Thread 16785157

Is having problems with trivial probability problems indicative of low IQ? or is probability abstract enough that it is something that is learnt, rather than intuited?

>>16785157 (OP)
Fun Fact: Today is the Anniversary of tue Birthday Problem.

>>16785157 (OP)
Being filtered by the yellow balls is actually a midwit problem. Low IQ are either too confused to engage with the problem at all, or they grasp it solely in terms of established statistical concepts (when trained to simply apply the relevant rules and memorize standard explanations).

Mid IQs try to grasp the actual substance of it, but their mathematical abilities fall short of their eagerness to go down epistemological and ontological rabitholes, so they come up with insane theories for why basic Probability Theory is wrong.

High IQs grasp how the formalism relates to various epistemological and ontological ideas.

>>16785166
Ultra high IQ: 50% - it either happens or it doesn't.

>>16785172
like the Powerball lottery huh

>>16785172
No, that's this version.

There are 3 boxes. Each box has a hole for your balls. One box has a hole big enough for one ball. Another box has a hole big enough for both balls. The final box has a hole big enough to fit balls and shaft.

What is the probability that you use it for your own pleasure?

>>16785157 (OP)
The worst form of retard is the one that goes "this is like the monty hall problem" and draws any conclusion from that

>>16785166
this has little to do with IQ
it has to do with whether you studied probability or not
if you have 200 IQ and never did math you ain't solving shit, but a midwit who studied hard can easily solve it

>>16785299
> a midwit who studied hard can easily solve it
My post (tailored to be midwit-friendly) went completely over your head, probably because you're in the first category I described.

>>16785303
ah got it
you are one of the idiots who gets filtered by this problem
and thinks he is smarter than everyone else
you are not even a midwit
you are average and suffer from classic Dunning-Kruger
textbook case

>>16785307
Nevermind being low IQ, you sound literally mentally ill...

>>16785157 (OP)
This image sets you up for failure. You imagine drawing from the balls in an ordered left-to-right fashion so you think about it in terms of boxes instead of GGS

>>16785157 (OP)
For basic problems like this one it's just pattern recognition. If you didn't have enough exposure to the solving process it will look hard as hell.
Just look at the history of statistics and you will see geniuses like Newton making "basic" erros and sweating buckets to solve things that now days a midwit solves in 2 min

>>16785157 (OP)
33% right? bayes rule

>>16785157 (OP)
Depends whether you choose to take the gold ball or the silver ball, in the event you find your hand in the mixed box. So either 1 or 1/2.

>>16785333
>This image sets you up for failure. You imagine drawing from the balls in an ordered left-to-right fashion so you think about it in terms of boxes instead of GGS
What are you talking about? If you shove your hand into the middle box, half of the time you'll end up touching a cold grey ball, so that box would account for half as many cases of touching yellow balls.

>>16785157 (OP)
Uh? It's obviously 50%

>>16785178
This one is also 50% obviously. I mean duh, if you have 50% chance of drawing a gold you also have 50% chance of drawing a silver since it's the only alternative.

Sincerely, I was professionally tested for FSIQ and got a 126 when I was exhausted on no sleep and brain fogged from SSRI misuse. I probably have a low 130s g score so why is this aggravating me like this? Should it be easy?

>"it's a gold ball" means that box #3 is fucking impossible and not worth factoring in, it's a straightforward constraint regardless of order
>the other ball of the same box is either the other gold ball in box #1 or it's the silver one in box #2

How is it not 50%? Am I meant to take the order of constraints into account, pretending that box #3 is not going to be flatly excluded? If you pretend the impossible choices matter, the two random choices are identical to one random choice of one ball. None of them are more likely to be the first draw than any other before it's revealed to be gold. There's only one gold ball that has silver coming after. How is not 1/6 or 50%? How could it be anything else?

>>16785432
Wait I guess it could also be 1/3 but whatever. When I googled it, it said 2/3.

>>16785432
I was baffled at how anyone could get anything other than 50% too, so I tried feeding the question to LLMs, which all concluded that it must be 2/3 of drawing gold or 1/3 silver. This is because they tried calculating with the probability of picking the box initially/drawing the initial gold ball, even though it's a done deal. Presumably that's what trips most people too.
I blame the picture honestly, it'd be much clearer if it actually presented the state you're drawing the second ball from.

>>16785432
>I was professionally tested for FSIQ and got a 126
>How is it not 50%?
See >>16785166 and >>16785406

There are two boxes, one containing a gold ball and one containing a silver ball. To test out that there's no finger-biting monster or something, you quickly put your hand in and pull it back without drawing any ball, on purpose.
What are the odds of drawing a gold ball if you draw from the box you just put your hand in?

>>16785178
2/3

>>16785157 (OP)
1/3

>>16785438
>even though it's a done deal.
Nope. You're just retarded. Sorry.

It's obviously 100% or 0%. If you picked the golden ball from the box with both colours, it's 100% and if you picked the golden ball from the box with only gold it's 0%

There are three cases in which you picked a gold ball. In the first two cases, you then pick another gold ball. In the third case, you then pick a silver ball. Therefore, the probability that the next ball is silver is 1/3.

>>16785545
There's only 2 cases in which you picked a gold ball, nerd. Either you got box GG or box GS.

>>16785543
You are conditioning on a specific box, while the problem asks for the probability irrespective of the box picked.

>>16785547
The boxes themselves do not affect the probability of picking a specific ball. You can construct a tree with three branches for the three boxes, each probability 1/3. You can then add two branches for each ball, each probability 1/2. You will see that picking each ball is equally likely with probability 1/6.

>>16785543
Yes... and now you multiply those by the probabilities of your ball having come from the respective box. You've made it 95% of the way to the finish line. Don't give up now.

There are two dice. One is a trick die that rolls only 6s, the other is a regular, fair die.
You pick a die at random and roll a 6. What are the odds that you roll another 6 with the same die?

>>16785553
7/12

>>16785553
Your Heil Hitler % propaganda is suspect, sir.

>>16785553
There are 7 cases where you rolled a 6. 6 of those cases from the trick die and 1 comes from the regular die. 6/7*1+(1/7)*(1/6)=37/42=~88.1%

>>16785554
Observe that the probability of rolling a GIVEN a certain die is different. Why should you assume the two die are equally likely upon observing a 6? For example, if you observed a 4, what are the cases for each die?

>>16785558
Yeah I realized I was retarded when I made that post and couldn't be fucked to correct it.

>>16785554
If it helps, imagine you didn't just roll one 6 with the die you picked, you rolled 6s a hundred times in a row. Now what's the probability that you will roll a 6 with the same die next? Surely it's not a mere 700/1200

Here is a better filter question.

You and your opponent each draw a decimal number between 0 and 1 without revealing it. You each have the option to redraw and keep that value instead, and the other person doesn't know which choice they made. The person with the higher number wins. Find the optimal strategy.

>>16785571
I'm too lazy to calculate the exact threshold for redrawing, but it's probably significantly lower than 0.5 because the opponent is going to redraw low numbers too.

>>16785577
>significantly lower than 0.5
significantly higher, fuck me

>>16785365
>33% right? bayes rule
yes. if you picked a gold ball first, there was a 2/3rds chance that it came from the box with two gold balls. the next ball picked from that box must be gold. The other 1/3rd of the time, you picked from the box of mixed balls, so you'd end up getting the silver ball.

>>16785513
You're selecting for a gold ball, it's not 2/3, dipshit.

>>16785698
There's a 2/3 chance of hitting the win condition (box number 1) when randomly selecting a gold ball due to the fact that 2/3rds of the gold balls are in box number 1 (the win condition). Explain, in detail and without glossing over anything, how my thought process is wrong.

>>16785365
>>16785640
The correct answer is 50% because the question is "what is the probability the ball you pull from a box with a single ball in it will be the silver ball?"
33% is the answer to the question "what is the probability the box you pulled the gold ball from was originally a gold+silver box?" which is not the same question.
It's not a math problem, it's a linguistic problem, and autistic math savants fail it.

Using the coin flip analogy, this problem is formulated like this:
"You flip the coin 9 times and it's 9 heads in a row. What is the probability the next flip will be tails?"
The correct answer is 50% because the coin flips are not dependent on each other. Muh Bayes autists misunderstand the question as "what is the probability that a series of 10 coin flips will yield a sequence of 9 heads and 1 tails?"

>>16785804
Least retarded 50%er.

>>16785804
This
The question is about picking the boxes, not picking the balls. Since you already know it can't be the 2 silver box this leaves you with 2 boxes.

How many of you actually know the correct answer before studying probability?

>>16785804
>>16785817
See >>16785166

>>16785820
When I first ran into this problem, I didn't know anything about Bayes' Theorem except that it exists. But I did have a basic concept of Frequentist probability for independent events and it was enough: the probability of picking the middle box and then the gold ball is 1/6. For the right-side box, it's 1/3. If you imagine a big bunch of trials, the 2:1 ratio would be reflected in that. Ignoring irrelevant cases leaves you with just that.

The leap from having no concept of statistics at all to solving this problem is huge and covered only by genius. The leap from having the basic concept of statistics that most people already do, to solving this problem, is small and covered by simple reasoning.

>>16785739
>Explain, in detail and without glossing over anything, how my thought process is wrong.
You are selecting a random box and then selecting a random gold ball in that box. The relative distribution of the gold balls is immaterial as long as the left box is all gold balls, the right is all silver, and the middle box is just 1 gold. There could be 300 gold balls in the box on the left and it wouldn't fucking matter.

The ball being removed being gold is a given. As such, a gold ball being removed doesn't make any box with gold balls more likely beyond eliminating the boxes without gold balls. This is similar to how with Monty Hall, revealing a goat doesn't make the car more likely to be behind the chosen door because the host ALWAYs reveals a goat.

1/2 chance the left box is chosen*1/2 chance the left gold ball is chosen
1/2 chance the left box is chosen*1/2 chance the right gold ball is chosen
1/2 chance the center box is chosen*1 chance the gold ball is chosen
Each box has a 1/2 chance of being the chosen box

>>16785952
>>16785739
To drive this point home, let's set aside the third box before starting and just stuff the first box full of gold balls. If you actually READ THE FUCKING PROBLEM YOU FUCKING IDIOT, you should see this is a simple 50/50.

>>16785739
>due to the fact that 2/3rds of the gold balls are in box number 1
Nice logic, but I put an infinite number of silver balls in the middle box. It's still true that 2/3 of the gold balls are in the left box, but how often do you figure picking a gold ball from the middle box is going to happen now? :^)

>>16785952
>As such, a gold ball being removed doesn't make any box with gold balls more likely
What is the probability of picking the middle box and also picking a gold ball? What is the probability of picking the left box and also picking a gold ball?

>>16785964
The probability of picking a gold ball is 1 since you're taking a gold ball from the box at random, so the probabilities are just that of selecting a particular box among the boxes which contain gold balls.

So, .5 and .5.

Again, read the problem carefully. You're selecting a random gold ball, not a random ball. The outcome doesn't tell you anything except that the box contained a gold ball and now has 1 less gold balls.

>>16785968
>>16785952
>You are selecting a random box and then selecting a random gold ball in that box
Ok. What's the probability that I selected the middle box at random and then selected the gold ball at random, as per your own statement?

>>16785960
In 1/3 of all cases where you get a gold ball :)

>>16785157 (OP)
We already did this problem I solved it via simulation cuh iirc it was 25.5%

>>16785973
>that I selected the middle box at random
1/3 initially, .5 with the elimination of the right box from contention when it turns out there is 1 or more gold balls in the chosen box
>and then selected the gold ball at random
1. There's only 1 gold ball in the box to randomly select, so the probability is 1 that you would randomly select that particular gold ball given that box is chosen.

I don't know how many times I have to fucking say it. Selecting a random ball and having it be gold and selecting a random gold ball and having it be gold aren't the same thing.

>>16785989
>>16785992
Mid-range IQs develop schizophrenia when exposed to "intellectual" topics. You're basically a victim of systemic abuse.

>>16785992
>selecting a random gold ball
Quote the specific part of the problem statement that says you selected a random gold ball.

>You pick a random box
>You put your hand in and take a ball from that box at random

This concludes the description of the random process you're accounting for. It doesn't say "take a gold ball from that box at random". You only think it does because you're too brown to read.

>>16785820
close to none youd need a FSIQ of 110+ to solve this raw

>>16786095
>close to none youd need a FSIQ of 110+ to solve this raw
>to solve this raw
What do you mean by "solve this raw"? It took humanity 300,000 years to develop the concepts needed to reason about this effectively.

>>16786035
>It doesn't say "take a gold ball from that box at random"
See
>>16785178
>You put your hand in and take a GOLD BALL from that box at random
LEARN TO FUCKING READ

>You only think it does because you're too brown to read.
Racism and illiteracy truly go hand in hand.

>inb4 you try and redirect this shit to the OP when this conversation chain was explicitly about this other version which was explicitly identified as a different problem from the OP

>>16785995
Look, dumb bitch, follow the conversation or shut the fuck up.

>>16785992
>selecting a random gold ball

>>16786167
>you put your hand in and take a gold ball from that box at random

Which one is it?

>>16785955
It's 66% though because you already took one ball out, which changes the outcome.
First time you take one ball, your chances to find the Gold were 75%, divided as follows,
First box (full gold): 50%. There could be an infinity of Gold in there, doesn't matter.
Second was only 25% (50% to pick in it but then 50% to pick the gold and 50% the silver).
So 75% in total, and we know you picked a Gold ball: you WERE twice more likely to pick the Gold from the first box, so if you pick a new ball - because you must use the same box - then you are still twice more likely to find that it's the first box.

>>16786178
Those mean the same thing. But for argument's sake, let's stick to the exact phrasing from the original pic in this discussion. You know, the one you denied existed.
>take a gold ball from that box at random

After all, that was in the pic, illiterate shit stain.

>>16786255
>you WERE twice more likely to pick the Gold from the first box
You are not twice as likely to select gold from the first box because you are guaranteed to get gold from the second box. Probabilities don't go above 1. I reiterate, you are taking a gold ball. Which gold ball will be random but it will always be gold.

>>16785271
I say this about every probability problem because it winds people up

>>16786268
>let's stick to the exact phrasing from the original pic in this discussion
>>take a gold ball from that box at random
The linguistic ambiguity you're trying to use in order to save face (picking a gold ball by sheer luck vs. random selection from one of the gold balls) is resolved by the context: one of the boxes has no gold balls at all; only the first interpretation applies as a post-facto selection of cases rather than a definition of the random process.

>>16786282
>one of the boxes has no gold balls at all
And? The fuck is your point? Obviously you can't have selected that box when you are able to select a gold ball from the box you chose. That is all that means. The contents of the 3rd box have no bearing on which balls you decide to select from. You aren't magically unable to make a decision just because you wouldn't have been able to had shit shaken out differently.
>only the first interpretation applies as a post-facto selection of cases rather than a definition of the random process.
This is nonsense.

You want a counterexample. There are 2 boxes, one contains a red ball and the other contains a picture of you taking it up the ass. You select a box at random and remove a red ball at random. What is the probability the other box has photos of your anus being stretched like a poor man's dollar?

>linguistic ambiguity
Bitch. Shut the fuck up. You knew the significance of that phrasing when you denied it existed. There's jack shit ambiguous about it.

The reason 50%ers get it wrong is because they view conditional probability as a kind of divine force that ensures you end up in the state described by the problem. You have a 0% chance of picking the SS box because the divine force stops you, if you pick the GS box, you have a 100% chance of picking gold because the divine force needs you to for the question to make sense. Whichever box you pick you have 100% chance of picking gold.

If you work from that weird retrocausal principle they are right, it would be 50%, unfortunately thats not how it works.

>>16786318
>And?
So if we take it to mean "make a random pick out of the gold balls in the box" but you landed on the rightmost box, you can't do it. So it can only mean "let's assume you picked a gold ball by sheer luck". Not reading the rest of your post because you're very obviously mentally ill.

Can't believe there's so many people getting filtered by first year first semester of uni probability style questions, explains a lot of what I've been seeing on /sci to be honest.
And no, the wording is perfectly clear on this problem, there is no ambiguity. Given that you draw gold, you have a 1/3rd chance to be in box 2 which would produce the required silver ball.

>>16786331
If you're in box 2, one of the balls is twice as dense as the other. You don't need to "see" into the box to exercise a selection bias in either direction.

>>16786327
>So if we take it to mean "make a random pick out of the gold balls in the box" but you landed on the rightmost box
You didn't. What part of
>you take a gold ball out
didn't you understand?

>let's assume you picked a gold ball by sheer luck
You can't pick a gold ball by sheer luck out of the rightmost box either.

I get you're illiterate, but this is another level of stupid.

>>16786334
Ah the classic, reply with a meme image but no actual response regarding the matter.
Seeing as you are such an enlightened being however, you should have no problem communicating where I have went wrong and what the correct reasoning should be.

Why doesn't this board instaban mentally ill American public high-school retards like

>>16786338
>>16786339

?

>>16786333
>You don't need to "see" into the box to exercise a selection bias in either direction.
Correct, but the principle of indifference requires you to assume there isn't a bias unless you are told so.

>>16786342
>Why doesn't this board instaban mentally ill American public high-school retards like
Don't lump me in with the dipshit that can't tell the difference between
>>16785157 (OP)
and
>>16785178
just cause you're too lazy to follow a fucking conversation.

>>16786338
>What part of
>>you take a gold ball out
>didn't you understand?
The part where you you fail to distinguish between the random process that produces all the observations and the conditional selection of some of those observations. Seems like your GPT-2-tier rhetorical pattern matcher wasn't trained for this scenario.

>>16786345
>can't tell the difference
There's no difference. They state the same thing. The second one is a retard's attempt to force his nonsensical interpretation of the first one, but it only ends up highlighting the error.

>>16785432
The constraint of it being a gold ball cuts the probability of #2 box in half. You don't have an issue with #3 being cut down to zero, well that exact same mechanism is what throws away half the occurrences of the #2 box.

>>16786342
Not American. If I am so mentally ill, what should the reasoning be then that leads to the correct answer?

>>16786351
The correct reasoning is that "you picked a gold ball" narrows the relevant outcomes down so that the left box is over-represented by a factor of 2 relative to the middle box while the right box isn't represented at all. It's the same for both the normal and the retarded version of the image.

>>16786355
Incorrect. If there are 900 gold balls in the first box, then the chance that you are in the first box given that you have drawn a gold ball is 900/901~=0.999 instead of 2/3. This would greatly reduce the chance of drawing a silver ball given a draw of a gold ball.
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability

>>16786362
>If there are 900 gold balls in the first box, then the chance that you are in the first box given that you have drawn a gold ball is 900/901~=0.999 instead of 2/3
Completely wrong. You can literally tell which posters ITT are GPT-type biobots. Once you see you can't unsee. Lots of "people" work like this.

>>16786361
This is the exact reasoning that leads to, given a draw of gold, that there is a 1/3rd chance of being in box 2 and thus drawing a silver ball afterwards. When one thing is twice as large as the other, it forms 2/3 of the total mass of the two objects.
Do you not understand your own reasoning or are you trolling?

>>16786364
Oh, I see now. I'm the retard in this case as I mistook you for one of the 1/2ers who believe box 1 and 2 are equally likely (both 1/3 chance).

>>16786364
>>16786369
And I guess I should say "sorry". :^)

>>16786344
In this case, gold > silver is hardwired, it doesn't require an assumption.

>>16785303
You are such a fucking drooling faggot.

>>16786396
>midwit seethes

>>16786346
>The part where you you fail to distinguish between the random process that produces all the observations and the conditional selection of some of those observations.
You really don't seem to understand that you can be told all of or part of a random result. Coin flips must be very confusing for you. If it helps, pretend the sentence
>The randomly selected box has at least one gold ball in it.
is in the question. Wouldn't change jack shit, but apparently leaving that implicit by the fact that you can take a gold ball out of the fucking box has broken your fucking brain.

>>16786347
>The second one is a retard's attempt to force his nonsensical interpretation of the first one
The second one is deliberately constructed to not be an interpretation of the first one. You're just a fucking dipshit.

>>16786392
>In this case, gold > silver is hardwired
In which case? In the OP, gold>silver isn't hardwired. The randomly selected ball just happened to be gold. It could have been silver.

>>16786434
>The randomly selected ball just happened to be gold. It could have been silver.
No, it couldn't. If you can find a credible way to pull the gold ball, you will. Objective probability is a Santa Claus thing.

>>16786442
>If you can find a credible way to pull the gold ball, you will
>You put your hand in and take a ball from that box at random
It being possible for someone in the same position to select for gold balls doesn't change the fact that the problem says the selection was random. You're basically calling the problem a liar and answering a different question than the one being asked.

>>16786434
>>16786338
>What part of
>>you take a gold ball out
>didn't you understand?
The part where you you fail to distinguish between the random process that produces all the observations and the conditional selection of some of those observations. Seems like your GPT-2-tier rhetorical pattern matcher wasn't trained for this scenario.

Try again.

>>16786470
>calling the problem a liar
Sure, that's a clear way of saying it. A slightly more academic way of saying it is that all stats, Bayesian or otherwise, rely on data that relies on liars.

Note that the 50%er troll refuses to engage with the similar problem in >>16785553 since it makes his absurdity immediately obvious.

>>16786492
I've not replied to that but have you ever thrown a throwing knife at a wall? Have you ever thrown an ax at a wall? Do you really think a perfect balance can ever exist meaningfully

50% tards think "you picked a gold ball" means a magical picking process that guides your hand to either the left or middle box (with equal probability) and then guides your hand to a gold ball. That's really all there is to it. This is what they think conditional probability means. Granted, they lack the self-reflection to realize that's what their mind is doing and they can't distinguish between a process that generates outcomes and the conditional selection of a subset of those outcomes. They conflate the two into a single magical process that generates only the outcomes they care about to begin with so the asymmetry from discarding half the outcomes of the middle box doesn't crop in.

>>16786504
The problem doesn't meaningfully change if the trick die only rolls a 6 half the time or something.

>>16786517
It changes by an order of magnitude

>>16786524
And? Are you scared of fractions or something?

>>16786526
Why fractions?

There are two boxes, one containing two large gold balls, another containing a large gold ball and a small silver ball.
You put your hand in a random box and grab one ball. Due to the size difference, you are 100 times as likely to grab a large gold ball as a small silver ball. Naturally, you pull out a gold ball.

Without bothering to calculate the exact probabilities, are you more or less likely to pull out another gold ball from the box compared to the scenario where balls are the same size?

>>16786542
>Due to the size difference, you are 100 times as likely to grab a large gold ball
Good job. By completely changing the problem you managed to get the probability of pulling out a second gold ball much closer to 1/2.

>>16786546
>By completely changing the problem
It's literally the same problem and solution though, only the parameters change somewhat.
This like I claiming I changed a "which train arrives first" question by making one of the trains run much faster than the other.

>>16786552
>I changed a "which train arrives first" question by making one of the trains run much faster than the other.
Rofl

>>16786552
>It's literally the same problem
Ok. Thanks for playing. I completely nailed your malfunction here: >>16786513

>>16786559
NTA but if you think anyone puts his hand into a blind box and picks the silver instead of the gold without weighing them both in his own hand, you're an idiot.

>>16786472
>The part where you you fail to distinguish between the random process that produces all the observations and the conditional selection of some of those observations
I see I broke the bot. You're given the order of events and the bias of the selections. If you can't figure out what's conditional from that, that's a you problem.

>>16786561
>distinguish between the random process that produces all the observations and the conditional selection of some of those observations
No one can do this, it doesn't exist in real life.

>>16786513
>Math autist has low verbal intelligence.
There are three doors, one of which has a prize behind it. You pick a door, and the game host reveals that the door you picked was wrong. You can now pick one of the two remaining doors. What is the probability you will pick the correct door?

>>16785553
>>16786492
There are two dice. One is a trick die that rolls only 6s, the other is a regular, fair die.
You pick a die at random and roll a 6. What are the odds that the die you picked was a fair die?

Again, your problem is that you are too autistic to understand that the question you're asking and the question you think you're asking are two different questions.

>>16786561
>>16786695
>mental illness
See >>16786513 for the final word on this subject.

>>16786695
>midwit can't into correct analogies
you just proved him right lol

Would this problem have the same solution if there was an arbitrary number of S,S boxes?

>would this problem have the same solution if there was an arbitrary number of new boxes that don't factor into the solution???
bottomless_pit_brainlet.webm

>>16785157 (OP)
50% as the question is written
33% as the question was originally written by Bertrand before being ruined by the retard who made the image

>50% as my broken brain fails at basic reading comprehension
gang_of_brainlets_patting_each_other_on_the_back.mp3

>>16786884
>pick BALL
>33
>pick BOX
>50

>>16786889
>pick BOX and then pick BALL from that BOX
>?

ok retard

>o-o-ok!
highly_deformed_brainlet_drinking_his_own_spinal_fluid.flv

>>16786889
You can remove the boxes and its still 1/3. As long as the number of balls in each box is the same, there is no difference between picking a box then a ball, and being randomly assigned a ball with uniform probability.

>>16786866
No, but it would have the same answer.

>>16786909
>being randomly assigned a ball with uniform probability.
Umm, sweaty? The problem says you picked a gold ball. That means God guided your hand towards a gold ball. All the non-gold balls have probability 0 of being picked.

>>16786931
No one would pick a silver ball if they knew that the other ball was a gold ball. The point of the problem seems to be less about probability and more about not knowing that gold is twice as dense as silver and 86 times as valuable.

>why someone would think it's 50%
I can understand that
>why someone who thinks it's 50% would get extremely, unreasonably fuck-ass mad and start iteratively reformulating the problem 9000 million times so that it HAS to be 50%
I can't understand that

>>16786881
>50% as the question is written
It could be written more clearly but no, it's not 50% as the question is written.

>>16787019
>>why someone who thinks it's 50% would get extremely, unreasonably fuck-ass mad and start iteratively reformulating the problem 9000 million times so that it HAS to be 50%
Because dumb midwits who think they have some unique insight want to force you into their mindset and get the validation they desperately crave.

>>16787020
Setting aside how poorly it's written, it's 50% simply because you're not precluded from assessing the relative densities of the balls.

>i assessed the relative densities of my balls and then picked one at random to match my assessment
ultra-deformed-brainlet-sucks-its-own-dick.pcx

>>16787034
Obviously gold and silver are just thin plating, the balls themselves being made out of plutonium-gallium alloy.

>>16787034
"at random" removes any selection criteria beyond chance anon.

>>16787037
Yes, which is why it doesn't work. There's no context in the real world — what probability is supposed to help you understand — where someone picks a silver ball instead of a gold ball. This is literally why most papers are irreplicable.

>Yes, which is why it doesn't work. There's no context in the real world — what probability is supposed to help you understand — where someone picks a silver ball instead of a gold ball. This is literally why most papers are irreplicable.
Clear-cut example of case #2 in >>16785166

I'm a retard look at case #2 in my headcanon

>>16787048
Would you change your answer away from 50% if the balls were red and green?

>>16787055
Yes.

>>16787055
No. The counterfactual context of the problem's exceptionally bad wording doesn't apply to real-world probability manifestation and the timeline remains unaltered by choosing a different framing for the difference of the balls.

>>16787064
Setting aside how poorly it is or isn't written, pretending you can randomly choose a gold or silver ball is far more detrimental to the current state of academic journalism and grant writing than observing you can't.

>>16787073
And to top it all off, I did have breakfast.

>>16787077
Sausage gravy and biscuits.

>>16786866
Yeah, a million SS boxes don't matter since the probability that any of them were picked initially is 0.

That's a simple math question. Not a single post calculating probabilities. You are all phonies and LARPers. It's like that one time a thread on /g/ revealed software engineers can't calculate percentages. Cringe.

>>16787491
>he needs to "calculate probabilities" to solve this
Retard.

>>16785161
When's the birthday of the Anniversary problem?

>>16785178
This is actually semantically ambiguous

>>16785804
It actually is the same question because your first pick of box determines which single ball remains in the box.

>>16785955
Still 2/3

>>16788218
>When's the birthday of the Anniversary problem?
We're dudes, so we all forgot.
Put all the dates in an urn: pick one. 50/50 chance you'll pick a date.
29 FEB.

>>16785178
Trying to be clever but failing. The wording you want in order to unambiguously force 50/50 is "you take a random gold ball". In the present formulation, you can only make the case that that is at best a potentially valid competing interpretation, which defeats the point of acting smug about being cleverer than everyone and only makes you look foolish when you do. It's not a measure of someone's mathematical understanding.

>>16788981
>The wording you want in order to unambiguously force 50/50 is "you take a random gold ball".
This fails because the instruction is impossible to follow 1/3 of the time. The wording he actually wants is: "God's grace directed your hand towards a gold ball after randomly selecting between the boxes that contain at least one".

>>16785157 (OP)
25%

>>16786323
No it's because they are retarded and also too proud to admit they are wrong

Source: I used to be one of them.

I'm retarded but at least I'm not proud, so when an anon explained it I finally understood.

>>16785571
>0.
and then as many little 9's as I can fit on the card
I win

>>16789005
>This fails because the instruction is impossible to follow 1/3 of the time.
I assume that just leads to an invalid outcome, same as randomly picking a silver box normally would.

>>16789143
>I assume that just leads to an invalid outcome, same as randomly picking a silver box normally would.
Great job getting filtered in exactly the same way as the tard you were trying to dunk on.

>>16789149
The "(if possible)" is always implied, isn't it?

>>16789169
>The "(if possible)" is always implied, isn't it?
No, it isn't.

I made this little game for Bertrand's box paradox using chatgpt. I'll try to make it better but anyway here it is.

https://limewire.com/d/1cWQ3#k8PD6k0Vpl

https://we.tl/t-IjHyXLc5JK

https://pastebin.com/SF0MDzgV

>>16789180
Imagine being given the instructions and then performing the experiment. You select the silver box so you run into a problem executing the given instructions. Therefore, we exclude this run. It's the same thing as excluding runs where you select silver when it's an option, isn't it?

>>16785157 (OP)
Tha chance of picking a box with 1 gold ball and 1 silver ball is 1/3, therefore there is 2/3 chance that the second ball in the box is gold.

WHAT is hard here? I think monty hall was confusing (evendoe it's the same problem), but ball question isn't.

>>16789359
Yes. Don't let dipshits gaslight you. Probability problems often have steps that are not guaranteed to be reached before they are reached.

>>16789373
But certainly you can only have picked from 1 of 2 boxes, the SS box is out of the question.

>>16788981
>Trying to be clever but failing
Actually it was deliberately crafted as a troll to mirror the wording of the original as closely as possible to catch people unawares. Making it more obvious would defeat the purpose.

>In the present formulation, you can only make the case that that is at best a potentially valid competing interpretation, which defeats the point of acting smug about being cleverer than everyone and only makes you look foolish when you do. It's not a measure of someone's mathematical understanding.
See
>>16786035

It's clear enough. Some cunts are just dumb.

>>16789408
>Actually it was deliberately crafted as a troll to mirror the wording of the original as closely as possible to catch people unawares
Yeah I realise what the intent is, I'm just pointing out it failed

>>16789359
>Imagine being given the instructions and then performing the experiment. You select the silver box so you run into a problem executing the given instructions. Therefore, we exclude this run
Exclude this run from what, exactly? It blows my mind that seemingly no one ITT is capable of mentally separating the random process capable of generating some set of observations, from the conditional selection of a subset. "Pick a box at random" is a step in the random process. It doesn't exclude the rightmost box. "You pick a random gold ball" is the next step in that random process. But it doesn't make sense if on the first step you got the rightmost box. You can't pick a random gold ball. There is no random gold ball. What you can do is say: "you pick a random ball" (this concludes the random process) and then say "you picked a gold one" (this selects a subset of outcomes). But that's just the original problem, retard.

the problem is only asking about the probabilities from the final state on, yeah? at that point your selections are practically reduced to a 50/50. i'm sure it'd be much different if it were asking about the probabilities of each state change in the run. i'm pretty sure you're all over complicating this.

>>16789420
>But it doesn't make sense if on the first step you got the rightmost box.
That's precisely the point, friend

>>16789433
As long as there's one all gold box, your odds will always be higher than 1/2.

>>16789438
Guess I'm gonna have to dumb it down even further for you: there's what could happen and then there's what did happen. What does your exclusion fall under?

>>16789439
that would only be true before the reductions from state changes, or if you were assessing the system as a whole, yeah? we're just considering the state change from "i pulled a gold, what's next?" logically speaking after the reductions the ball is either gold or it is silver, no?

>>16789444
See >>16785166. You're yet another clear-cut example of case 2.

>>16789445
please express it for me in mathematical notation then, because words ain't making it clear cut. or just keep being a facetious faggot, whatever.

>>16789401
But I was picking the box when SS box WAS in question.

>>16789442
You couldn't get a gold ball because you did get an all silver box. You can exclude it after you draw gold, or when you realise you can't draw gold, it's the same difference.

>>16789449
Notice how my prompt made your bio-LLM hallucinate? I'm asking you again: do you exclude the rightmost box from what could happen or what did happen?

>>16789317
Did anybody try this? What are your thoughts? Suggestions for improvements? I will try to add some animation and sound for shuffling. And I'll try to fix the problem with the text selection highlight on the letter and symbol on the card which comes up when you click and changes the color you see.

>>16789462
>no gold balls
No, thanks.

>>16789464
It's the exact same problem, retard. I made it cards because that's an item people have so it can more easily be done physically.

>>16789467
>gold balls is the exact same as no gold balls
This is /sci/ in 2025.

>>16789461
Either formulation excludes the possibility of having selected the SS box at the point where you have a gold ball. You're not excluding what could happen at any point. You're just excluding what did happen at a different point.

>>16789471
Let's try again.
Option A: exclude the rightmost box from what COULD happen
Option B: exclude the rightmost box from what DID happen

Your answer? (A/B)

More bio-LLM hallucination will be your answer.

>>16789470
You're hopeless

>>16789445
>>16789446
nevermind, I went and read into it myself. I understand the paradox, and yes it is entirely based on the perspective of the whole system or trying to parse discrete state changes (functionally pointless in real context). I really have no idea why you are approaching the thread in this way instead of just explaining basic axioms and why from that approach this problem is a veridical paradox instead of being a giant fucking faggot talking about muh ontology. yeah no shit you fucking asshole, that's the whole idea of the paradox! fuck I goddamn hate everyone on this stupid fucking internet so much.

>>16789475
You're ball-less. Tomorrow I will write superior software with more future and actual gold balls.

>>16789477
Absolute second caser: >>16785166
There's no paradox. Since the middle box lets you select a silver ball, only half of the middle box cases count. Meanwhile all the right box cases count. That's a 2:1 advantage for the right box.

>>16789480
I mean for the left box. Sleepy pills kicking in fast. I'm going to dream about this shit thanks to you faggots.

>>16789480
oh that's why you're being an insufferable fuck, you don't even understand the bertrand's box shtick to begin with. reminder that i just consumed kolmogorov's axioms for the first time minutes ago and you are still more retarded than me.

>>16789479
Fuck you, retard

>>16789473
You select a box. That's a given. The rightmost box is included in the possibilities. Only then may you notice that you cannot fulfil the prompt. This is necessarily after you select the box

Alright guys, I made another game with actual boxes and balls.

https://limewire.com/d/B8mAD#b0he0jg4pg

>>16789482
That's literally the answer tho

>>16789420
>You can't pick a random gold ball
You can, in fact, pick a random gold ball assuming the box chosen contains a gold ball, which it does if you reveal a gold ball when picking a random gold ball. The reveal selects a subset of outcomes for both selections.

>>16789512
that's not what's important about bertand's box my guy. the veridical paradox is. the WHY of the answer, which homeboy has all mixed up.

There are 3 people hiding behind doors. One person has 2 gold balloons, one has 2 silver, and one has 1 gold and 1 silver.

You peek and see someone holding a gold balloon.

Are you more likely to be looking at someone with two golds or someone with one gold and one silver?

The person with 2 golds is more likely to show you a gold when picked at random. That’s why the odds are tilted.

>>16789498

Link that opens up the game directly in the browser:

https://litter.catbox.moe/jljwe6lnmcbwxtmx.html

>>16789521
It's also the best explanation of the why

>>16789494
Let's try again.
Option A: exclude the rightmost box from what COULD happen
Option B: exclude the rightmost box from what DID happen

Your answer? (A/B)

More bio-LLM hallucination will be your answer.

>>16789516
>You can, in fact, pick a random gold ball
>assuming the box chosen contains a gold ball
How does your hand magically know to avoid the last box if the problem species you picked a ball at random?

Most of you are you are unironically mentally deficient niggers, no two ways about it. Even when it's all spelled out in the simplest possible way, you can't grasp it.

>>16789675
a box at random*

>>16789671
B
If you could read then you'd have known that was my answer already

>>16789675
It doesn't. Just as your hand doesn't avoid silver balls. Thus, the fact that you are holding a gold ball tells us something about what happened, and we can exclude one box.

>>16789679
Wow! You provided an answer! Very good. Now, what about the way you exclude picking a silver ball first?

Option A: exclude it from what COULD happen
Option B: exclude it from what DID happen

Your answer? (A/B)

>>16789683
You clearly confused what this particular argument is about.

>>16789684
I believe you already know the answer. If you have a point to make why not just do so?

>>16789685
No, I don't think I am

>>16789690
>biobot is broken again

What about the way you exclude picking a silver ball first?

Option A: exclude it from what COULD happen
Option B: exclude it from what DID happen

Your answer? (A/B)

>>16789693
lol. you won't get an answer to this. dumb word "thinkers" shrivel when you take away their ability to shit out rhetoric

>>16789709
You're right, he won't get an answer. He's being obstinate and uncooperative so that's what he gets in return. Maybe if you people had better verbal intelligence you'd realise, firstly, that I've already given an answer, and secondly, that this is not how you get people to see things your way.

Now, the point?

>>16789719
>I've already given an answer
Was your answer A or B? Pretty funny how you have to keep deflecting instead of confidently stating which one it was.

>>16789723
Pretty funny how you have to play condescending games instead of confidently stating what your point is. Again, you reap what you sow. Yes, I will avoid further answering your questions for as long as it takes.

>>16789724
Concession accepted. Word "thinking" retards are extremely predicable. The bio-LLM meme is 100% real and demonstrable.

>>16789737
>Concession accepted
Which point did I concede, exactly? This looks more like a concession on your part considering you stopped short of making any point at all.

P.S:
It really doesn't matter if you choose A or B now. If you choose B, the solution to the problem is 2/3 and not 1/2. If you choose A, you contradict yourself, because you stated here >>16789679 that the rightmost box is excluded only on the B level.

Of course, it's physically impossible for a bio-LLM to understand this argument, but nonetheless, your mistake is now crystal-clear and irrefutable.

>>16789743
I don't even know what you think my position even was at this point. I think you got confused somewhere. I don't believe I disagree with anything here. What was the mistake you think I made?

See how easy that was when you just use your words? This was definitely a concession on your part, lol.

>>16789751
Is >>16788981 your post? Because if not, you're a mentally ill retarded utterly confused about what the contention was.

>>16789753
You're not a very pleasant character I must say.
But I do get your point now. Remember what it took, next time you feel the urge to be a condescending prick again.

>>16789754
>You're not a very pleasant character I must say.
I work hard to make it so. I'm sure you can tell.

>>16789754
>. Remember what it took
And by the way, what it took curtailing your use of natural language. You remember this trick for the next time you need to reason rigorously.

>>16789753
>>16789754
Also it seems to me that you should've called me out before. It was when I was just about to argue with you again that I realised I had contradicted myself. But not in the way you were setting me up for. Answering B first and then A is not necessarily a contradiction, if the manner of exclusion is indeed different. The point is rather that the instructions do assume you can always follow the instructions. So that first B was actually inherently contradictory.

But I guess, in some way, you did help me see it in the end, even if literally none of your arguments did and were, if anything, counterproductive.

>>16789756
No, you make it look very naturally
>>16789761
Lol, no, that wasn't it.

>>16789764
>Answering B first and then A is not necessarily a contradiction, if the manner of exclusion is indeed different.
You see? Please refer back to:
>>16789761
>what it took is curtailing your use of natural language
The moment I open the door to more of your linguistic farting, all bets are off, the schizophasia starts again in full force and full confidence.

>>16789771
Nope, you're still wrong. See what you've done? Though I now agree with your original point, no thanks to your explanation at all, your explanation has now introduced another point of contention that would not even have existed if not for your flawed argument. Your net contribution to this conversation is negative.

>>16789795
The "point of contention" is only in your mentally ill, where your token salad makes sense.

>>16789813
I didn't want to make too big a point of it, because it seemed petty, but for someone who despises "word salad" you make a lot of language mistakes of all kinds. Honestly, an LLM would outperform you handily in this regard. Maybe your dislike of natural language just stems from your dyslexia, rather than any nobler pretence regarding purity of thought?

You're also committing an error in thinking that LLMs "make sense" of things or have any sort of internal life at all. You try to denigrate me by calling me a machine but you anthropomorphise machines.

>>16789820
My verbal IQ is a good 2-3 stdevs above yours, guaranteed. Go get your mental illness treated.

>>16785157 (OP)
Why hasn't anyone made a version with 3 or more gold balls in the first box? It annoys me how people get the correct result via incorrect logic with this one.

>>16789827
Doubtful.

>>16789820
You're committing an error in thinking that you make sense of things or have any sort of internal life at all. I want to say you're clearly too fucking stupid to understand my choice of insult, but is that even the right word to explain the deficiencies of a bio-LLM?

>>16789829
It only seems doubtful to you because you're a retarded word "thinker". You mistakenly believe verbal intelligence is about stringing together words in plausible patterns as a substitute for actual comprehension.

>>16789830
Funny how you course-correct after having your little oversight pointed out to you, then pretend you never committed ot in the first place.
>>16789831
I apologise, "doubtful" was the wrong word. I am certain that you're wrong.

>>16789832
Seethe all you want, but I used my superior verbal IQ to boil the issue down into succinct questions, dispersing your token fart cloud and blocking all your paths towards more schizophasic babble. This mindbroke you. You will shit out dozens of post denying it happened.

>>16789835
You mean you completely confused the issue with your irrelevant babbling till I figured it out by myself and you took credit. I'm also not the one seething here. This will be my last reply on the topic. This petty meta-argument is clearly going nowhere.

>>16789837
>I figured it out by myself
>>16789751
>I don't believe I disagree with anything here.
>>16789754
> do get your point now
>>16789795
>you're still wrong
>now agree with your original point

Kek. You're quite literally losing your mind over this.

>>16789840
>Mr High Verbal IQ completely lost the plot
Damn, couldn't resist pointing out the irony
Seriously though, your inferiority complex is polluting the thread, give it a rest

>>16789837
>will be my last reply
>>16789849
>replies again

Mentally ill 80-verbal-IQ can't into basic coherence.

>>16789850
And yet you somehow failed to comprehend the explicit given explanation for going back on my word (it was to savour the delicious irony of your poor reading comprehension).
I'll admit it's inconsistent, but it's perfectly coherent.

>>16789837
>I figured it out by myself
>>16789751
>I don't believe I disagree with anything here.
>>16789754
>i do get your point now
>>16789795
>you're still wrong
>i now agree with your original point

Mind you, all these statements are actually made by the same person, about the same refutation to the same idiotic post.

>>16789861
>So buckbroken he becomes a broken record
I might as well have not replied lol

>>16789837
>This will be my last reply
>>16789849
>replies again
>>16789855
>replies again
>>16789862
>I might as well have not replied

This is what raging mental illness looks like.

>>16789867
>This is what raging mental illness looks like.
No need to sign your posts lmao
It shouldn't be this easy to dunk on an allegedly intelligent person

>This will be my last reply
>replies again
>replies again
>I might as well have not replied
>replies again
Assuming random spergouts and given the knowledge that he did reply again (4 times) what is the probability that the psychiatric patient will reply again?

>>16789877
You seem to be utterly mystified by the concept of "changing your mind", which truly makes me wonder what the purpose of this conversation even was.
The psychiatric patient, I assume, will reply to the thread again, though without linking the post he's replying to, as in his mind, this scores him a point, or something.

>>16789877
PS nothing screams "spergout" quite so much as chucking a tanty because you think people are being inconsistent
The moment this game changed from tedious meta-argument to me just mercilessly dunking on a special needs kid I felt reinvigorated to keep responding.

>don't be confused by my changing my mind 5 times, sometimes in the middle of the same post
>it's a sign of my verbal intelligence
Given that no one actually cares about this thread anymore, the expected value for this cretin's remaining reply count is (bump_limit - #of current posts) / 2. This is because once the thread hits bump limit, the imaginary audience he's trying to save face with evaporates from his mind.

>>16789889
Your confusion is definitely a sign of your verbal IQ, lol
I like how your own expected reply count is the same as mine, and presumably for the same reasons you attribute to me. That's called projection btw.

>i presume you're a mindbroken retard like me
>i presume everyone is, which is why i believe my attempts to save face will eventually succeed

>>16789897
No presumption involved, you've declared your intent to match me post for post in a pointless and petty exercise in futility, potentially for as long as this thread persists. And you don't even have the satisfaction of being able to outwit your opponent. Is it masochism? Whatever it is, it certainly doesn't offer you any moral high ground.
But one so rational and well-versed in pure logic must surely be aware of that.

I'm not even gonna read its posts anymore. Let's see how many more times I can force it to reply despite its own stated intention to stop.

>>16789909
Always one less time than I will have forced you to reply.

>>16789837
>I figured it out by myself
>>16789751
>I don't believe I disagree with anything here.
>>16789754
>i do get your point now
>>16789795
>you're still wrong
>i now agree with your original point

Mind you, all these statements are actually made by the same person, about the same refutation to the same idiotic post.

>>16789915
Kek you're fucking autistic

>>16789837
>This will be my last reply
>>16789849
>replies again
>>16789855
>replies again
>>16789862
>I might as well have not replied

This is what raging mental illness looks like.

>>16789562
I also made a card version.

https://litter.catbox.moe/vy2n05yjxmqb9q39.html

>>16789923
Post again if you're gay

>>16789924
>no gold balls
Into the trash it goes.

>>16788981
>Trying to be clever but failing. The wording you want in order to unambiguously force 50/50 is "you take a random gold ball"
you're quite literally retarded and projecting

>>16789927
I said ALSO.

boxes and balls:
https://litter.catbox.moe/jljwe6lnmcbwxtmx.html

playing cards:
https://litter.catbox.moe/vy2n05yjxmqb9q39.html

>>16789930
i bet your wife put your balls in some box

>>16789928
How can I be projecting if I'm not the one pretending to be clever by trying to trick people into giving a wrong answer? I may have made a mistake in the wording, myself, but my motives were different from the start, and I wasn't trying to be intentionally obfuscatory.

>>16789935
he tried to one-up everyone else. you tried to one-up him. you both failed miserably and for the same reason. funny stuff, keep it coming

>>16789931
Penis hahaha funny, get it? hahaha

>>16789923
>>16789925
Lol I can't believe that's what it took
Also, you don't seem to have a problem with inconsistency now, do you?
You went back on your intention to match every post I make.
You went back on your declaration that you wouldn't read my posts.
You reversed your stance regarding consistency, which is itself inconsistent.
You're still a poor dyslexic autist trying to grapple with a conversation that moved a little too fast for him. Sad.

>>16789937
>dunking on the biggest retard in the entire thread
Stop beating my dead horse.

>>16789937
My intent was to correct. His was to deceive.

>>16789938
>Penis hahaha funny, get it? hahaha
No, I don't get it. Where's the balls?

>>16789940
Stop beating your dead dick you sad wanker

>>16789930
Some things I'm dissatisfied with:
>silver balls and background are almost same color, can barely see the balls
>on computer, if you click in the wrong part of the cards it will make a text selection highlight on the letter and symbol which makes them change color

>>16789943
Hahaha pussy balls poop haha so funny

>>16789942
looking at some of your other posts, i kinda doubt someone on your level can even judge their own intent, let alone that of others

>>16788231
maybe you will learn English done day. I give it a 50% chance

The groupier spins the wheel without you looking, you're told the number that came up was between 1-18, but not which one.

What do you think is more likely, "box 1" or "box 2"?

>>16789953
Ah, another undeservedly smug idiot. I see it was your own projection earlier, when you assumed my intent.

>>16789954
Irony

>>16789960
ok retard, here's your participation ribbon. be sure to pat yourself on your back for your good intent. lol

this is a well known troll post and everyone in here is a cock sucking double autist for giving a shit

>>16789970
>everyone in here is a cock sucking double autist for giving a shit
That includes you, naturally.

>>16789966
You contributed precisely nothing to this conversation and you're clearly just in it to try to one-up me, and that's a party you're late to. Now, are you also going to come unhinged when repeated attempts to ruffle my feathers will prove fruitless?

>>16789973
i contributed the same as you, maybe even a bit more because i gave you some useful information about yourself

>>16789940
How does it feel that the guy who agrees with you answered 50% to the OP?

>>16789974
Your hubris makes you a hypocrite

>>16789975
You just keep devolving into more incoherence.

>>16789979
Fine, I'll break it down for you, since you need me to.
The Anon you're replying to has a distinctive typing style, which allows us to identify him as the author of >>16789954. Look what he's replying to and follow the chain. He is defending the notion that the OP is a linguistics problem, that maths autists overcomplicate things, and that the answer is 50%. That's your guy lol

>>16789986
I'm not reading any of this, I just want to see how long your mental episode goes on.

>>16789979
>>16789986
PS what happened to not reading my posts?

>>16789987
>Complaining about an alleged lack of coherence in a text you allegedly haven't read
Seems, well, incoherent

>>16789986
>He is defending the notion that the OP is a linguistics problem
holy midwit
do you even know what linguistics is?

>>16789995
I have an MA in linguistics.

>has verbal IQ of 80
>wants to be a linguist
Ouch...

>>16790011
It's all right little buddy, at least you're pretty good at maths, even if you can't explain it all too well

>>16789675
>How does your hand magically know to avoid the last box if the problem species you picked a ball at random?
Why do you need to avoid the last box to not pick the last box if you're picking at random?

>>16790015
>>16790016

>>16790022
>He's started posting selfies because he is unable to verbalise his utter lack of comprehension

Closing this garbage thread now, but the mentally ill mongoloid will 100% reply again, with even more low-verbal-IQ word salad.

>>16790027
You promise?
Bit weird to refer to yourself in third person like that but I can be understanding, I know you struggle with language.

>Both hubristic spergs seem to duck out of the thread at the same time
Was the conspicuous inability to locate the shift key but a mere ploy to cast off suspicions?

>>16790004
So what is linguistics? Why would this problem be a linguistics problem?

>>16790049
>So what is linguistics?
In short, the study of language. Semantics, the study of meaning, is a subfield within linguistics, and probably the relevant link here.
>Why would this problem be a linguistics problem?
Potentially, because there could be a semantic ambiguity that results in two competing valid interpretations leading to different answers.
But in the case of this OP, I wouldn't say that's the case. The language is unambiguous, and any misunderstanding happens on the mathematical level. Or people just can't read, I suppose.

>>16790057
In which way is the post ambiguous? It seems clear as day. Please note the two (or more) interpretations that you think there are

>>16790059
You see, I thought I was pretty unambiguous in stating that I don't think it's a linguistics problem, and yet...

>participation-ribbon retard is still at it
holy shit

>>16790063
>Live-blogging your shitposting in a shitpost
Meta

here, i actually made the best balls simulator. it resolves all linguo-talmudic semiotic meta-ambiguities, letting you rigorously specify the 1/2 problem as well as the 2/3 one
https://jsfiddle.net/ft5z1b6s/2/

>>16790016
Pic sauce?

>>16790066
How do I run it?

>>16785157 (OP)
About tree fiddy