- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Please answer the following math/philosophy question
Posted on 12/29/13 at 2:10 pm to Tiguar
Posted on 12/29/13 at 2:10 pm to Tiguar
You're referring to the Monte Carlo fallacy, which is a little different. The MC fallacy pertains to the probability of an event happening as one step in a causal chain rather than the entire chain.
Going back to the nomenclature I used earlier -- Event X with Y probability and Z attempts -- we can see that as Z increases, the chances of X happening go up. But there are two things that fuel the chance of X happening: Y probability, and Z attempts. It's not fallacious to say that as Z increases, the chance of X happening increases. Where it is fallacious, and where the MC fallacy comes into play, would be if you argued that as Z increases, Y also increases. Y stays the same, the chance of X happening just goes up (and eventually reaches 1) because of Z going up.
Does that make sense?
EDIT: Just thought of an example that fits. You would agree that I have a better chance of flipping a coin and getting heads if I got to flip the coin 10 times instead of 1. But that's because I got 9 more tries. We would have a problem if I said that because I didn't get heads before, my odds of getting heads go up to 60% or 70% or whatever have you. The former (my chances improving because of more attempts) is just basic logic, the latter (the odds themselves changing because I failed previously) is the MC fallacy.
Going back to the nomenclature I used earlier -- Event X with Y probability and Z attempts -- we can see that as Z increases, the chances of X happening go up. But there are two things that fuel the chance of X happening: Y probability, and Z attempts. It's not fallacious to say that as Z increases, the chance of X happening increases. Where it is fallacious, and where the MC fallacy comes into play, would be if you argued that as Z increases, Y also increases. Y stays the same, the chance of X happening just goes up (and eventually reaches 1) because of Z going up.
Does that make sense?
EDIT: Just thought of an example that fits. You would agree that I have a better chance of flipping a coin and getting heads if I got to flip the coin 10 times instead of 1. But that's because I got 9 more tries. We would have a problem if I said that because I didn't get heads before, my odds of getting heads go up to 60% or 70% or whatever have you. The former (my chances improving because of more attempts) is just basic logic, the latter (the odds themselves changing because I failed previously) is the MC fallacy.
This post was edited on 12/29/13 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 12/29/13 at 2:12 pm to lsutothetop
Yes, I get it and agree with more attempts increasing the likelihood, but just keeping things in perspective for my own sake.
Probability has always been one thing that trips me up. I fricking hate probability.
Probability has always been one thing that trips me up. I fricking hate probability.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)