#math - Mon 26 Mar 2007 between 00:00 and 00:07

NY Lost Funds



TRWBWSafrole: the greeks had a school of rhetoric called sophistry that was focussed solely on convincing people of things that were false
SafroleDo you really want to play with semantics futurist?
I've heard that before TRWBW, that is interesting.
futuristsafrole if by 'play with semantics' you mean 'speak clearly' then yes
TRWBWSafrole: and they also developed mathematical logic. they were aware of the distinction between being convincing and being logical.
SafroleDo you want to play this game, where I break out the Oxford English Dictionary and we interpret definitions?
It's highly unproductive.
futuristthe point is what being 'logical' means in the formal study of logic, not various colloquial senses
logic and mathematics are not incompatible disciplines
Safrolesure they are
actionTRWBW regrets playing along with this #not-math, it's no fun and now it's as much my fault as anyones
TRWBWregrets playing along with this #not-math, it's no fun and now it's as much my fault as anyones
actionTRWBW hangs his head
TRWBWhangs his head
[ALx]a 10 question test, each question has 5 possible answers, the theoretical probability that a person gets 1 anser correct is 1/5 = .2 , 30 persons take the test , what is the theoretical probability that out of the 30 persons none get any question out of the 50 choices they get to make ?
futuristsafrole have you studied logic?
holstSafrole: you dont have to walk so far. even wikiepdia has some interesting stuff about it
Safrolefuturist have you studied mathematics?
TRWBWALx: theoretical probability is a funny term. what do you mean by that?
[ALx]i dont knwo lol, its for a stats project
futuristmm hmm
happytronas opposed to subjective probability?
futuristbut you didn't answer my question, anyway
saimazoonhello
[ALx]helloi
futuristi find it hard to believe that someone who's taken a math course and a logic course would say "math is illogical"
proofs in mathematics go through in classical deductive logic
TRWBWALx: the probability of getting one right means getting one right and the rest wrong, so 10*(1/5)*(4/5)^9, or about 27 percent of the time according to my calculator.
SafroleI could use logic to construct many arguments regarding real numbers that are just plain false mathematically.
happytronit might be fair to say that much of the actual work done by mathematicians is based on some form of intuition...
CaleSafrole: oh?
Latino3+3i
TRWBWALx: assuming people pick their answers randomly
happytronbut the proofs, in the end, are logical
[ALx]what kind of formula or what stats subject could i use to figure that out, like if 30 ppl take the test what is the probability none of them get any questions right, out of the 10 questions each answered that each had 5 answers and only 1 correct one
CaleSafrole: what, by assuming things which mathematics doesn't assume?
futurist*groan*, first of all, arguments don't have truth values
gzlSafrole: can you?
futuristthey're valid or invalid
SafroleCale: my sole point is that logicians and mathematicians are very different. They are not isomorphic disciplines.
TRWBWALx: if i understand it's very simple. there are 30*10 answers being given, each completely independent, each wrong 4/5 of the time. the odds that they are all wrong is (4/5)^(300)
CaleSafrole: What sort of thing could you "argue logically" about the reals which isn't true mathematically?

Page: 2 9 16 23 30 37 44 51 58 65 72 

IrcArchive

NY Lost Funds