Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
By my argument 10-19 is more likely than 9.
But 10,000-19,999 is ten thousand numbers and since we're talking about a finite set of numbers that’s not randomly generated and ten thousand is more than all the numbers that start with 2-9 that came before it that’s why it’s more likely to start with one. And it keeps happening at 100,000 and 1,000,000 and 100,000,000 and so on. I’m pretty sure this will get circular and if you bother you’ll say yeah but the other numbers continue as well. What makes it intuitive that these numbers are more likely to start with one is that you have to go through one to get to two.
I know this is counterintuitive to many people who unlike me actually understand numbers and math but it seems to me on this one too much knowledge just clutters up the human noggin. I probably have a Dunning–Kruger going but with the data having my back my confidence is sky high.
|
I get what you mean, but as you point out the fact that you compare 10 to 9, and not to 90, hinges on the fact that you go forward through number in increasing size and I don't see why that's valid