Music Banter
Page 44 of 52 « First 344243 44 4546 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   Mindful Science! (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/92723-mindful-science.html)

Frownland 07-22-2020 10:03 AM
Mindfulness gone socratic

Plankton 07-22-2020 10:28 AM
That's 'Mr. Sew Crates' if yer nasty.

OccultHawk 08-15-2020 01:25 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...d-physical.svg

Quote:
Benford's law, also called the Newcomb–Benford law, the law of anomalous numbers, or the first-digit law, is an observation about the frequency distribution of leading digits in many real-life sets of numerical data. The law states that in many naturally occurring collections of numbers, the leading significant digit is likely to be small.[1] For example, in sets that obey the law, the number 1 appears as the leading significant digit about 30% of the time, while 9 appears as the leading significant digit less than 5% of the time. If the digits were distributed uniformly, they would each occur about 11.1% of the time.[2] Benford's law also makes predictions about the distribution of second digits, third digits, digit combinations, and so on.

grindy 08-15-2020 01:54 PM
What's mindful about that?

OccultHawk 08-15-2020 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grindy (Post 2131072)
What's mindful about that?
Nothing except maybe some mathematicians want to over think it. As long as something is finite it has to end somewhere and since one comes first there’s nothing mysterious about about why it’s the most common landing spot. Every time you add another comma you get another one only sometimes do you make it two or higher. Every time you pass one you go to two but to get to three you have to make it past one and two. It’s a good thing to know for pattern spotting but it’s not oooh spooky. That’s all. Maybe you or Marie can tell me why I’m wrong or oversimplifying it.

Marie Monday 08-15-2020 04:22 PM
But
1. Your argument hinges on the idea of going through numbers in order of increasing magnitude while in some cases higher numbers are more likely than lower ones. I don't think it's a valid way of looking at it
2. Even if it were, then by your reasoning you would land on 4.9 before 5.1, making the 4.9 more likely

OccultHawk 08-15-2020 04:37 PM
Quote:
Your argument hinges on the idea of going through numbers in order of increasing magnitude while in some cases higher numbers are more likely than lower ones. I don't think it's a valid way of looking at it
Yeah but 900 - 999 is just a hundred numbers But 1000 - 1999 is a thousand numbers

Quote:
Even if it were, then by your reasoning you would land on 4.9 before 5.1, making the 4.9 more likely
Does it hold up using decimals?

Marie Monday 08-15-2020 11:47 PM
Oh wait I misread the original post, never mind the second argument. Still it could be restated as 9 being, by your arguments, more likely than 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 2131093)
Yeah but 900 - 999 is just a hundred numbers But 1000 - 1999 is a thousand numbers
But 9000 - 9999 is also a thousand numbers

OccultHawk 08-16-2020 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie Monday (Post 2131190)
Oh wait I misread the original post, never mind the second argument. Still it could be restated as 9 being, by your arguments, more likely than 10
By my argument 10-19 is more likely than 9.


Quote:
But 9000 - 9999 is also a thousand numbers

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.

Marie Monday 08-16-2020 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 2131214)
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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:37 PM.
Page 44 of 52 « First 344243 44 4546 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.