Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 03:04:22 07/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
Hi On July 16, 2000 at 03:34:45, Ed Schröder wrote: >>posted by Dann Corbit on July 15, 2000 at 20:21:54: > >>Simplifying. I have a penny. >>I toss it twice. >>Heads, heads. >>I toss it twice >>Heads, heads. >>I toss it twice >>Tails, heads. >>I toss it twice >>Heads, tails. > >>I count them up. > >>Heads are stronger than tails. > >>My conclusion is faulty. Why? Because I did not gather enough data. Yup, another point which is related to this, is that after claiming something (like heads are stronger than tails) do the experiment once more and see whether the claim still holds. This is best illustrated by an example: You throw a penny 1'000'000 times and get a certain order of heads and tails. You could claim now that "if I throw a penny 1'000'000 times, exactly this order occurs". And as a 'proof' you use the example you just did. If you'd do the same example once more, you'd (most prolly) see that the claim is not valid. Or in other words: Claim something and THEN make an experiment to see whether your claim holds. Not vice versa. [Of course making experiments and making a claim is not wrong and usually it happens like this. Just don't think that the claim is already prooven.] Regards, -sargon
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.