Posted by 5GJW on March 21, 1999 at 15:50:05 {MWZNJSg.uPfFk}:
In Reply to: *******Evolutionism and Creationism posted by Case in point --ros on March 21, 1999 at 13:30:51:
Hi Ros
When you first posed this question, I solved it in my head in about 5 seconds. It is a trivial exercise for someone who has studied probability and statistics.
In response to some of your comments:
"Wrong, we said this was "given"; in other words, absolute--not probability nor "what it means." There is proof in the self-evident. There is proof to anyone who can see it, like seeing green if you are not color-blind; but the proof cannot be demonstrated mathematically--at least according to that math instructor."
You are playing word games here, or you have no idea what I am talking about. Assuming the latter, what I was trying to say is that this is how probability as a mathematical term is defined, and I applied this definition to the data that was given.
"You have incorrectly restated the premises. Probability is Not the issue; possibility is. If there were even only two JWs in the group of 100 people, the
probability of them being paired certainly would be very low--but possible and therefore the statement (as I stated it, not as you did) that:
In ANY combination of two people, at least one is Catholic...cannot be true."
I have not incorrectly restated the premises. The statement that at least one must be C is mathematically equivalent to the statement that both cannot be J. Equations that equal zero are often the easiest to solve, that is why I restated the problem. Calculating the probability of an event is how you find out if something is possible, or probable.
"You said:
These events are not mutually exclusive, the first selection changes the probability of the second selection.
Wrong again. The first statement by itself could mean that all are C or all are J. The second statement simply eliminates this as a possibility--a necessary component for the puzzle."
No, I am correct, and you are mistaken. All that I mean when I say that the two events are not mutually exclusive is that the first person is selected from a group of 100, and the next person is selected from a group of 99. The selection of the first person changes the probability of a particular selection being made when you select the second person. Contrast this to rolling dice, when the results are mutually exclusive, a prior roll of 6 does not change the chance that the next roll will be a 6.
"Except, as stated, you have introduced the component of "probability" which has no place in this puzzle. And you don't have any basis for the above equation of "probability of 2J or Number of Js -1/99 from the original problem. Your equation makes no sense for solving the problem. That's because you were right in the first place. Its not provable mathematically."
I just did prove it, you just don't understand basic probability and statistics. Your math instructor mislead you, this is a trivial problem.
5GJW, a severe lefty, and therefore very much right brained