Mindful Science!

**Frownland** · 07-22-2020, 11:03 AM

Mindfulness gone socratic

Plankton · 07-22-2020, 11:28 AM

That's 'Mr. Sew Crates' if yer nasty.

OccultHawk · 08-15-2020, 02:25 PM

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law

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.

Mindy · 08-15-2020, 02:31 PM

grindy · 08-15-2020, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law

What's mindful about that?

OccultHawk · 08-15-2020, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindy

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, 05:22 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, 05:37 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** · 08-16-2020, 12:47 AM

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

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, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marie Monday

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.

07-22-2020, 11:03 AM	#661 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	Mindfulness gone socratic __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

07-22-2020, 11:28 AM	#662 (permalink)
Plankton Just Keep Swimming... Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: See signature... Posts: 7,765	That's 'Mr. Sew Crates' if yer nasty. __________________ See location...

08-15-2020, 02:31 PM	#664 (permalink)
Mindy ask me about cosmology Join Date: Oct 2016 Location: Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 9,023	__________________ https://www.instagram.com/shhons_meme_agency