happening, practically won't happen), but an (already existent anyway; the body has to regulate a billion things each minute) inner clock can easily trigger looking at your actual screen/watch/etc and seeing the same time relatively frequently.Hypothesis = The probability of looking at the timer 42 seconds from completion is higher than other times.
Null Hypothesis = The time one looks at the timer is normally distributed around the time set.
We estimate the standard deviation from the two data points we have, 42 seconds. Now we could use maths to calculate the probability of getting two consecutive times equal, but as FarmBoy says maths is hard, so we could just do it ten million times and see how frequently it happens:
> sum(as.integer(rnorm(10000000, mean = 0, sd = 42)) == as.integer(rnorm(10000000, mean = 0, sd = 42)))
[1] 69315
This gives a probability of 0.0069315, or one in 144. However we will not see half of them (as the timer has gone off). However if you use a timer twice consecutively once a day for a year you would expect to get the same time seen at least once. My money is on a coincidence.
1/142 things happen quite a lot in civ.Some such repeats are statistically next to impossible (anything that has 1/142 chance of happening, practically won't happen), but an (already existent anyway; the body has to regulate a billion things each minute) inner clock can easily trigger looking at your actual screen/watch/etc and seeing the same time relatively frequently.
In civ you do the same thing tens of times, so is it by then really 1/142? ^^1/142 things happen quite a lot in civ.
It is not the same, but one time in 142 is not really "practically won't happen". You would not play russian roulette with a 142 chamber revolver, would you?In civ you do the same thing tens of times, so is it by then really 1/142? ^^
Besides, as you know that probability is in a closed system, so not the same.
It'd be really freakish to die when the chance of that was 1/142, though (=same as choosing the door with the prize behind it, from 142 doors). People have often lived playing russian roulette with 1/5 (?) chance of death.It is not the same, but one time in 142 is not really "practically won't happen". You would not play russian roulette with a 142 chamber revolver, would you?
Your use of the term "freak" makes it a bit difficult, both because it is a very touchy subject and because it is getting even closer to my specialty. However that will not stop me. If one was to define "freak" with the old meaning, generally someone with a medical condition, usually congenital, that would in days gone by have made them suitable for a "freak show" probably is in that region, I am going to guess at it being higher than 1/144.It'd be really freakish to die when the chance of that was 1/142, though. People have often lived playing russian roulette with 1/5 (?) chance of death.
Does that mean I'd just play russian roulette? No, why would I, no gain and at least some theoretical chance of death (a lot less theoretical if 1/5)...
Also, what do you mean "tens of times"? In Civ 4, that gives you the combat odds, I wonder how many times I have attacked with combat odds of 99.3% (1/144 chance of losing)? I reckon it is between 10^4 and 10^5, BICBW.In civ you do the same thing tens of times
Why would manufacturers put charcoal on a toothbrush? I thought that stuff was abrasive.