




| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Zoople |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
|
I do have loads more stuff to post in this thread, but i thought id start with a comic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
EmMa1984 |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
AirPrang |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
|
On the topic of negative numbers...
Zoop, the other weekend when I was out in the scrub with three engineering types we somehow got on to the subject of negative numbers. It was towards the end of the day when we were climbing up a long hill and my brain just wasn't coping with the idea that a negative number really could have a square root, but my gentlemen friends persevered with their explanations until - epiphany! Eureka! I finally got it! It was a real Zoople moment and if I'd had my mobile phone and reception I would've rung you in celebration! (I only wish there was a way of contacting my Year 12 maths teacher and letting her know too. |
|||
Survivoreviver |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
|
You're doing better than me. Complex numbers were something that I furrowed my brow at. Up to that point maths had been making more and more sense. Calculus was particularly illuminating. And then came along complex numbers to screw everything up.
What I don't like about them is that they seem to be an artificial construct. My mathematical friends tended to agree but said "They're very useful for solving certain sorts of equations." I'm no mathematician but I would say that a negative number doesn't really have a square root, but that in our mathematical system we've invented a particular sort of entity which we've defined to be the square root of a negative number. |
|||
AirPrang |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
|
Yup, and you'd be right. That's my problem too: I kept asking to see how it all works on paper or in the real world, and the square root of a negative number is very much an artificial construct. However, that's how all three of them working together eventually got me to understand how it works, by explaining that it doesn't really exist but has practical application in problem solving.
They had trouble understanding why someone like me who can accept imaginery worlds, literary characters, and concepts that could never exist in reality and so on at face value just couldn't get my head around a number that only exists as a concept, not in reality. Jolly good fun was had by all though. |
|||
TheRealInspectorHound |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
|
I know a few mathematicians who maintain that the square roots of negative numbers do exist, it's reality that's the problem.
|
|||
Zoople |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
|
Yeah, complex numbers are funny things, you can't really say they exist, but you can't really say that they don't, but, withouth them, lots of things wouldnt be possible. Its surprising the amount of times the complex numbers pop up in real world situations and not just hypotheticals.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
Survivoreviver |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
Zoople |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
|
I neglected my poor thread last semester, so you all missed out on learning great and wonderful things about groups and subgroups and cosets and such. But this semester im doing heaps good subjects like cryptology, so that will be fun!
Thought id post this picture to get it started again. If you laugh, it means you must be at least a little bit geeky. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
TheMoleAustralia |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
|
|
|||
Survivoreviver |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
AirPrang |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
|
Well I like it.
This is all Srev's fault. I followed him over to the site and can't stop hitting the random button. Or maybe it's my fault for not exercising self control.
|
|||
Zoople |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
|
God, ive abandoned this thread so much, if this thread for a woman, she would cheated on me about 10 times. But anyway, thought i'd put something here.
Here is a really good example of a Paradox that we learned. For those playing at home, a paradox is something with a no answer, so like; what came first, the chicken or the egg? is a paradox. If i said to you "everything i say is a lie", that's a paradox, because am I lying about lying? They mess with your head a bit, but it's an interesting mental workout. Here's a really clever one: --- FInd: A NUMBER WHICH CAN NOT BE EXPRESSED IN UNDER TWELVE WORDS When I say expressed in words, i mean like... 102 can be expressed in words as "One Hundred and Two" 12 can be expressed in words as "A dozen" 2007 can be expressed in words as "The current year" 4 can be expressed in words as "The number of sides on a square" etc.. So, does this number (which can't be expressed in under 12 words) exist? Well, numbers are infinite. But, words are finite (only so many of them). So, there are only so many sentences that you can possibly make of 12 words or less. So, there are only so many numbers that you can express in under 12 words or less. Let's agree that because of this, we definitely CAN find at least one number that can not be described in under twelve words. BUT!!! We can describe this number as: "A NUMBER WHICH CAN NOT BE EXPRESSED IN UNDER TWELVE WORDS" And this sentence is only 11 words long! So, that's to say we CAN'T find this number CAN we or CANT we?!!!! This is a paradox ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
AirPrang |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
|
Coolness. You have been missed, Mr Z.
|
|||
Survivoreviver |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
|
The problem with that paradox is that it does not precisely define the number, only a property of the number. Each of the examples which you gave was an expression in words which precisely defined the number.
If you allow descriptions of classes of numbers rather than precise numbers, then every integer could be expressed as "an integer", every real number as "a real number" and so on, so you would probably never get such a number anyway. So it's not a paradox if the verbal description of the number is required to precisely identify the number. |
|||
Zoople |
Re: Zoople's random maths findings | ||
|
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_paradox
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
Zoople |
Gambler's Fallacy | ||
|
Hello again friends. Now that I work for a gaming company, I'll bet you all will be listening VERY carefully at what I have to say about maths from here on
in hehehe. I'm gonna (carefully) do a few posts about gambling to inform everyone here about certain concepts.
The first one I want to talk about is the Gambler's Fallacy: If i flip a coin 100 times and it lands on heads. What are the odds of it landing on heads next time? If you said anything but 1 in 2 (or 50% or 50/50) you were wrong. The past flips DO NOT affect the next flip. You may be thinking...but a tail is DUE.This is wrong. The coin doesn't know how often it has landed on heads. There's no such thing as "catching up". And even if there was, how do you know that before you got there i flipped the coins 1000 times and got a tail every time? The coin does need to eventually have landed on heads the same number of times as tails...but it's got an eternity to do this. You might look at the situation as a whole and say, well the odds of getting 100 heads is pretty small and 101 would be ever smaller. The more and more heads that come up, the more and more unlikely the situation is. But think of it this way. The odds of: H,H,H,H,...H,H,H is the same is H,H,H,H,...H,H,T Because the odds of a head is the same as the odds of a tail. So even by looking it as a whole, it's still the same probability. Sure you might be in an extremely unlikely situation because of what's happened, but unfortunately...there's no escaping it. You see people in roulette marking down the previous numbers or the number of reds or blacks. Why would casinos LET you take notes in Roulette or other games of chance like this. Do you think they really want to help you? No! It's because they know it wont make a difference. You don't see them giving out pens and papers at the Black Jack table to you? So, how can you avoid the Gambler's Fallacy? The best advice I can give you about ANY gambling is to NEVER change your bet. I'll talk a bit more about that next time. But, think of it this way. Imagine being blindfolded, throwing darts at random trying to hit a target. Now...imagine that target moving all the time. ![]()
![]()
|
|||
Survivoreviver |
|||
|
Working for a gaming company, then, you can probably answer this - electronic gaming machines, such as poker machines, can be "fixed" by their owners
to deliver a particular payout. For instance, you walk around Vegas and places boast of their machines delivering a "high" 96% payout. (Of course,
that doesn't mean everyone gets 196% back - it means that, on average, you get back only 96% of what you put in.)
So how is it that these machines can deliver a set return to their owner whilst still being random? Surely, if a machine is paying out at more than the rate set by management, the machine ensures that the next few pulls are not truly random but will deliver losing results in order to bring the payout rate back into favour? IE - electronic gambling machines are not truly "random". Or, is it that the payout scales are adjusted so that, provided the draw is purely random, the options for "winning" are limited so that, on average, the machine will return the required rate? In that case you could be truly random. For example, the way the house wins on Roulette is by having the zero. There are 37 numbers in all (0-36) but the house only pays out 36 times if you bet on the right number. So the house should always come out ahead, on average, without needing to fix the game.
Last Edited By: Survivoreviver
25-Sep-09 04:02 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Survivoreviver |
|||
The best advice I can give you about ANY gambling is to NEVER change your bet.The best advice I can give you about ANY gambing is - don't do it, unless it's rigged in your favour in a foolproof way. As for never changing your bet - that is good for fixed probability random gambling, but not for stuff like (for instance) horse races or sporting matches. If you know one horse is terribly sick and is highly unlikely to perform well, and you have the chance to change your bet from that horse to another horse, you'd do it. |
|||
Zoople |
|||
Or, is it that the payout scales are adjusted so that, provided the draw is purely random, the options for "winning" are limited so that, on average, the machine will return the required rate? In that case you could be truly random.Yep. Gaming machines HAVE to be random. They are extremely heavily regulated. There are absolutely NO provisions to "start paying out" at any time.I will do a post on this shortly. I'm going to focus on the Big Money Wheel because it's really popular but is a prime example of how things can be cleverly rigged to feel fair but not be. ![]()
![]()
|
|||