The Very-Many-Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread XLII

[Farm Boy]

Your perception of 10 minutes is 12 seconds off.

 

[Gori the Grey]

18?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Douglas Adams is reaching out to you from beyond. He wants cookies.

 

[Farm Boy]

Math is hard.

The goblins don't care.

 

[Kyriakos]

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).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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).

My answer's more fun.

 

[Samson]

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?

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.

 

[Kyriakos]

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.

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.

 

[Samson]

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.

1/142 things happen quite a lot in civ.

 

[Kyriakos]

1/142 things happen quite a lot in civ.

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.

An example (happens to me often). A number of times, when I look to see what time it is, the result is some memorable date from history(a very limited set, usually 2). There are a few of those around the day. Still, if we were talking "random"/probability, you'd be hard-pressed to limit the probability (taking account of time of day etc) to something in the order of 1/many hundreds.

 

[Samson]

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 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?

 

[Kyriakos]

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?

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.
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)...

 

[Samson]

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)...

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.

I thought the idea of russian roulette was that there was a gain, and it was something people used to do for money so people could gamble on it. I had to look it up, and it all seems much sillier.

 

[Kyriakos]

I just meant "rare", as in Giannis is the "Greek Freak" ^^

 

[Samson]

In civ you do the same thing tens of times

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.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

By this point, I think @Gori the Grey should PM a cookie to everyone in this conversation. Let us test those results, and never mind the math.

Unless he ate them already.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I have not eaten all of them already, not even close. If there were a way to share them with my CFC friends, nothing would make me happier.

Also, I'd play Russian roulette with a 142-chamber pistol: there's no way that thing wouldn't jam.

 

[Farm Boy]

Do revolvers jam, much? Russian roulette with a magazine approaches 1:1 odds of bang.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Do they make 142-chamber revolvers much? (Was my point) (No, and for a reason) (And that reason is?) (Because that's would require a crazy-sized cylinder relative to the handle, trigger and barrel) (And that sized cylinder would therefore jam) (What's your evidence for that?) (The non-existence of 142-chamber revolvers)

You need a cookie, Farm Boy.

 

[Cutlass]

Why would manufacturers put charcoal on a toothbrush? I thought that stuff was abrasive.

https://www.amazon.ca/Colgate-Slim-Toothbrush-Charcoal-Count/dp/B00LM93MGC

I've tried charcoal toothpaste.

It was as bad as you'd think.