/sci/ humor thread - /sci/ (#16667389) [Archived: 731 hours ago]

Anonymous
5/20/2025, 4:05:22 AM No.16667389
1744685303187288
1744685303187288
md5: 52a3166dba4008ff4a81ffa7b3ea6ebe๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16667405 >>16667406 >>16670002 >>16670260 >>16670385 >>16673111 >>16676871 >>16681009 >>16681642 >>16686001 >>16691194 >>16700662 >>16705279
Anonymous
5/20/2025, 5:01:58 AM No.16667405
12321262_201756906863879_7836387250656785094_n
12321262_201756906863879_7836387250656785094_n
md5: 04dee9281ae5938b156ac0d651eb72c9๐Ÿ”
>>16667389 (OP)
Replies: >>16670882 >>16698482 >>16705820
Anonymous
5/20/2025, 5:02:11 AM No.16667406
file
file
md5: 198540e4c7b4c041cf6f95d0a8dde574๐Ÿ”
>>16667389 (OP)
Anonymous
5/20/2025, 5:07:41 AM No.16667407
1614808440172
1614808440172
md5: d5d569cce0d4d6150a6b3d3f4b557feb๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16667584 >>16667613 >>16667727 >>16668122 >>16670595 >>16684699 >>16684742 >>16695025 >>16697305 >>16703064 >>16705867
Anonymous
5/20/2025, 5:47:02 AM No.16667424
y = a cosh x:a
y = a cosh x:a
md5: 1301236eeceab54c5f59f939f3d6d891๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16667658 >>16702938
Anonymous
5/20/2025, 12:23:41 PM No.16667584
>>16667407
Asbestos is genuinely fine if you arent working with it.
God fucking pussies
Replies: >>16667613
Anonymous
5/20/2025, 1:28:03 PM No.16667613
>>16667407
>>16667584
asbestos was replaced with fiberglass wool, sharp silica needles aren't any safer, they might aswell be same thing but this time it's not free and you have to manufacture it so yeah someone makes money for same end result, breathing in silica dust is proven to cause cancer, you think silica needles are different?
Replies: >>16703711 >>16705821
Anonymous
5/20/2025, 2:24:46 PM No.16667658
catenaries
catenaries
md5: a1321ae2514e174cb91b0d73554d6144๐Ÿ”
>>16667424
catenaries for different values of a
Replies: >>16703711
Anonymous
5/20/2025, 3:58:43 PM No.16667727
>>16667407
Seems like most of your examples are from marketing, and the reason we know better now is due to the experts, whom you implicitly trust and vindicate by this image.
Replies: >>16670014
Anonymous
5/21/2025, 1:32:19 AM No.16668122
>>16667407
Cocaine is safe, you retard. Especially the cocaine medication from the past which was like 5% cocaine at most
Anonymous
5/21/2025, 8:48:04 AM No.16668319
1645117231916
1645117231916
md5: efdbc809b7a97addd5c1bcc920c92c49๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16699866 >>16705820
Anonymous
5/23/2025, 3:00:54 AM No.16670002
1636595135851_thumb.jpg
1636595135851_thumb.jpg
md5: 88a0124463635a6eaa7c92ed3568c721๐Ÿ”
>>16667389 (OP)
Replies: >>16685990 >>16699849 >>16705820
Anonymous
5/23/2025, 3:10:35 AM No.16670014
>>16667727
you really think a trillion dollar international industry with lobbiests in all levels of government wouldn't be advertising through coercive domestic policy?
Replies: >>16697310
Anonymous
5/23/2025, 11:08:35 AM No.16670260
Musk Physics psyop
Musk Physics psyop
md5: 6cc1ba19dc486c7f5c14ad6570bc1f73๐Ÿ”
>>16667389 (OP)
Anonymous
5/23/2025, 2:44:48 PM No.16670385
ear_thumb.jpg
ear_thumb.jpg
md5: 5cae373076d65ae68983f45e126ef905๐Ÿ”
>>16667389 (OP)
Replies: >>16677751 >>16681056 >>16698485 >>16699792
Anonymous
5/23/2025, 5:32:30 PM No.16670595
>>16667407
Half of this is still completely true, scientists just had to find out that most people are morons
Anonymous
5/23/2025, 9:44:06 PM No.16670882
>>16667405
TRVTHSQVASH
Anonymous
5/26/2025, 8:42:26 AM No.16673111
science models
science models
md5: a0c22cdeb8a4ba4babb822342ef7393b๐Ÿ”
>>16667389 (OP)
Replies: >>16700312 >>16705820
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 3:02:39 AM No.16676871
1656120299572
1656120299572
md5: b51f1de4e32625d274f0525447d61d51๐Ÿ”
>>16667389 (OP)
Anonymous
5/28/2025, 3:05:05 PM No.16677751
>>16670385
wtf is this?
Replies: >>16678357 >>16678365
Anonymous
5/29/2025, 1:56:52 AM No.16678357
>>16677751
horrors beyond your comprehension
Anonymous
5/29/2025, 2:06:10 AM No.16678365
ears
ears
md5: c9b72e2b07756bb5fd36fe9e91c2eaf6๐Ÿ”
>>16677751
Growing an ear in your arm.
>For your health.
Anonymous
5/30/2025, 3:17:32 AM No.16679514
13010647_1588055698152761_6638349033964994350_n
13010647_1588055698152761_6638349033964994350_n
md5: 92fc5f89f54ddb1fe3921399ba95f907๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16681055 >>16690069
Anonymous
5/31/2025, 3:35:31 AM No.16681009
1639459007198
1639459007198
md5: d391ee922493bda3b6dc8cf4bea5201c๐Ÿ”
>>16667389 (OP)
Replies: >>16687426
Anonymous
5/31/2025, 4:29:06 AM No.16681055
>>16679514
Are those numbers considered accurate by mainstream science?
Replies: >>16682625
Anonymous
5/31/2025, 4:33:49 AM No.16681056
>>16670385
hell world
Anonymous
5/31/2025, 6:02:45 PM No.16681642
20728092_736798859853184_1793579718275404610_n
20728092_736798859853184_1793579718275404610_n
md5: ad286bc8b627cff3a907ab1595d0f9f9๐Ÿ”
>>16667389 (OP)
Anonymous
5/31/2025, 6:24:18 PM No.16681685
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG6CtUP9KPA
Anonymous
6/1/2025, 2:10:04 AM No.16682625
>>16681055
It's a broadcast anon.
Anonymous
6/1/2025, 4:58:34 AM No.16682783
Flat earth feds will get the rope
Replies: >>16683201
Anonymous
6/1/2025, 5:28:59 AM No.16682813
mods do your job
Replies: >>16683201
Anonymous
6/1/2025, 4:00:50 PM No.16683201
>>16682813
>>16682783
Plebbitors are so butthurt by flat earth they need to call daddy jannie for help
Anonymous
6/2/2025, 2:27:03 PM No.16684283
scientist
scientist
md5: 32d066b630b28b77fc68f2a96e0860ad๐Ÿ”
Anonymous
6/2/2025, 3:06:37 PM No.16684300
1713301109184863
1713301109184863
md5: 0c9cf0d3f9a8620b548cb3f9f3179550๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16685888
Anonymous
6/2/2025, 3:16:29 PM No.16684309
1699051308712446
1699051308712446
md5: f169347662b573592e1d8ef2f692e963๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16686763
Anonymous
6/2/2025, 8:54:59 PM No.16684699
>>16667407
mercury will absolutely fight against syphilis sores... people didn't just use it for no reason. They were aware it was poisionous too, but it was either a slow death from mercury or a quick death from syphilis.
Anonymous
6/2/2025, 9:46:23 PM No.16684742
>>16667407
your image implies that experts are right though
cocaine is fine in moderation and smoking is the foundation of every healthy man
Anonymous
6/3/2025, 10:40:05 PM No.16685888
>>16684300
kek
Anonymous
6/4/2025, 12:46:46 AM No.16685990
>>16670002
>no matter the size of the ball
show it to scale then lol
Replies: >>16700317
Anonymous
6/4/2025, 1:01:31 AM No.16686001
reply
reply
md5: 9e1b86abd25f87065fd9efe6939f4ba1๐Ÿ”
>>16667389 (OP)
the humor isnt necessarily in the image but in the replies
Replies: >>16686952 >>16686969 >>16687427 >>16689312 >>16690597 >>16691601 >>16701922 >>16702296 >>16704221
Anonymous
6/4/2025, 7:56:05 PM No.16686763
>>16684309
i don't into what's its asking, but somehow i gather that the answer to what it's asking is the word "nigger" in some shape or form
Replies: >>16697312
Anonymous
6/4/2025, 11:58:25 PM No.16686943
1721813220705
1721813220705
md5: e249dced293a7ec95eaad554a1f05600๐Ÿ”
Anonymous
6/5/2025, 12:10:54 AM No.16686952
>>16686001
Monty Hall is a fuck but it's 2/3
Replies: >>16687193
Anonymous
6/5/2025, 12:24:54 AM No.16686969
1722050673652113
1722050673652113
md5: 75f763f056376dfc891d330fab859df6๐Ÿ”
>>16686001
What's the probability that middle box would be referred to as final, which is an improper usage, rather than one of the two end boxes, either of which would be a proper usage?
Anonymous
6/5/2025, 6:22:10 AM No.16687193
>>16686952
Is it definitely not 50/50? There's zero chance you're picking from the box with two silver balls. That leaves a 50/50 chance that you're picking from the box with two gold balls.
Replies: >>16687211 >>16688514
Anonymous
6/5/2025, 6:55:09 AM No.16687211
>>16687193
It's 50/50. Imagine the monty hall problem, but instead of him always picking the goat, he picks at random and happens to pick the goat. That's essentially the problem if you wished to compare it to monty hall for some reason.
Anonymous
6/5/2025, 1:45:07 PM No.16687426
>>16681009
what the fuck is this kek
Replies: >>16689983 >>16700401
Anonymous
6/5/2025, 1:48:21 PM No.16687427
>>16686001
Is this NOT 50/50??

my god i will never learn bayesian shit
Replies: >>16689253
Anonymous
6/5/2025, 10:58:50 PM No.16688514
>>16687193
Six possibilities for first ball, we'll label them left to right:
Ball 1 - Gold, Box 1
Ball 2 - Gold, Box 1
Ball 3 - Gold, Box 2
Ball 4 - Silver, Box 2
Ball 5 - Silver, Box 3
Ball 6 - Silver, Box 3
Choosing a gold ball means you've either taken Ball 1, 2, or 3
Possibility A: You took Ball 1; your second ball will be Ball 2 (Gold)
Possibility B: You took Ball 2; your second ball will be Ball 1 (Gold)
Possibility C: You took Ball 3; your second ball will be Ball 4 (Silver)

2/3 chance of a gold ball. QED
Replies: >>16689307 >>16689526 >>16695495
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 2:40:46 AM No.16689253
>>16687427
Thereโ€™s a 2/3 chance you took a ball from the box with two gold balls.
Replies: >>16689270
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 2:47:47 AM No.16689270
>>16689253
Why am I more likely to have picked the box with two golden balls because I picked a box with at least one golden ball?
Replies: >>16689359
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 2:51:59 AM No.16689279
Is it because I were more likely to draw a golden ball from the two gold ball box.

what if the balls were numbered 1 and 2 in each box and I picked gold ball "1" ?
Replies: >>16689294 >>16689307
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 2:58:13 AM No.16689294
>>16689279
if there were 6 million balls in each box, one full of silver, one full of gold, and the other 1 gold and 5999999 silver
its impossibly unlikely to draw a gold ball from any other box than the one filled with gold
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 3:06:29 AM No.16689307
>>16689279
>>16688514
if the balls were numbered would it change?
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 3:10:14 AM No.16689312
>>16686001
How would you sneakily reformulate the problem so the answer is 50/50?
Replies: >>16689363 >>16700326
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 3:32:56 AM No.16689359
>>16689270
Because that ball has 2 times as many golden balls as the other, so itโ€™s twice as likely the ball you picked came from there.
Replies: >>16689522
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 3:34:43 AM No.16689363
>>16689312
Add two silver balls to the first. I think? My IQ is only 129 though so someone smarter can check me on this.
Replies: >>16691304
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 3:56:02 AM No.16689407
mechanical drawing
mechanical drawing
md5: 393b1055afe0bb118602f9c82a3cd770๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16689437
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 4:24:52 AM No.16689437
>>16689407
Wonder where that anon is today.
Replies: >>16691605
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 6:57:35 AM No.16689522
1665324756960536
1665324756960536
md5: 6d66e5dadf5bb95bd76943a1196408e0๐Ÿ”
>>16689359
No, that's retarded. It was 50/50 you picked any color ball from anywhere to begin with, and random chance eliminates the silver box.

Imagine the monty hall problem. You pick a door, and then monty hall, at random, opens a door with a goat behind it. He is fully capable of opening up a door with a car behind it but didn't. What are the chances that the door you picked has the car behind it? It's 50/50
Replies: >>16689526 >>16689957 >>16690118
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 6:59:20 AM No.16689523
pauli exclusion
pauli exclusion
md5: 89ceffb6f23f4661f7a0a4c08879b1b1๐Ÿ”
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 7:01:08 AM No.16689526
>>16688514
No. See here
>>16689522
Replies: >>16689957
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 7:02:16 AM No.16689529
double slit
double slit
md5: 820af78991ef5bd9a0ecd0a312b720d3๐Ÿ”
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 4:18:43 PM No.16689957
>>16689526
you dumbfuck, >>16689522 is wrong.

the reason Monty Hall is 2/3 is because you have a 1/3 chance of the prize being behind the door you picked, and a 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3 chance of it NOT being behind the door you picked.
when he shows you the goat, that doesn't change those probabilities; you're choosing between either your original door (1/3) or BOTH of the other doors together (2/3).
Replies: >>16690398 >>16690830 >>16691291
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 4:57:16 PM No.16689983
dog clap1
dog clap1
md5: f944c48c3fb42636ec9f24c6c6f895af๐Ÿ”
>>16687426
1st image shows someone (representing round Earth proponents) having a "gotcha" moment, thinking they've found a fatal flaw in flat Earth theory. Presumably arguing that a flat Earth model couldn't explain day/night cycles.

2nd image shows same person becoming distressed when flat Earth proponents demonstrate their explanation: a localized sun acting like a spotlight moving in circles above the flat plane, which would create day and night cycles in different regions as the "spotlight" moves around.

round Earth proponents think they have a slam-dunk argument against flat Earth theory, but then get frustrated when flat Earthers provide their model for how day/night cycles would work on a flat plane.
Replies: >>16690048
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 5:35:48 PM No.16690048
>>16689983
it is a colossal failure of western society that we've become obligated to start treating flerfers with good faith
tired of the woke right trying to cancel me for calling a retard a retard
Replies: >>16690061 >>16690120
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 5:43:40 PM No.16690061
1733507341317713
1733507341317713
md5: f8a94f9b67d0accd8f66dbf1327e846b๐Ÿ”
>>16690048
Wouldn't flat earth be more woke left, if left/right even has a fixed meaning? Like you just identify the earth as being flat to troll institutional dogma or because that's how you feel and no one can stop you from feeling that way?
Replies: >>16690291
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 5:52:34 PM No.16690069
>>16679514
Didn't they find out recently that the number of the beast is actually 616 rather than 666?
Replies: >>16690075 >>16690330
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 5:56:36 PM No.16690075
>>16690069
greek/hebrew
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 6:50:30 PM No.16690108
1704160642049669
1704160642049669
md5: d2bcbe7dc54c7537d3266a59735e8855๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16690615
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 6:51:33 PM No.16690109
1694191433494010
1694191433494010
md5: 11e3c3de0abe01810647ad79cb6cbe8d๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16690841
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 6:52:35 PM No.16690110
1686851207860775
1686851207860775
md5: 6d6c3c19dfbefa86d94d005402721940๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16690112 >>16690316 >>16697322
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 6:53:32 PM No.16690112
>>16690110
Did anyone ask if the shirt wearer knew the difference between interpolation and extrapolation? Because I don't think he does.
Replies: >>16690324
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 6:54:07 PM No.16690113
1612115041297
1612115041297
md5: 4ca34323a5e084ce7664c1f98149ed2f๐Ÿ”
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 6:55:40 PM No.16690116
1559619866512
1559619866512
md5: f6b02292759a45fdc3009c0847f22e0a๐Ÿ”
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 6:55:57 PM No.16690118
>>16689522
>What are the chances that the door you picked has the car behind it?
1/3. 1 door out of 3. Him opening a door changes nothing. There was a 100% chance one of the other two doors had a goat behind it, so that changes nothing.
Replies: >>16690123
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 6:56:49 PM No.16690120
>>16690048
Flerfers are just god tier trolls.
Replies: >>16703532
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 6:58:25 PM No.16690123
1551194891354
1551194891354
md5: dfe2be8567772a8f4c3a9cbef72abbc0๐Ÿ”
>>16690118
No, it's a 1/2 since Monty eliminated one of the options. Staying with the current door is still a 1/3 chance, since, you made that choice before you had additional context, but switching doors there gives you a 1/2 chance of getting the car.
I know it doesn't make sense on paper but people have actually done extended Monty Hall tests IRL and that's the way it came out.
Replies: >>16690312 >>16690398 >>16691328
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:10:25 PM No.16690291
>>16690061
Without exception, every sincere flerfer is a rightoid. The line that leftists prioritize their feelings over facts has always been limpdick projection.
If you pay attention, you may Noootice that the same rhetorical tricks that flerfers use are all over rightoid political "thought."
Replies: >>16690318 >>16691622 >>16699853
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:28:42 PM No.16690312
>>16690123
Guessing a troll. Simulations say the exact opposite.
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:30:24 PM No.16690316
>>16690110
should be an immediate fail
Replies: >>16690320
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:31:45 PM No.16690318
>>16690291
your concept of right vs left is bullshit.
Replies: >>16690328 >>16690340
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:31:58 PM No.16690320
>>16690316
Wearing that shirt, yes
Replies: >>16690336
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:33:40 PM No.16690324
>>16690112
>the difference between interpolation and extrapolation?
Could you enlighten us?
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:34:44 PM No.16690328
>>16690318
NTA but what's yours?
Replies: >>16690355
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:35:20 PM No.16690330
>>16690069
It can be either depending on interpretations and sources.


the problem for me with that chart is that if I remember right it was made by a litteral glowie
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:36:42 PM No.16690336
>>16690320
both those who wear that shirt and those who can't understand it deserve fails
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:40:22 PM No.16690340
>>16690318
"All models are wrong, but some are useful."
Left and Right is a measure of your loyalty to the corporate puppeteers that run the western world.
It's not a coincidence that the retards in suits bleating on TV and twitter that you need to be scared about faggots playing sports are paid 6 figures a year by (((oil executives)))
Replies: >>16690343 >>16690358
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:42:13 PM No.16690343
>>16690340
Oh God lol this isn't the 1970s anymore, it's sort of the opposite now
Replies: >>16690349
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:43:56 PM No.16690349
>>16690343
sure man, anything is possible when you just make shit up.
this is getting too >>>/pol/ for my taste. either stick to objective facts or move along.
Replies: >>16690357
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:48:52 PM No.16690355
>>16690328
I came to the conclusion that the whole left/right thing is just nonsense, at least in its modern publicised interpretations.
it's incredibly misleading and sends you down very warped paths of logic.
The political origin was the french court where the right was the monarch the left the common people vastly divorced from the modern intent.
Yes there is some correlation with traits to some of the concepts and personality groupings but we are fundamentally missing entire dimensions so radically incompatible groups are somehow thought to be almost the same.

it's clearly artificial factional disputes designed to lead to some control outcome, both are effectively useless.

I'm not even sure I count as a third positionist since I find that is also tied to this peculier left right narative.

I can't define the left or right because they ultimately just unhelful.
Replies: >>16690382 >>16702199
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:50:09 PM No.16690357
>>16690349
Are you AI?
Replies: >>16690373
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:50:21 PM No.16690358
>>16690340
Nah, you're full of shit.
Replies: >>16690373
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:53:40 PM No.16690366
ohm_cat
ohm_cat
md5: b790bf3e84c5c8d5cdede56392fc63cd๐Ÿ”
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:54:50 PM No.16690368
lol
lol
md5: b70a09de6f4261d3ee43eb9b08e58a3c๐Ÿ”
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 9:59:48 PM No.16690373
>>16690357
>>16690358
My entire ideology is centered on two principles: I am pro-Freedom for all human beings, and I have no tolerance for retards.
By some mystical coincidence that I can't decipher, this has put me in direct ideological opposition to all rightoid political positions.
Replies: >>16690387
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 10:02:58 PM No.16690382
>>16690355
Yeah, I mean Cesar Chavez, MLK, and Edward Snowden would all be "right" coded if they did their thing today. I feel like it's a good way for people to self-identify as having no historical perspective but useless for describing any sort of consistent worldview.
Replies: >>16690408
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 10:04:09 PM No.16690387
>>16690373
Such as?
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 10:14:05 PM No.16690398
>>16690123
>eliminated one of the options.
no, he combined the other two options into one. see: >>16689957
>you have a 1/3 chance of the prize being behind the door you picked, and a 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3 chance of it NOT being behind the door you picked.

the trick is that your intuition makes it feel like choosing a door after the reveal is dependent on the reveal, but it's not.
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 10:18:09 PM No.16690408
>>16690382
>coded
you need to open your veins in a warm bath
Replies: >>16690422
Anonymous
6/6/2025, 10:29:18 PM No.16690422
>>16690408
You need to open a slim dictionary of pre K level english words
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 1:32:53 AM No.16690597
There is no other option or solution possible
There is no other option or solution possible
md5: cf857d20795150fde142146f09871c9b๐Ÿ”
>>16686001
It is 50%. Anything else is retardation and cope.
Replies: >>16691289 >>16697318 >>16701922
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 1:49:32 AM No.16690615
>>16690108
This shit's been repeated so many times it's practically a meme now. I can think of at least four different textbooks that have used that same bit. Who was the first to use it?
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 7:37:16 AM No.16690830
1741638574520453
1741638574520453
md5: a0f68ac9759f712d1b4745eac6be04ba๐Ÿ”
>>16689957
Read the post again you insufferable fucking faggot. The only reason it is 2/3 is because he opens the door to a goat knowing it is a goat. Once you take away that assumption it's 50/50. We literally have a thread on the catalog about the monty hall problem for fucks sakes.
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 7:53:17 AM No.16690841
>>16690109
That must be a very heavy seagull.
Replies: >>16704039 >>16704066
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 12:05:21 PM No.16690970
100 doors;
99 with goats one with a prize
pick a door:
1/100 chance you got the prize, 99/100 chance the prize is behind another door
98 goats removed:
still a 1/100 chance you got the prize, still 99/100 chance the other door is the prize
Do you switch?
No, of course not it's ony 50:50 after all.....right?
Replies: >>16691352
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 4:37:11 PM No.16691194
1749298467752212
1749298467752212
md5: 881b1e871c5c3d346412e6f655262fcb๐Ÿ”
>>16667389 (OP)
Replies: >>16691218 >>16694098 >>16695469
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 5:00:56 PM No.16691218
>>16691194
might be interesting that two of the petite have nonwhite names

zoomers are fucked though
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 6:02:43 PM No.16691289
>>16690597
You are "virtually" taking two balls. You actually take only one. And that one is twice as likely to be from one box than the other.
Replies: >>16691337
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 6:07:33 PM No.16691291
>>16689957
That guy is actually right - if Monty picks at random, it's 50-50.
Bertrand's Box is also not Monty Hall and the answer there is 2/3 for different reasons.
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 6:22:53 PM No.16691304
>>16689363
No that would make your initial odds of having either box 50-50 but then your odds of getting silver second are bigger
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 6:36:41 PM No.16691328
>>16690123
I lost it completely when it got to time cube.
Replies: >>16691341
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 6:44:16 PM No.16691337
>>16691289
You take one ball from a single box. There are two boxes that contain golden balls so you virtually take two (One for each box). The remaining ball in the box is either Silver or Gold. 50% chance by default. Like I said, there is not other choice possible.
Replies: >>16691389 >>16695483
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 6:47:42 PM No.16691341
1724539095526526
1724539095526526
md5: 0c70d076f1e9c13f812437684f324f5b๐Ÿ”
>>16691328
RIP your eyes
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 6:50:45 PM No.16691347
>/sci/ humor thread
>it's a bunch of double digit IQ /pol/ memes
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 6:59:09 PM No.16691352
>>16690970
Well, that depends... if the doors were opened randomly, then yes
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 7:35:25 PM No.16691389
>>16691337
You didn't take two virtually, you took one actually, either the first OR the second OR the third. The first two of the three options will yield another gold ball.
Replies: >>16691542
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 8:00:44 PM No.16691417
1743881304335144_thumb.jpg
1743881304335144_thumb.jpg
md5: d8af5f3802759d99cd1e3f9ea8a0c3c2๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16691612
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 10:09:40 PM No.16691542
>>16691389
Are you trolling? You'd be right if it was a case of picking balls, but you're picking boxes, of which there are two. Hence the 2 in the 1/2 chance. Only one box will give you a second gold ball. Hence the 1 in the 1/2 chance.

If there were 100 gold balls in the box with gold balls, it'd still be a 1/2 chance because there would still be only one box that gives a second gold ball.
Replies: >>16691549
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 10:16:09 PM No.16691549
>>16691542
>Only one box will give you a second gold ball.
Yes. For the same reason that you're twice as likely to have taken your first ball from that box.

Very good to realise that 100 gold balls make no difference. But what if we add 98 silver balls to the mixed one? It's not about the amount of balls in the boxes. It's about how much more likely each is to yield gold relative to the others. 100% is twice as much as 50%. And 100 times 1%.
Replies: >>16692222
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 11:14:12 PM No.16691601
>>16686001
The probability of past events is 1
Replies: >>16691658
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 11:15:46 PM No.16691605
>>16689437
designing the bridge you'll commute to the lab on
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 11:21:46 PM No.16691612
>>16691417
>shame cube remastered
Anonymous
6/7/2025, 11:25:51 PM No.16691622
>>16690291
If you think any mainstream political affiliation isn't a mountain of (by design) scientifically incorrect beliefs designed to lubricate their desired sort of society you are retarded.
Replies: >>16691659
Anonymous
6/8/2025, 12:07:42 AM No.16691658
>>16691601
No, the probability of known events is 1. If you don't know for sure what happened you'll have to deal with less than certainty.
Anonymous
6/8/2025, 12:09:26 AM No.16691659
>>16691622
Actually it goes from entirely wrong on the far right to increasingly correct as you approach the centre. And then even more correct as you move left till you reach the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism.
Replies: >>16691915
Anonymous
6/8/2025, 6:08:29 AM No.16691915
>>16691659
>t.great leap forward enjoyer
Anonymous
6/8/2025, 3:18:19 PM No.16692222
>>16691549
I apologise for accusing you of trolling because that's a good point. Now I don't know what to believe.
Anonymous
6/10/2025, 11:41:44 AM No.16694098
>>16691194
Now that's serious data.
Anonymous
6/11/2025, 11:35:40 AM No.16695025
>>16667407
Cocain is a safe medication though
Ricardo
6/11/2025, 11:54:56 PM No.16695469
>>16691194
>normal
>8min
>9/10
he just like me fr
Anonymous
6/12/2025, 12:06:08 AM No.16695483
>>16691337
There are six balls - 1A, 1B, and 2A are gold, 2B, 3A, and 3B are silver. You drew a gold ball so it was either 1A, 1B, or 2A.
If you drew 1A, the probability that the next ball is gold is 1.
If you drew 1B, the probability that the next ball is gold is 1.
If you drew 2A, the probability that the next ball is gold is 0.
Since there are three outcomes, the total weighted probability is 2/3.
Replies: >>16695495
Anonymous
6/12/2025, 12:22:23 AM No.16695495
>>16695483
don't bother dude, these guys ain't learnin shit. I tried a week ago >>16688514
Replies: >>16697286
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 4:24:01 AM No.16697286
>>16695495
The funny thing is you can literally experimentally verify it in like 20 min
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 5:20:58 AM No.16697305
>>16667407
Now post the ones that /sci/ has faith in.
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 5:34:57 AM No.16697310
>>16670014
Literally nothing you just typed counters his post, illiterate bro.
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 5:42:05 AM No.16697312
>>16686763
Well, niggers, sort of, if you write it in not-so common way and squint.
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 5:43:10 AM No.16697314
1734830088475522_thumb.jpg
1734830088475522_thumb.jpg
md5: 3dff87c7923dc8aa5e13aa9f073229f2๐Ÿ”
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 5:54:58 AM No.16697318
>>16690597
g1 --> g2
g2 --> g1
g3 --> s
2/3
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 6:09:13 AM No.16697322
textImage
textImage
md5: 68e099fe1e138e5fa880ca83c00254cf๐Ÿ”
>>16690110
Replies: >>16697396
Anonymous
6/14/2025, 9:30:30 AM No.16697396
>>16697322
This is great, I feel I have reached enlightenment.
Anonymous
6/15/2025, 2:47:30 AM No.16698086
Two topologists are sitting on a tangent bundle. Then one goes home and hangs himself.
Replies: >>16698497
Anonymous
6/15/2025, 5:50:54 PM No.16698482
>>16667405
lol wtf
I did the same thing about vaccines though. lalalala cant hear you. just hurry up and EOG so vaccines can be something that can be learned about, aain
Anonymous
6/15/2025, 5:56:47 PM No.16698485
>>16670385
wtf ears look like THIS?
Anonymous
6/15/2025, 6:10:31 PM No.16698493
8-13 minutes is not a normal or good amount of time it takes to cum by having normal sex
Anonymous
6/15/2025, 6:15:20 PM No.16698497
>>16698086
Two engineers are sitting on a bundle of sticks. Then one bends over and sucks his own cock while the other starts violently fisting him
Anonymous
6/17/2025, 7:51:13 AM No.16699792
>>16670385
What happens to the rib? Now you gotta walk around with a broken rib?
Replies: >>16703244
Anonymous
6/17/2025, 11:26:00 AM No.16699849
>>16670002
The fact that the first thing he clarifies is that the size of the ball does not matter is proof that he is a psycho for retards.
Anonymous
6/17/2025, 11:34:37 AM No.16699853
>>16690291
>Without exception, every sincere flerfer is a rightoid. The line that leftists prioritize their feelings over facts has always been limpdick projection.
Both groups tend to embrace science whether they like it or not, for example the right tends to brag a lot about IQ tests as an indicator of intelligence while the left rejects it completely as not conforming to their moral values.
Replies: >>16700090
Anonymous
6/17/2025, 12:08:22 PM No.16699866
>>16668319
top kek
Anonymous
6/17/2025, 6:09:09 PM No.16700090
>>16699853
IQ tests are objectively flawed though. Yeah the right tends to cling to the "science" they learnt in middle school because the idea of updating your views in the light of new information (or at all, really) is antithetical to right-wing thought. That is why science inherently aligns with progressive views. It's not just that science proves them right. The scientific process itself is founded on being proven wrong. The more time passes, the more conservatives will inevitably be out of touch with the scientific consensus as an inherent feature of their psychology.
Replies: >>16700636 >>16700706 >>16705179
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 12:44:51 AM No.16700312
1748241746742962~2
1748241746742962~2
md5: d562d1ed086474ac6787a6c6d1ef52ff๐Ÿ”
>>16673111
I can't stop fucking laughing
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 12:54:40 AM No.16700317
>>16685990
That is to scale. That's a very big balloon.
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 1:05:47 AM No.16700326
trold ball
trold ball
md5: 9e93f13781b8424a468ca54c1d779075๐Ÿ”
>>16689312
It's not even that hard.
Replies: >>16700329 >>16700631 >>16701922 >>16702215 >>16702296 >>16702656 >>16702853
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 1:09:41 AM No.16700329
>>16700326
And I love how the note is meaningless because density.
Replies: >>16700782
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 3:22:42 AM No.16700401
>>16687426
>what the fuck is this kek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_pinching_conspiracy_theory

It's very simple. The shiba inu is calling the wojack's dick (as represented by his flat earth lightbulb) small and he's flipping out because it's true.

The moral of the story is don't be a Korean male.
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 1:02:05 PM No.16700631
>>16700326
You failed. That's the bait, I guess? You rewrote the problem to arrive at the same answer so people will bicker about that instead?

So maybe to head that off: you need to remove "at random". But then again, if you just say you take a gold ball after picking a box at random, it still ends up leading to a contradiction. Suppose you picked the right-most box. You reach in and somehow produce a gold ball from thin air? So you might as well say that you pick a box which is guaranteed to have at least a gold ball in it and you take one gold ball from it. Then it's 50-50. Although the mechanism by which you would divine the contents of the boxes is, of course, inexplicable, which only further goes to show that the answer is otherwise necessarily 2/3 in a fair trial.
Replies: >>16700782
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 1:15:11 PM No.16700636
>>16700090
>IQ tests are objectively flawed though
Yes, but not in the way you probably think. It's actually because they were designed to give men and women the same average IQ.
In order to do that they threw out tests that showed sex differences especially those that showed a male advantage. The root of all our corruption is literally an attempt equalise the sexes instead of using raw data.
Replies: >>16700637 >>16700700
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 1:17:03 PM No.16700637
>>16700636
>Yes, but not in the way you probably think
Actually, yes in the ways I think. Thanks for proving my point, science denier.
Replies: >>16700641
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 1:39:54 PM No.16700641
>>16700637
But you didn't have any point.
Replies: >>16700700
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 2:53:17 PM No.16700662
1749778454307851
1749778454307851
md5: 1c66136963147ae1ce57b08f8492917d๐Ÿ”
>>16667389 (OP)
Climate change pseudo-science is simply forced deindustrialization and communism through the back door.

It's only believed by liars and imbeciles.
Replies: >>16700703
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 4:27:39 PM No.16700700
>>16700641
No, he was completely correct. Your screed >>16700636 reeks of meth smoke.
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 4:33:58 PM No.16700703
>>16700662
have (You) ever taken a second to sit and ponder the fact that your worldview is mostly shared by alcoholics and opioid addicts?
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 4:37:15 PM No.16700706
>>16700090
>the scientific consensus
So you're saying you rely on consensus facts not irrefutable facts?
Replies: >>16700708 >>16701751
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 4:39:37 PM No.16700708
>>16700706
>every scientist that has studied this thing is wrong because.......THEY JUST ARE!!1!
this is the science board, you egotistical midwit.
Replies: >>16700710
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 4:43:47 PM No.16700710
>>16700708
>you egotistical midwit.
The irony is lost on you, fitting for a humor thread.
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 6:27:37 PM No.16700782
angry cat
angry cat
md5: d45b7c4c0090aab2849fb2f316a56cbd๐Ÿ”
>>16700631
>You failed
No. I didn't.
>You rewrote the problem to arrive at the same answer so people will bicker about that instead?
A random gold ball and a random ball that is revealed to be gold are not the same thing.
>Suppose you picked the right-most box
You didn't. There was at least one gold ball in the box. Obviously there will be a contradiction if you assume contradictory facts.
>You reach in and somehow produce a gold ball from thin air?
Your problem with my formulation would still happen with the original formulation of the problem which ALSO produces a gold ball from the random box.
>Although the mechanism by which you would divine the contents of the boxes is, of course, inexplicable, which only further goes to show that the answer is otherwise necessarily 2/3 in a fair trial.
Is this bait? The mechanism for divining the contents of the box doesn't need to be explained. Also
>>16700329

I can't explain everything wrong with you, nor can I tell if you're baiting, but I'll say at least this much, the procedure for reaching the question does not need to be guaranteed to work every time since it is given that it worked in the lead up to the question being asked.

Or in other words, the probability of past events is 1. There was at least one gold ball in the randomly selected box.

Why the fuck do dipshits flock to probability problems?
Replies: >>16701755 >>16701783
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 6:54:01 PM No.16700816
Math humor
Math humor
md5: c1fd1774c93d0b2d19a46c48a843a6f1๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16700846
Anonymous
6/18/2025, 7:31:05 PM No.16700846
>>16700816
XD XD XD XD XD XD XD
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 12:45:32 PM No.16701751
>>16700706
>Wants to comment on science
>Doesn't know about falsifiability
No idea why you even want to go there because the consensus is a lot closer to irrefutable than whatever you got
Replies: >>16701869
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 12:48:39 PM No.16701755
>>16700782
>You didn't. There was at least one gold ball in the box.
The box was chosen at random. Yet you somehow guarantee that you take gold from it. That is a contradiction indeed, but that's precisely the problem with your formulation.
The point is it doesn't cause a contradiction in the original because there the result was entirely random, not forced.
>Why the fuck do dipshits flock to probability problems?
Indeed
Replies: >>16701928
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 1:32:00 PM No.16701783
>>16700782
>You roll a fair die and get 6 at random, what were the odds of that?
>Heh, it's actually 1 because you're choosing at random from the available sixes
>Doesn't matter that that's explicitly contradicted by the method of rolling, that's just my clever wordplay at work
>Also it's in the past now so it's 1 anyway
The absolute state of you lad
Replies: >>16701911 >>16701919 >>16701922
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:10:05 PM No.16701869
>>16701751
>>falsifiability
>believes in popper
sad

But in all seriousness "consensus" is a political term it has no place in science because the consensus is always wrong. The way the term has been snuck into the pursuit of knowledge as if it were meaningful is very insidious. You can create a consensus for anything, we care about what the evidence actually shows or supports.
Replies: >>16701889 >>16701926
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:18:23 PM No.16701889
>>16701869
>we care about what the evidence actually shows or supports.
No, you don't, though. You know who do? The people who form the consensus that you're dissenting from. The scientific consensus is created by the evidence. The fringe cook consensus is created by political expedience, that much you're got right.
Replies: >>16701929
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:37:03 PM No.16701911
>>16701783
>you roll 2d6
>what are the odds for 2 6s?
vs
>you rolled a 6 and are about to roll another die
>what are the odds it'll be a 6?
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:41:16 PM No.16701919
scars by papa roach
scars by papa roach
md5: b8fea2ed3cdc241b0a915f4f35884fd1๐Ÿ”
>>16701783
>what were the odds of that?
>were
The probability that *was* 1/6. The probability of that *IS* 1.

You seem to have an issue with how time works. To tie this back to the 3 boxes problem, the probability you would select the box with 2 silver balls *was* 1/3. The probability it was selected given you've pulled a gold ball at random from the selected box *is* 0. The probability you selected either box with gold balls *was* 1/3 each and 1/6 combined. It now *is* 1/2 each and 1 combined. Because you have selected a box with a gold ball in it. That is just a thing that is now true. It has a probability of 1.

>Doesn't matter that that's explicitly contradicted by the method of rolling, that's just my clever wordplay at work
It's literally not. It was possible to roll a 6.

Maybe stay away from probability problems since you have no idea what the fuck you're doing. Trying to teach you basic shit is soul-draining. FFS, you're brain broken by the idea of doing a thing that you might not have been able to do had something else happened that did not happen. Do you think it's impossible to write down an even number from a roll of 6 because the roll might have been a roll of 5? The actual fuck is wrong with you?
Replies: >>16701922 >>16701945
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:43:30 PM No.16701922
>>16686001
>>16690597
>>16700326
>>16701783
>>16701919
Ah yes, the funniest joke in statistics - semantics.
Replies: >>16701930 >>16701963
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:45:41 PM No.16701926
>>16701869
>the consensus is always wrong
Duh. Science is always wrong. That's what keeps it science. If it ever ends up "entirely correct" on a thing, we'll close all the relevant labs, fire all the researchers and stop calling it science.

>The way the term has been snuck into the pursuit of knowledge as if it were meaningful is very insidious
No, it's just a consequence of more than 1 person doing a thing and none of the persons involved having the capacity to beat up everyone who disagrees.
Replies: >>16701932
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:46:33 PM No.16701928
ohana2
ohana2
md5: 0e40cfa10e63fc2d2c878cb698374a62๐Ÿ”
>>16701755
>The box was chosen at random.
Yes
>Yet you somehow guarantee that you take gold from it
It's a given that you take a gold from it. That wasn't a given when a box was randomly selected. All that's guaranteed is the outcome is the outcome.
>That is a contradiction indeed
It's a tautology, not a contradiction.

A thing does not have to have been guaranteed to happen to be guaranteed to have happened. You genuinely don't seem to be able to tell these two concepts apart.
Replies: >>16701945
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:48:22 PM No.16701929
>>16701889
No, all you're arguing is politics and opinion. It's impossible to avoid because you're looking for consensus. The langage is constraining and deliberately confusing.
Replies: >>16702267
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:48:39 PM No.16701930
>>16701922
This weirdly isn't a semantic debate for once. It's stupider.

The same dipshit logic this asshole is trying to apply to the revised version of the problem would cause issues with the original problem. They're just too dumb to realize it.

Their argument breaks down as "you can't get a gold ball from a box that might not have had a gold ball in it when it was selected". It's dumb as fuck.
Replies: >>16701936 >>16701945 >>16701952
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:49:22 PM No.16701932
>>16701926
>No, it's just a consequence of more than 1 person doing a thing and none of the persons involved having the capacity to beat up everyone who disagrees.
at least we're being honest now.
Replies: >>16701948
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:51:38 PM No.16701936
>>16701930
My impression is just different interpretation of the limits of the problem, which in turn comes down to semantics of "what is the probability".
Replies: >>16701941
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:53:18 PM No.16701941
>>16701936
My interpretation is that's dumb and overly reductive equivocation.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:54:25 PM No.16701945
>>16701919
Lookie here, my man. The point is that if you select a box AT RANDOM and then a gold ball AT RANDOM, we must necessarily interpret that as not having been guaranteed. Unless you are King Midas. In which case, let me tell you, the probability of getting another gold ball still isn't 50-50.

And yes, rolling a fair die and guaranteeing a 6 are mutually exclusive. The point here is not whether or not 6 was a possible outcome, but whether anything else was. Was, not is.

>>16701928
It can't be a given that you take gold from it if it's not a given that there's gold to take. If you want to guarantee that then the first pick can't be rabdom.

>>16701930
No, my issue is precisely with the semantics of your phrasing, and your failure to realise that you actually haven't changed a thing despite your insistence to the contrary. You indeed can't get a gold ball from a box that doesn't have one. That means either the outcome wasn't guaranteed (and it's plain old Bertrand's Box) or you're selecting for boxes with one gold ball or otherwise conjuring up gold balls through unspecified means. In which case the answer is the 50-50 you want but the situation described is explicitly contradictory and nonsensical.
Replies: >>16701952 >>16702013
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:54:51 PM No.16701948
>>16701932
What is there to be honest about? Every single time non-scientists (read: non-nerds) got directly involved in a scientific paradigm, they ended up actually beating up (oftentimes locking up and/or shooting) every nerd they disagreed with. When that "politicized field".
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 2:58:28 PM No.16701952
>>16701945
>>16701930
So in essence you ARE in fact disagreeing on the semantics of the problem and framework around it?

Can we get a recognition that this specific race happens to fall in the area of Paralympics?
Replies: >>16701959
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 3:02:51 PM No.16701959
>>16701952
You realise you're the one who failed the race, then, by trying to "cleverly" exploit semantic ambiguity and, in the process, failing to express what you intended? You're the one who called the race and now you're the Paralympic runner-up.
Replies: >>16701963
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 3:04:21 PM No.16701963
>>16701959
>You realise you're the one
I'm NTA you argued with, I'm >>16701922 and impressed with the degrees of retardation you both subject yourselves to.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 3:28:34 PM No.16702013
>>16701945
>The point is that if you select a box AT RANDOM and then a gold ball AT RANDOM, we must necessarily interpret that as not having been guaranteed
I didn't say it had been guaranteed. It wasn't.
> In which case, let me tell you, the probability of getting another gold ball still isn't 50-50.
Ignoring the rest of the information, that being that the metal of the selected ball isn't random.

Your argument pretty much falls apart completely here.

>It can't be a given that you take gold from it if it's not a given that there's gold to take.
It can because it is given that there's a gold to take because you take a gold. You could not have done that if there was no gold ball.

>If you want to guarantee that then the first pick can't be random.
Sure it can be. It's just that random pick can't have landed on the silver box. It's like you get new information as you go through a problem or something.

>your failure to realise that you actually haven't changed a thing
I changed the 2nd random choice. You're selecting a random gold ball, not a random ball that turns out to be gold.

>In which case the answer is the 50-50 you want but the situation described is explicitly contradictory and nonsensical.
It isn't a contradiction that a thing that happened happened.

I'll say this again. Try and read this slowly.

>>>>It doesn't matter if there might not have been going to be a gold ball to select at step 1. There WAS at step 2. You are explicitly told that there was. You do not need to account for cases where the procedure failed because YOU ARE NOT IN ONE OF THOSE CASES.

I swear to fuck this is Monty Fall all over again. It doesn't matter that the host could have revealed the car. THEY DIDN'T.
Replies: >>16702039
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 3:42:37 PM No.16702039
>>16702013
>It can because it is given that there's a gold to take because you take a gold. You could not have done that if there was no gold ball.
Yes, brilliant. So, again, if you GUARANTEE this outcome, you cannot select a box at random. But you explicitly are. But then that could lead to selecting a box with no gold ball, and that, as you helpfully observe, could not let you guarantee that you take a gold ball.
You keep going through this thing as if it's regular Bertrand's Box but then also insisting you changed it. You can't have it both ways. Either you select at random, or you select from only the gold balls, but both is impossible. You can insist "it happened!" but of course it matters to the probability *how* it happened. If you say you always take a gold ball, it must necessarily always be possible for you to take a gold ball.

It's also no surprise to me that you seem to think Monty Fall makes no difference because the logic is the same as Bertrand's Box. It absolutely matters whether Monty could have revealed the car.
Replies: >>16702075 >>16702081
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:02:15 PM No.16702075
4713225-002ro
4713225-002ro
md5: 55054b2571daa0807d859ce43e8240a4๐Ÿ”
>>16702039
>if you GUARANTEE this outcome, you cannot select a box at random
It isn't guaranteed that you were going to be able to select a gold ball.

>>>>It doesn't matter if there might not have been going to be a gold ball to select at step 1. There WAS at step 2. You are explicitly told that there was. You do not need to account for cases where the procedure failed because YOU ARE NOT IN ONE OF THOSE CASES.

>You can insist "it happened!" but of course it matters to the probability *how* it happened
At random. It happened at random. Let's try coins. Would coins be easier?

You have a double-headed, a double-tailed, and a fair coin. You select one at random and place it face up. What is the probability that the other side is heads? It's the same fucking problem. Nothing stops you from placing a randomly selected coin face up if it has a face.

You're obsessing over
>But what if it hadn't had a face.
It does. You're told it does when it's placed face up.
>But if you select a coin a billion times, about 1/3rd won't have faces
Which does not matter. This coin in this problem has a face. The random selection resulted in a coin with a face. You rolled a six. You got a goat door. You got a box with a gold ball in it. It's a boy. You drew the ace of spades. The bread landed butter side up. A random selection had a definitive outcome. A thing definitely happened.
Replies: >>16702093 >>16702105
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:06:34 PM No.16702081
>>16702039
>It's also no surprise to me that you seem to think Monty Fall makes no difference because the logic is the same as Bertrand's Box. It absolutely matters whether Monty could have revealed the car.
Now you see, my response to THIS would be a semantic argument, but I'm not even gonna go there.
Replies: >>16702093 >>16702105 >>16702105
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:13:33 PM No.16702093
>>16702075
>You select one at random and place it face up. What is the probability that the other side is heads?
Well, that entirely depends. Do I place it down and notice that it's heads up? Or do I inspect it and choose to place it heads up? At which point,vhow am I still hiding information from myself? And, oops, doesn't the problem explicitly state that you can't see into the boxes? Information you dismissed as irrelevant, but which now turns out to be quite relevant, because if we can't make a selection, we can't go for gold. At this point you can just say you're modelling some abstract problem but then why bother with the trappings of the balls and boxes at all if you're going to freely ignore the limitations inherent to the situation described?

>>16702081
No, this actually isn't semantics at all, this is pure probability. Whether or not the outcome was achieved randomly gives us different information about the doors and that's just a fact. Saying "it doesn't matter because you got a goat door" is simply a failure to understand conditional probability.
Replies: >>16702125
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:19:57 PM No.16702105
>>16702075
>>16702081
>>16702081
And also, if we're going to say it doesn't matter, indeed, why bother rewriting the problem at all? Surely if that were the case then the answer to Bertrand's Box was already 50-50 to begin with? Isn't this the whole reason we're changing it?

Why not just go for this
>All right, imagine you got these boxes with balls in them, yeah?
>Sure
>Well forget the balls and boxes, you got a 50-50 chance
Now that's pure abstract probability!
Replies: >>16702136 >>16702143
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:31:04 PM No.16702125
>>16702093
>Do I place it down and notice that it's heads up?
No.
>Or do I inspect it and choose to place it heads up?
You choose to place it heads up. I said place, not flip. I said nothing about the side shown being random. I said nothing about inspecting it. You may or may not know what's on the other side of the coin based on which side you look at first and which coin it is, but you place it heads up regardless. That information isn't provided. It isn't part of the problem.
>At which point, how am I still hiding information from myself?
I never said information was hidden from the "You" carrying out the problem. It's a simple question about what's on the other side of the coin. Whether the you in the problem knows what's on the other side or not doesn't change what's on that side, nor would it change anything about the choices that led to that side being face down. You select a random coin and place it face up. What's on the other side?
>And, oops, doesn't the problem explicitly state that you can't see into the boxes?
That never mattered, neither in the original problem nor in the revised version.
>Information you dismissed as irrelevant, but which now turns out to be quite relevant, because if we can't make a selection, we can't go for gold
Not being able to see into the boxes doesn't mean you can't make a deliberate selection any more than being able to see into them means you can't make a random selection. If you want to make it so you can't make a deliberate selection. You would have to say as such. Even a blind person could tell a silver and gold ball apart or heads from tails.
Replies: >>16702155
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:37:24 PM No.16702136
>>16702105
Alright, you want to get semantic, let's get semantic. When I said the host possibly selecting the car in Monty Fall doesn't matter, what I meant was the selected door in its entirety does not matter. You can just fucking ignore it and treat the problem as a 50:50 cause it is. Everyone fucking overcomplicates Monty Fall.

The same shit's going on here. All selecting a random gold ball does is tell you that you aren't dealing with the all silver box. It's not some impossible self-contradictory problem. It's a simple fucking 50:50. You just eliminated an option.

You are overcomplicating this shit was my point.
Replies: >>16702143 >>16702144
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:39:30 PM No.16702143
>>16702136
>>16702105
Also, how the fuck do you understand Monty Fall, a problem where a thing could have happened but didn't, but not understand this revised box problem?

It's literally the same fucking shit. Monty didn't pull the car. You didn't get the all silver box. There isn't some contradiction in how the problem is phrased. Shit just happened.
Replies: >>16702156
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:39:38 PM No.16702144
>>16702136
>All selecting a random gold ball does is tell you that you aren't dealing with the all silver box
It also tells you that you probably picked the box with two of the same tho, since that is the more probable explanation.
Replies: >>16702148
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:42:10 PM No.16702148
>>16702144
>It also tells you that you probably picked the box with two of the same tho, since that is the more probable explanation.
Selecting a random gold ball doesn't tell you that. Selecting a random ball and having it turn out to be gold tells you that. If you're only selecting from the gold ball(s), you get jack shit except that the box had at least 1 gold ball in it and therefore isn't all silver.

We're dealing with a revised version of the problem, remember.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:46:34 PM No.16702155
>>16702125
>I said nothing about inspecting it. You may or may not know what's on the other side of the coin based on which side you look at first and which coin it is
You say nothing about inspecting it yet you describe me potentially inspecting it and also potentially gleaning more information. You are adding steps not given initially and they do actually matter.
>Whether the you in the problem knows what's on the other side or not doesn't change what's on that side
Well, no, obviously - but it changes the probability I assign to it.
>Not being able to see into the boxes doesn't mean you can't make a deliberate selection
It actually does. Unless you tell me how I'm doing it, then.
The reason this matters is because if I can see into the boxes I can say with 100% confidence what the other ball is, and if I inspect a coin I can tell you what's on the other side. Again, how you obtain information matters.
Replies: >>16702172
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:47:36 PM No.16702156
>>16702143
I understand what you're going for, I just dispute the success of your attempt.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 4:54:29 PM No.16702172
>>16702155
>Well, no, obviously - but it changes the probability I assign to it.
Why?
>It actually does. Unless you tell me how I'm doing it, then.
I do in the original problem you're bitching about.

>You pick a box at random.
>take a gold ball from that box at random.
You make just 2 selections and I explicitly identify the probabilities being dealt with. First, a random selection from the 3 boxes. Then a random selection from the gold balls in the selected box. That's enough to arrive at a definitive answer which differs from the original version.

But I should have said "you place it showing a random heads-side up" to be more in line with the box and ball version.
Replies: >>16702183
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 5:05:10 PM No.16702183
>>16702172
>Why?
Because if I can see both sides of the fucking coin I know which one it is.
>I do in the original problem you're bitching about.
You don't. You say I'm doing it, but not how. Again, you insist on keeping the balls and boxes, but when that set-up would preclude me from doing what you want me to do it briefly turns into an abstract problem where information is provided by divine revelation.
Replies: >>16702223
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 5:18:49 PM No.16702199
>>16690355
Wrong right and left are purely economic left being actual communism I.e. big taxes public program vs right rich boys that donโ€™t want tax but have the ability to send a Mctomohawk missile at your house
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 5:37:18 PM No.16702215
>>16700326
There's no difference in English between a gold ball and a ball that is gold. Is there an interesting distinction in some other language that comes from where you put the adjective?
Replies: >>16702237
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 5:44:13 PM No.16702223
>>16702183
>I know which one it is
Okay. Which is it, heads or tails?
Replies: >>16702229
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 5:47:17 PM No.16702229
>>16702223
Tell me what I've seen.
Replies: >>16702237
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 5:51:54 PM No.16702237
>>16702215
>There's no difference in English between a gold ball and a ball that is gold
There is a difference between making a random selection among the gold balls or making a random selection among the balls and having it be gold.

In either the left or middle box, you have a 100% certainty of making a random selection among the gold balls. In the left box, you have a 100% chance of randomly selecting a ball and having it be gold. In the center, you only have a 50% chance.

The change in wording is subtle, but whether you're selecting from among the balls or the gold balls completely changes the math regarding the selection and therefore what you learn from the selection.

>>16702229
>Tell me what I've seen.
I can't. That's not part of the problem. You said you know which one it is. The "you" in the problem might know what's on the other side, but they're not the one being asked the question. Feel free to replace every instance of "you" with "Paul" or something if it helps.
Replies: >>16702266 >>16702702
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:02:29 PM No.16702266
>>16702237
>random selection among the gold balls
>In the center, you only have a 50% chance
By that interpretation, the second line contradicts the first because then you're not making a random selection among the gold balls, there's a silver ball in your pool, too.
Replies: >>16702277
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:02:33 PM No.16702267
>>16701929
>The langage is constraining and deliberately confusing.
nothing about it is confusing if you're not a clinically-diagnosed Retard.
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:06:09 PM No.16702277
>>16702266
>there's a silver ball in your pool
There is not a silver ball in the pool of gold balls. You're selecting a random "gold ball" remember?

If you have a cat and a dog, it's possible to select a random cat without possibly selecting a dog.
Replies: >>16702283
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:09:06 PM No.16702283
>>16702277
Then you have a 100% chance in the center, not a 50%
Replies: >>16702296
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:15:50 PM No.16702296
>>16702283
>Then you have a 100% chance in the center, not a 50%
Yes. I said that.
>In either the left or middle box, you have a 100% certainty of making a random selection among the gold balls

Look, there's 2 versions of the problem
>>16686001
>take a ball
Here, you make a random selection of the balls and it turns out to be gold. That had a 100% chance of happening with the left box, but only a 50% chance with the middle, so the left box is twice as likely as having been chosen.
>>16700326
>take a gold ball
Here, you make a random selection of the gold balls. That had a 100% chance of happening with the left box and with the middle, so the two boxes are equally likely.
Replies: >>16702310
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:22:24 PM No.16702310
>>16702296
No, you said
>In the center, you only have a 50% chance.
If you're randomly selecting a gold ball from the pool of gold balls, that line is a contradiction.
Replies: >>16702351
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 6:45:48 PM No.16702351
>>16702310
Oh, then you just misread what I said
>In the left box, you have a 100% chance of randomly selecting a ball and having it be gold. In the center, you only have a 50% chance.
>randomly selecting a ball
Not
>randomly selecting a gold ball

To be abundantly clear I was explaining the two versions of the problem. One is mine,
>In either the left or middle box, you have a 100% certainty of making a random selection among the gold balls.
The other is the original,
>In the left box, you have a 100% chance of randomly selecting a ball and having it be gold. In the center, you only have a 50% chance.

As I said
>There is a difference between making a random selection among the gold balls or making a random selection among the balls and having it be gold.
Replies: >>16702425
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 7:20:42 PM No.16702425
>>16702351
Got it.
Then also you need to change
>You pick a box at random. You put your hand in and take a gold ball from that box at random.
to
>You pick from three gold balls without picking a box. You leave your hand in the box.
Replies: >>16702493
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 8:11:26 PM No.16702493
>>16702425
Wat. Did AI write this for you?
Replies: >>16702509
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 8:25:14 PM No.16702509
>>16702493
To only pick from the 3 gold balls, you need to regroup them. Going by the picture, you could say "pick a ball from the left half of the picture." But if the first thing you do is pick a box at random, you've already included all the silver balls and you can't magically rewind the grouping you picked from.
Replies: >>16702519 >>16702553
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 8:29:58 PM No.16702519
>>16702509
You aren't picking from 3 gold balls. You're picking from 2 gold balls if you picked the left box or 1 gold ball if you picked the middle box. You obviously don't know which amount of gold balls you're picking from because you picked a box at random, except that it's not the 0 gold balls box from the right.
>But if the first thing you do is pick a box at random, you've already included all the silver balls and you can't magically rewind the grouping you picked from.
You only picked one box.

Seriously, are you using AI to respond at this point or are you running this shit through google translate or something?
Replies: >>16702542
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 8:44:11 PM No.16702542
>>16702519
>You only picked one box.
Of course. And if you picked the center box, there's a silver ball in it.
Replies: >>16702656
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 8:55:27 PM No.16702553
>>16702509
>if the first thing you do is pick a box at random
not the guy you've been arguing with, but let's run with this then:
you pick a box at random. 1/3 chance of any box.
then you pick a ball at random from the box you've chosen. 1/2 chance of any ball from your box.
this is where the Conditional probability comes in: if the ball you've chosen is gold, that means you could have only chosen from the Left or Center boxes.
And between those two boxes, one of them has twice as many gold balls as the other. So choosing a gold ball means you could have either box, but the probability leans towards having the Left box instead of the Center box.

>you have to restate the scenario in 47 different ways for some people to grasp how it works mathematically
>somehow this is the Science board
Replies: >>16702564 >>16702656
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 9:07:55 PM No.16702564
>>16702553
Yes, if the question is
>what's the probability that having already picked a gold ball by first picking a random box you then pick another gold ball by picking from the same box?
then the answer is 2/3.
I don't believe the other anon has successfully stated a new, coherent question.
Replies: >>16702656
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 10:24:28 PM No.16702656
Untitled
Untitled
md5: fb2f43197d369bf6fd20e9bbeac6c8a3๐Ÿ”
>>16702542
>there's a silver ball in it.
Yeah, in the box, not in the pool of gold balls in the box. Again, you are a selecting a random GOLD BALL, NOT A RANDOM BALL.

>>16702553
We aren't discussing the original problem. We're dealing with the version seen here
>>16700326

>then you pick a ball at random from the box you've chosen. 1/2 chance of any ball from your box.
This is wrong. It should be
>then you pick a *gold ball* at random from the box you've chosen. 1/2 chance of either ball from the left box. 1 chance of the gold ball from the middle box. 0 chance of the silver ball from the middle box. 0 chance of any ball from the right box.

>>16702564
The new, coherent question is
>What's the probability that having already picked a gold ball by first picking a random box and then picking a random gold ball from that box you will then pick another gold ball by picking from the same box?
The answer being 1/2.
Replies: >>16702824 >>16702854
Anonymous
6/19/2025, 11:03:14 PM No.16702702
>>16702237
>I can't. That's not part of the problem.
Well then I guess I didn't see it after all. So again, how did I place it heads up? I thought you said I saw it? Then I must know what I saw, and you have to be able to tell me.

But you've finally further altered the problem by introducing an intermediary, which addresses the issue. Paul is not ne. We are not interchangeable. If you're asking me the probability of something, it matters whether I do it or someone else, if that would affect my knowledge of the situation.

Your problem is ultimately that Bertrand's Box is intuitive: you are asked to imagine yourself in a situation, perform a simple action, and judge a probability based on the knowledge you now have. But in your new version? You're asking me to imagine I'm not me, but rather an onlooker looking at "myself" performing some action and knowing "my" rationale in choosing without being privy to the knowledge that informed "my" choice. It's immediately convoluted and counterintuitive.

But I suppose your ultimate goal was to create bait for people to bicker over, and in that sense you succeeded marvellously.
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 12:54:26 AM No.16702824
>>16702656
Why are you dividing your pic up 1/4 1/4 1/2? That makes no sense if you're choosing a random gold ball, of which there are 3 equally likely choices?
Replies: >>16702853 >>16702853
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 1:19:01 AM No.16702853
gyuu
gyuu
md5: 7deb723d7d786ea8e2d12a535dd1643c๐Ÿ”
>>16702824
>That makes no sense if you're choosing a random gold ball, of which there are 3 equally likely choices?
The gold balls aren't equally likely choices. The gold ball in the gold and silver box will always be chosen if that box is chosen. Each gold ball in the all gold box will be chosen half the time if that box is chosen.

I am once again reminding you this is
>>16700326
and not Bertrand's box

>>16702824
>So again, how did I place it heads up?
Not part of the problem and not needed to be known to answer the problem.
>I thought you said I saw it? Then I must know what I saw, and you have to be able to tell me..
It's a probability problem. If I tell you what you saw, all the probabilities go to 0 or 1. Demanding this information is nonsensical.

>But you've finally further altered the problem by introducing an intermediary, which addresses the issue. Paul is not me. We are not interchangeable
You're an idiot. No, a math problem does not have a different answer depending on whether or not it refers to Paul or you in the setting up of the premise.

The problem was designed to be bait, but not in the ways you've bitched about it. You're legitimately just a fucking idiot.
Replies: >>16702929 >>16702947
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 1:19:08 AM No.16702854
>>16702656
If you really want a 1/2 answer
>You pick a box at random. You open the lid and gold confetti bursts out, indicating that there is at least 1 gold ball inside. You put your hand in and take a ball from that box without looking at it. What is the probability that the next ball you take from the same box will be gold?
Replies: >>16702858 >>16702895 >>16702962
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 1:21:16 AM No.16702858
>>16702854
The answer to that is 3/4, not 1/2. I am surrounded by idiots.
Replies: >>16702859
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 1:22:06 AM No.16702859
>>16702858
False
Replies: >>16702863
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 1:24:45 AM No.16702863
srsly
srsly
md5: 61141752a00159c25cc726c565139442๐Ÿ”
>>16702859
50% chance you selected the 2 gold box
100% chance if you did that the next ball is gold

50% chance you selected the gold and silver box
50% chance if you did that the next ball is gold

0% chance you selected the 2 silver box

.5*1+.5*5+0=.75

I reiterate, you're a god damn idiot.
Replies: >>16702866
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 1:29:26 AM No.16702866
>>16702863
False. It doesn't say that you do take a ball from the same box. You can also walk away. .33 + .17 + 0 = .5
Replies: >>16702869
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 1:31:02 AM No.16702869
>>16702866
>It doesn't say that you do take a ball from the same box
>that box

>You can also walk away.
You can also spontaneously combust. I mean you, personally, IRL. Try it.
Replies: >>16702875
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 1:35:54 AM No.16702875
>>16702869
>It doesn't say that you do take a ball from the same box
>that box
Did you misread something?
Replies: >>16702895
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 1:51:00 AM No.16702895
>>16702875
Did you? In the problem seen here
>>16702854
"that box" can only mean the randomly selected box with the confetti. No other box is referenced for "that" box to be pointing to.
Replies: >>16702900
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 2:01:38 AM No.16702900
>>16702895
Yeah, it says you take a ball from that box. It doesn't say whether you do or don't take a second ball. You could not take a second ball, in which case the probability of you taking a gold ball would be 0. Duh.
Replies: >>16702911
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 2:12:52 AM No.16702911
>>16702900
>It doesn't say whether you do or don't take a second ball
The ball being taken is given in the hypothetical being asked about. You're being asked about the next ball you take. Key words being "you take".
Replies: >>16702917
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 2:21:33 AM No.16702917
>>16702911
If you don't take two balls from a box, what's the probability that the second ball you take is gold?
Replies: >>16702962
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 2:39:44 AM No.16702929
>>16702853
>If I tell you what you saw, all the probabilities go to 0 or 1. Demanding this information is nonsensical.
Well, that's precisely the point, innit? I would have this information in the scenario you're having me play out and now you're having me pretend otherwise for the sake of your probability problem? Probability is based on knowledge. If you're going to arbitrarily deny me my knowledge to force an outcome it's just asinine.

And yes, for that reason ut absolutely matters whether it's me (not "me") or Paul. Because I don't know what Paul knows. But I obviously know what I know.

If you refer to me in the second person in a probability problem then I need the information I would have in the scenario described in order to tell you the probability I would assign to something in the guven scenario. If you want ne to be a third party judging someone else's odds then describe that. But expecting me to treat "me" as someone else for the sake of your puzzle working out as intended is too much if a stretch.
Replies: >>16702962
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 2:48:10 AM No.16702935
>All right so you take a gold ball from the box
>How do I that?
>Well you look in the box, obviously
>Okay so I know what's in the box then
>No you don't
>But I looked
>Yeah but you're not you
>...
>Look, it doesn't work otherwise okay? So just pretend, would you
Replies: >>16702962
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 2:49:57 AM No.16702938
>>16667424
Cat-tenary
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 3:03:36 AM No.16702947
>>16702853
>The gold balls aren't equally likely choices.
Of course they are. You're choosing between three gold balls, not three gold balls plus some random other balls in some random boxes. All that other information is external to your choice of three gold balls.
Replies: >>16702962 >>16702969
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 3:19:56 AM No.16702962
>>16702917
If you don't take 2 balls from a box the next ball you take can't be from
>>16702854
>the same box

So I'd need to know how much of the premise is preserved. If this is an entirely new question with the same 3 starting boxes, then the answer is 1/2. If the confetti is preserved and you still pick your first ball from that box, then the answer is 3/8.

>>16702935
>still butthurt about the character in the problem being able to take a gold ball from the box without looking inside
As I said, even a blind person could tell a gold and silver ball apart. You're just an idiot. Not that how the person choosing was physically able to choose even matters as long as you're told they did. All you care about is the math.

>>16702947
>You're choosing between three gold balls
You are not choosing between 3 gold balls. You are either choosing between 2 gold balls or 1 gold ball depending on which random box you chose.

>>16702929
>I would have this information in the scenario you're having me play out
How does that help you outside the scenario?
>But I obviously know what I know
Oh? Then tell me the answer.
>Probability is based on knowledge. If you're going to arbitrarily deny me my knowledge to force an outcome it's just asinine.
Probability is based on a lack of knowledge.

>If you refer to me in the second person in a probability problem then I need the information I would have in the scenario described
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

You flip a fair coin and look at it. What is the probability it is heads up? That's a perfectly fucking valid probability problem, dipshit. You are truly the dumbest motherfucker I've come across in a long time.
Replies: >>16703198 >>16703219
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 3:33:06 AM No.16702969
>>16702947
Look, would you agree that in the original problem, you are more likely to have selected the box with 2 gold balls in it because the probability of selecting a gold ball from a gold and silver ball is less than the probability of selecting a gold ball from a pair of gold balls?

And would you agree that the probability of selecting a gold ball from a single gold ball is the same as selecting a gold ball from a pair of gold balls?

If you can agree to both of those things, can you agree that selecting a gold ball from among the gold balls in a box does not make one box with gold balls less likely than the other?
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 7:41:50 AM No.16703064
>>16667407
Cocain raises iq
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 11:57:36 AM No.16703198
>>16702962
>Not that how the person choosing was physically able to choose even matters as long as you're told they did.
Yes, it does matter, because as I told you, that person is me. And even if I were blind, if I get to somehow evaluate the balls and make a deliberate selection, I would know for certain which box it is. You keep insisting "it's not part of the problem" but it is, it's part of the scenario described and you're handwaving it because you can't admit that your clever little trick is ill-conceived. Note, again, that there is no such room for quibbling in the original. I'm asked to imagine something and I answer the question as if I'm in that situation. And that's why it makes sense for it to address me, the reader, in the second person.

>How does that help you outside the scenario?
It helps me in the scenario, is the point.
>Then tell me the answer.
Okay. It's relatively straightforward, really: in the hypothetical where I selected a box with two gold balls, I know that it contains two gold balls. In the hypothetical where it contains one silver ball, I know that it contains one silver ball. In either case I would be able to tell you with 100% confidence.
>Erm but you don't know which if these hypotheticals it is!
How wouldn't I?
>You flip a fair coin and look at it. What is the probability it is heads up?
You say I look at it but obviously you're asking me to judge the probability before I look. I.e. *if* I were to look, what might it be? If I *have looked* then, well, as you say, the probability of a past event is 1.
In your ball problem, though (or should I say bollocks problem), you are asking me to *select for gold* and then judge the probability *afterwards*, which necessarily entails me having looked in the box already or otherwise evaluated its contents. Again, the probability of a past event is...?
Replies: >>16703203 >>16703339
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 12:06:47 PM No.16703203
>>16703198
Tl;dr don't ask me to explicitly imagine a scenario where I am already certain of the contents of a box and then asked to assign a probability to those contents after
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 12:26:37 PM No.16703219
>>16702962
I'm also struck by the fact that taking a ball is rendered entirely pointless in your version. In the original, it's what gives me the information about the possible contents of the boxes. But if I've already determined the contents of the boxes, or at the very least that they contain gold, what do I take the ball for? Ceremony? The act that actually gives me this information is elided because I'm to pretend I don't know what I'm doing.

The more I think about this bullshit, the more I appreciate the elegant simplicity of the original.
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 1:25:11 PM No.16703244
>>16699792
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPpK6a_-5XM
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 3:26:57 PM No.16703339
>>16703198
>You say I look at it but obviously you're asking me to judge the probability before I look
Okay, you're genuinely unsalvageable. You've confused story problems with roleplaying. Shame.
Replies: >>16703436
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 4:21:25 PM No.16703401
What happened to the humour?
Replies: >>16703433
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 4:41:26 PM No.16703433
>>16703401
Oh come on, there are plenty of jokes ITT.
Replies: >>16703537
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 4:42:16 PM No.16703436
>>16703339
For fuck's sake, you cunt. Yours isn't a proper story problem because the story gets in the way.

If you did Bertrand's Box in real life, it would work exactly the same. You tell me what's in the boxes, have me reach in and grab a ball without looking, and ask me what the odds are. I'll tell you, with the information I then possess, 2/3.
But if we do your thing? You tell me what's in the boxes, ask me to take a gold ball (you don't care how), and then ask me to judge the probability. I'd tell you, what, are you daft?

Obviously if you had shuffled the boxes, *your* odds would be 50-50 at that point. But I am still not you. I am still the one person you insist I'm not in this scenario and that is myself. And I'll even admit that if you've asked me to confirm there's gold in the box then 50% of the time it's going to be the all-gold one. But your problem is nonsensical shite in this version, boyo. Tell a story that makes sense or just don't bother with it.
Replies: >>16703461
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 5:06:04 PM No.16703461
>>16703436
See. Here's a joke now.
Replies: >>16703511
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 6:19:18 PM No.16703511
>>16703461
At least your punchlines are predictable. You're not funny but there's at least a logical structure to this attempt at humour.
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 6:43:14 PM No.16703532
>>16690120
Flat Earth theory is brilliant because it teaches us a lot about how retards think.
Replies: >>16703536
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 6:46:55 PM No.16703536
>>16703532
Turns out they think exactly like fascist, by some strange coincidence
Replies: >>16703597
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 6:48:30 PM No.16703537
a45
a45
md5: 2e03defd472df7b40474d1bbfc7a06fb๐Ÿ”
>>16703433
I don't understand any of them.
Replies: >>16703571
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 7:14:48 PM No.16703571
>>16703537
I was mocking the dipshits arguing with me by calling them jokes.
Replies: >>16703574
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 7:22:22 PM No.16703574
>>16703571
>Explains his dumb joke
Just when I thought you couldn't sink any lower.
Replies: >>16703633
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 7:52:45 PM No.16703597
>>16703536
>Turns out they think exactly like fascist,
only by the "everyone I don't like is a fascist metric"
Replies: >>16703751
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 8:20:38 PM No.16703617
1729377823683575_thumb.jpg
1729377823683575_thumb.jpg
md5: acb371fced3dd8ee745bde66e010c38c๐Ÿ”
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 8:47:26 PM No.16703633
>>16703574
I'm not above explaining something that goes over someone's head. That's why I spent so much time trying to help you before resigning myself to the fact that I'm not a miracle worker.
Replies: >>16703883
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 10:51:41 PM No.16703711
001
001
md5: f0c50bbd6b6a916cd0b6cdb03ea700e6๐Ÿ”
>>16667613
I thought basalt fiber, which is iron or magnesium silicate, was safe.

>>16667658
What is the name of the curve if it hold weight such as water and not just the chain itself?
Replies: >>16703890
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 11:45:13 PM No.16703748
Screenshot_20250621_004410
Screenshot_20250621_004410
md5: 35e1531913247d31cec025ccbc314b24๐Ÿ”
Over nine thousand!
Replies: >>16703752
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 11:49:20 PM No.16703751
>>16703597
brainlet cope. not all retards are fascists but all fascists are retards.
Replies: >>16704087
Anonymous
6/20/2025, 11:50:38 PM No.16703752
>>16703748
xDDdD
Replies: >>16703962
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 2:10:08 AM No.16703883
>>16703633
No, you're not above it; it's beyond you. You have to have a proper grasp of the subject matter to be able to explain it, and you, my friend, are merely dabbling.
Replies: >>16703889
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 2:16:45 AM No.16703889
>>16703883
Child, you wouldn't pass a 4th grade math class.
Replies: >>16704178
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 2:24:22 AM No.16703890
y = b cosh x:a
y = b cosh x:a
md5: 45d4f9d02bf8cbf1b6f944d56bf94aa8๐Ÿ”
>>16703711
Weighted catenary is a specialization of the Rankitten curve
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 4:39:58 AM No.16703962
>>16703752
I at least came up with some /sci/ humour come on
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 4:59:08 AM No.16703970
monogamy_vs_polyamory
monogamy_vs_polyamory
md5: 3a3e8c5abb2d8c8832e64683a8bfb6c1๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16703987
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 5:44:46 AM No.16703987
>>16703970
This isn't solvable with the information given.
Replies: >>16704010 >>16704049
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 6:25:37 AM No.16704010
>>16703987
Prove it by giving two compatible models.
Replies: >>16704716
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 7:34:38 AM No.16704039
>>16690841
For you.
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 7:53:51 AM No.16704049
>>16703987
True, but the set of possible solutions is pretty funny
Replies: >>16704716
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 9:25:51 AM No.16704066
fat
fat
md5: bd4accbb23aa55d8cd3f0a6619f50699๐Ÿ”
>>16690841
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 11:37:05 AM No.16704087
>>16703751
Can you even define what fascism is?
Replies: >>16704224 >>16705141
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 1:37:14 PM No.16704178
>>16703889
No one could, with such an obtuse and arrogant "teacher".
Replies: >>16704716
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 2:21:22 PM No.16704221
>>16686001
it's 50/50
no amount of writing out long paragraphs of bullshit will change it
the ball is either gold or it is not
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 2:23:57 PM No.16704224
>>16704087
>Can you even define what fascism is?
Anyone who didn't vote for Kamala.
Replies: >>16704273
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 3:03:26 PM No.16704273
>>16704224
exactly right.
Anonymous
6/22/2025, 1:38:55 AM No.16704716
>>16704010
>Prove it by giving two compatible models.
If 6 is telling the truth then 5 isn't poisoning.
If 2 is telling the truth then 1 isn't poisoning.
Neither is accused of lying.
Which means either wives in the polycule can be lying without being accused OR the wife in the monogamous couple is lying.
In either scenario, the problem is unsolvable and in fact depending on who is lying and who isn't, literally any combination of wives could be poisoning.

>>16704049
The set of all possible solutions is just the set of all possible combinations.

>>16704178
I'd never claim to have taught you anything.
Anonymous
6/22/2025, 9:40:19 PM No.16705141
>>16704087
Imperialism directed inwards. The arbitrary designation of increasingly granular Out Groups that are stripped of their personhood in pursuit of an unattainable "purity" that can never come.
>non-white races are now non-citizens
>women and queers are now non-citizens
>non-blondes are now non-citizens
>men below 5'10" and above 6'2" are now non-citizens
>men from families other than mine are non-citizens
>nobody is a citizen except me

none of it works if you're not a retard.
Replies: >>16705147 >>16705796 >>16705834
Anonymous
6/22/2025, 9:46:56 PM No.16705147
>>16705141
You just made most of those up. Mussolini never did any of that, Italians were citizens. It's puerile to just take a small element of an ideology (restricting citizenship, which every nation already does anyway) and imagine that taking it to an extreme is the whole thing. Communism is when you force farmers to starve, right?
Replies: >>16705149
Anonymous
6/22/2025, 9:48:27 PM No.16705149
>>16705147
>You just made most of those up
Yes, because fascists are such colossal fucking retards that non of them have ever survived long enough to get past making non-whites and queers non-citizens.
Replies: >>16705536
Anonymous
6/22/2025, 10:18:28 PM No.16705170
These threads are usually bad on /pol/ but you guys have taken it to a new level. Havenโ€™t laughed once.
Replies: >>16705224 >>16705289
Anonymous
6/22/2025, 10:30:15 PM No.16705179
>>16700090
Words words words words
Anonymous
6/22/2025, 11:48:50 PM No.16705222
scientists_200_billion_dollars
scientists_200_billion_dollars
md5: 2534d986c50a193963cffdaeb899a548๐Ÿ”
Anonymous
6/22/2025, 11:49:53 PM No.16705224
>>16705170
There's always some tourist crying about "le /poooool/ is why I can't get laid" at least you included the slashes in it this time, newfag.
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 12:31:02 AM No.16705259
I haven't been active on /sci/ since finishing my degree in 2020. I still drop in every now and then to see what's up. And some posts in threads like this make me wonder, has this place just become /pol/ 2.0 or is this supposed to be some sort of ironic meta commentary?
Replies: >>16705584
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 1:06:26 AM No.16705279
dbmjc87-5abc9feb-e712-440b-91b0-86be2bd92786
dbmjc87-5abc9feb-e712-440b-91b0-86be2bd92786
md5: 3110e08702e630c7d3a0ba638be5b24b๐Ÿ”
>>16667389 (OP)
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 1:18:41 AM No.16705285
pure-coincidence-v0-3hizjwk78re91
pure-coincidence-v0-3hizjwk78re91
md5: c590d1d499f706044ebaa0f21c59aeea๐Ÿ”
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 1:28:29 AM No.16705289
>>16705170
A geometer, an analyst, a combinatorialist, a statistician, and an engineer all walk into a bar to celebrate their math club victory. The geometer orders 1 beer. The analyst orders 0.999... beers. The combinatorialist orders 0^0 beers. The statistician says I'll have what they're having. The engineer keeps walking back to the bathroom, kneels down in a toilet stall, and sucks dick all night through a glory hole.
Replies: >>16706209
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 11:08:19 AM No.16705536
>>16705149
>Yes
So something they never did or said they wanted to do. You must be a real expert on Fascism to be able to reach psychically across a whole century like that into their minds and understand things they never could say out loud.
Replies: >>16705684
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 12:41:00 PM No.16705575
1665976295066853
1665976295066853
md5: 9fb27d5ab01b5ff04bb0bd21ca58fa0d๐Ÿ”
Replies: >>16705683 >>16705914
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 12:55:05 PM No.16705584
>>16705259
It's easy to see the gradual unhingement of 4chan if you go out of the bubble once in a while, isn't it? Now consider, this whole process has been going on for decades at about the same pace.
Replies: >>16705608
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 1:19:44 PM No.16705608
>>16705584
>go out of the bubble
true, I barely use this site anymore. Have a home thread or two on /vg/ and only use slower boards like /p/ beyond that. So it's honestly kinda shocking coming back to places like /sci/ that at least seemed "normal" by the standards of the site back then.
What's it like these days? Are CompSci fags still shat on (I am one)? Do we still hate Elon? Do IQ threads and -1/12 threads still give as many (you)s?
Replies: >>16705911
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 4:05:29 PM No.16705683
>>16705575
I take a gold ball from the open door.
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 4:09:17 PM No.16705684
>>16705536
>something they never did
right, because they're retarded failures
>or said they wanted to do
no, half of my list was the mythical Aryan Race. they said that shit very clearly.
You're very invested in this, are you trying to say you're a proud retard yourself?
Replies: >>16705731
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 5:56:49 PM No.16705731
>>16705684
I don't think the Italians believed in the Aryanism stuff, maybe I'm wrong. But please do point out which half of your list was about the mythical Aryan race because it seems like you're backpedalling
Replies: >>16705739 >>16705796
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 6:07:18 PM No.16705739
>>16705731
No. It's very boring watching a retard cope & sneed for multiple days like this, I'm done with (You)
Replies: >>16705788
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 7:14:49 PM No.16705788
>>16705739
You're taking this very seriously
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 7:24:48 PM No.16705796
>>16705731
I mean what did you expect, he literally thinks in terms of meaningless oxymorons lol >>16705141
>imperialism looking inward
Replies: >>16705813 >>16705826
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 7:38:47 PM No.16705813
>>16705796
That's not an oxymoron, it's one quite common definition of fascism. As capital exhausts other avenues of exploitation abroad it ramps up the rate of exploitation in domestic territories theretofore only seen abroad, and using the same methods of oppression perfected during colonial rule on its own citizens.

But really, most definitions of fascism only amount to a description of the symptoms because fascism is, at its core, a social pathology arising from the circumstances and conditions of late stage capitalism, which is not always consistently expressed in the same exact way.
Replies: >>16705830 >>16705834
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 7:46:54 PM No.16705820
undertherugb
undertherugb
md5: ae273a5fa09d13f9a3a8b3266cc6b475๐Ÿ”
>>16667405
>>16668319
>>16670002
>>16673111
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 7:47:55 PM No.16705821
>>16667613
That is a good point, still it needs to be regulated so pieces of shit don't use it where safer alternatives are available just to cut costs.
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 7:51:47 PM No.16705826
>>16705796
>meaningless oxymorons
post degree and salary, brainlet
Replies: >>16705833
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 7:57:56 PM No.16705830
>>16705813
Sorry but "projecting power on other nations in your own nation" is an oxymoron and a stupid definition is a stupid definition no matter how many morons parrot it. Not only that, the way you describe this
>As capital exhausts other avenues of exploitation abroad it ramps up the rate of exploitation in domestic territories theretofore only seen abroad, and using the same methods of oppression perfected during colonial rule on its own citizens.
is indistinguishable from the criticisms fascists make about globalism. Really ill thought out, that whole post. Fascism is always a merger of state and corporate power, that's the only definition you need. All that other social critique just poisons the well.
Replies: >>16705837 >>16705840
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 7:59:34 PM No.16705833
>>16705826
>my definition of apple is a smooth red colored orange wow so deep
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 7:59:40 PM No.16705834
>>16705813
>>16705141
>Imperialism directed inwards. The arbitrary designation of increasingly granular Out Groups that are stripped of their personhood in pursuit of an unattainable "purity" that can never come.
My favourite part of imperialism which was perfected in use on colonial populations (Germany Italy and Japan notoriously had loads of colonies for a long time before they were fascist) is when the imperial centre designates increasingly granular outgroups and doesn't try to assimilate anybody because it's restricting the body of citizens, and then also the part where it doesn't do that at all and instead the total opposite because imperialism is tied up in empire and not nation.

>le pathology
get a grip
Replies: >>16705860
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 8:02:01 PM No.16705837
>>16705830
But he needs le bad guys to be definitionally le bad, a sensible descriptive definition might leave them an out for people to occasionally agree with them.
Replies: >>16705841 >>16705860
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 8:04:20 PM No.16705840
>>16705830
You are being obtusely literal-minded, refusing to understand what is being explained to you so you can more easily dismiss it as nonsensical. I've certainly never heard fascists criticise the exploitation of others so I don't know where you get your comparison from.
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 8:05:49 PM No.16705841
>>16705837
Oh, don't worry, the merger of state and corporate power is inherently bad anyway.
Replies: >>16705874
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 8:24:43 PM No.16705860
>>16705834
>>16705837
Anyway, the point here is obviously not that national borders are redrawn to exclude more territory, or that domestic territories become geographically displaced; it is rather that fascist administrations run the country as colonial administrations have run overseas territories: in a ruthlessly exploitative, dehumanising, and cruelly oppressive fashion, to the enrichment of a few. That is in fact entirely compatible with your own definition, especially considering the role corporations have historically played there. Neither definition is comprehensive but neither is inaccurate either.

Of course this is an inevitable consequence of the merger of corporate and state powers, so one might quibble over which is the end and which is the means. Is this simply the most effective way of visiting cruelty on a lot of people, or do they just not care about the cruelty they inflict? But that's why I think a definition should look at underlying causes, and then it becomes clear that fascism is simply an unprincipled power grab by cowards who are afraid of relinquishing control. The rest is set dressing. There is nothing so fundamental to fascism as the desire to tell people what to do without anyone telling you what to do. Fascism represents the relinquishing of all moral responsibility. As Sartre called it, the ultimate bad faith. It therefore comes as no surprise that it is always found in conjunction with paranoia and magical thinking. Fascism is a symptom of an irrational, unhealthy mind.
Replies: >>16705872
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 8:35:37 PM No.16705867
>>16667407
They didnt like this one iota
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 8:43:25 PM No.16705872
>>16705860
>The arbitrary designation of increasingly granular Out Groups that are stripped of their personhood in pursuit of an unattainable "purity" that can never come.
So still nothing to do with this. Adding Sartre's bad faith definition (obviously false if you know any of the civil history of the fascist regimes) is adding yet another piece of non sense to the pile. What is that, the third definition you gave in the thread?

>Fascism is a symptom of an irrational, unhealthy mind.
Again, get a grip.
Actually, are you a gpt bot?
Replies: >>16705875
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 8:45:39 PM No.16705874
>>16705841
Actual illiterate who doesn't understand "inherently"
Replies: >>16705875
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 8:49:28 PM No.16705875
>>16705872
I didn't count how many definitions have been given but I have provided one and agreed with several other compatible, yet incomplete definitions.

I don't know why it irks you to have the obvious irrationality of fascism pointed out to you, but I doubt your reasons are rational :^)

>>16705874
No need to sign your posts. Just google the word and come back.
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 8:59:10 PM No.16705885
How can you have anarcho fascism? I've been thinking about it for a while and ot seems hard to reconcile with what I've been told fascism is meant to be.
Replies: >>16705889
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 9:00:58 PM No.16705889
>>16705885
If anyone told you they're an anarcho-fascist they were either profoundly confused or trolling
Replies: >>16705896
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 9:08:04 PM No.16705896
>>16705889
It was a legitimate movement. the fact that it existed demands reevaluation of the term
Replies: >>16705902
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 9:12:50 PM No.16705902
>>16705896
"Legitimate" is obviously going a bit far. An ideology does not merit respect or consideration for merely existing. But I suppose the same applies to regular fascism, which is really no less silly.
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 9:16:24 PM No.16705904
(you)
(you)
md5: cc5a7cbb6a0ac84e7674e83be3483bee๐Ÿ”
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 9:25:59 PM No.16705911
>>16705608
Everything is different but also nothing has changed.

Everyone is just more unhinged because most junior dev positions are getting gutted and very few people want to work in research for pennies. Anons keep hearing about shortages while simultaneously can't get a job; it's enough to drive anyone batshit crazy.

I did about 6 years in medical research and just got hired into a decent FTE, so I consider myself quite lucky; but it's honestly a bloodbath out there.
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 9:28:04 PM No.16705914
>>16705575
I........wait.....no..........................what?!
Replies: >>16705918
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 9:33:02 PM No.16705918
>>16705914
It's quite simple really. The madman drew a gold ball which means your odds of getting gold from your door double but are also slightly reduced due to the missing ball. It may or may not be to your advantage to switch, depending on whether the door was opened randomly, but if you know that there's always one superior option.
The boxes are kind of red herrings because you're only picking once from them.
Replies: >>16705923
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 9:40:10 PM No.16705923
>>16705918
But is the ball fascist?
Replies: >>16705928
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 9:43:24 PM No.16705928
>>16705923
No but the person tying people to tracks for no reason and making you jump through hoops to save them could very well be
Replies: >>16705983
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 11:03:52 PM No.16705983
>>16705928
What about Monty hall; are the goats fascist?
Replies: >>16705987
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 11:06:59 PM No.16705987
>>16705983
No but the car might be if it's a Volkswagen
Replies: >>16706691
Anonymous
6/24/2025, 3:40:43 AM No.16706209
>>16705289
Genuine lol
Anonymous
6/24/2025, 8:54:17 AM No.16706310
So turns out we probably will have some difficulty landing on a cooled white dwarf star, something like 360000g gravity or something...
Replies: >>16706396
Anonymous
6/24/2025, 12:36:18 PM No.16706396
>>16706310
I'm sure we can find a work around.
Anonymous
6/24/2025, 8:05:38 PM No.16706691
>>16705987
The goats seem pretty fascist to me.