Doubling the cube - Revision history

en>Loraof: /* top */ wikilink

2015-01-12T21:25:43Z

top: wikilink

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:25, 12 January 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~The~~ '~~''inverse gambler's fallacy''', named by philosopher [[Ian Hacking]], is a [[formal fallacy]] of [[Bayesian inference]] which is an inverse of the better known [[gambler's fallacy]]~~. ~~It is~~ the ~~fallacy of concluding, on the basis of an unlikely outcome of a [[random]] process, that the process is likely~~ to ~~have occurred many times before~~. ~~For example, if one observes~~ a ~~pair of fair [[dice]] being rolled~~ and ~~turning up double sixes, it~~ is ~~wrong to suppose that this lends any support to~~ the ~~hypothesis that the dice have been rolled many times before. We can see this from the Bayesian update rule: letting~~ '~~'U'' denote the unlikely outcome~~ of ~~the random process and ''M'' the proposition that the process has occurred many times before, we have~~		I'm Yoshiko Oquendo. Some time in the past I selected to reside in Arizona but I require to transfer for my family members. I am a cashier and I'll be promoted soon. Bottle tops collecting is the only hobby his wife doesn't approve of.<br><br>Also visit my site [http://cdndalat.Edu.vn/UserProfile/tabid/57/userId/34035/Default.aspx car warranty]

	: <~~math~~>~~P(M\|U) = P(M) \frac{P(U\|M)}{P(U)}~~<~~/math~~>

	and since ''P''(''U''\|''M'') = ''P''(''U'') (the outcome of the process is unaffected by previous occurrences), it follows that ''P''(''M''\|''U'') = ''P''(''M''); that is, our confidence in ''M'' should be unchanged when we learn ''U''.

	~~== Real-world examples ==~~

	The inverse gambler's fallacy is unquestionably a fallacy, but there is disagreement over whether and where it has been committed in practice. In his original paper,<ref>Ian Hacking, ''The Inverse Gambler's Fallacy: The Argument from Design. The Anthropic Principle Applied to Wheeler Universes''. ''Mind'' 96:~~383 (July 1987), pp. 331–340. {{doi\|10.1093~~/~~mind~~/~~XCVI~~.~~383~~.~~331}}<~~/ref> Hacking takes as his main example a certain response to the [[argument from design]]. The argument from design asserts, first, that the universe is [[fine-tuned universe\|fine tuned]] to support life, and second, that this fine tuning points to the existence of an intelligent designer. The rebuttal attacked by Hacking consists of accepting the first premise, but rejecting the second on the grounds that our (big bang) universe is just one in a long ''sequence'' of universes, and that the fine tuning merely shows that there have been many other (poorly tuned) universes preceding this one. Hacking draws a sharp distinction between this argument and the argument that all possible worlds coexist in some non-temporal sense. He proposes that these arguments, often treated as minor variations of one another, should be considered fundamentally different because one is formally invalid while the other is not.

	~~A rebuttal paper<ref>John Leslie, ''No Inverse Gambler's Fallacy in Cosmology.'' ''Mind'' 97:386 (April 1988), pp. 269–272. {{doi\|10.1093~~/~~mind~~/~~XCVII.386.269}}<~~/ref> by [[John A. Leslie\|John Leslie]] points out a difference between the observation of double sixes and the observation of fine tuning, namely that the former is not necessary (the roll could have come out different) while the latter is necessary (our universe [[anthropic principle\|must support life]], which means ''ex hypothesi'' that we must see fine tuning). He suggests the following analogy: instead of being summoned into a room to observe a particular roll of the dice, we are told that we will be summoned into the room immediately after a roll of double sixes. In this situation it may be quite reasonable, upon being summoned, to conclude with high confidence that we are not seeing the first roll. In particular, if we know that the dice are fair and that the rolling would not have been stopped before double sixes turned up, then the probability that we are seeing the first roll is at most 1/36. However, the probability will be 1 if the roller has control over the outcome using omnipotence and omniscience which [[monotheism\|believers]] attribute to the creator. But if the roller doesn't have such powers, the probability may even be less than 1/~~36 because we have not assumed that the roller is obliged to summon us the first time double sixes come up.~~

	Suppose a man walked into a room and saw someone rolling a pair of dice. Furthermore, imagine that the result of this dice roll is a double-six. The man entering the room would commit the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy if he said, "You've probably been rolling the dice for quite a while, since it's unlikely you would get a double-six on your first attempt."

	~~==See also==~~
	~~{{Portal\|Mathematics}}~~
	* [[Gambler's fallacy]]
	* [[Gambler's conceit]]

	~~==References==~~
	~~<references/>~~

	~~{{Formal_Fallacy}}~~

	~~[[Category:Causal fallacies]]~~
	~~[[Category:Gambling terminology]~~]

en>WhiteMonkey: /* Using a marked ruler */ Defined the starting triangle from the diagram

2013-11-24T13:03:44Z

Using a marked ruler: Defined the starting triangle from the diagram

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:03, 24 November 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Did you understand~~ which ~~almost 9 out~~ of ~~10 folks with newly diagnosed sort 2 diabetes are obese? If you are overweight, losing some weight could assist we~~ better ~~manage a diabetes~~. ~~Weight Loss Matters~~ is an ~~American Diabetes Association system~~ that ~~will help you lose fat and take care of~~ the ~~diabetes~~. ~~You are able to lose weight~~ and ~~keep~~ it ~~off.<br><br>One thing I wish~~ to ~~caution we about is~~ to ~~never eat under 1200 calories for ladies or 1500 calories for men. This really is~~ the ~~lowest amount of calories~~ that ~~a body~~ can ~~consume and still do daily existence functions. If you are already eating~~ this ~~amount~~ of ~~calories~~, we ~~will already be at a ideal fat. This is determined by checking a [http~~:/~~/safedietplans.com/bmi-chart bmi chart]. These are everywhere online, so simply plug~~ the ~~terms "bmi chart" into a look engine. However after finding a BMI,; in~~ the ~~event you do see which you are considered overeweight~~, ~~fat, etc~~; ~~then the technique for you to get~~ that ~~negative caloric consumption would~~ be ~~from exercise~~.<br>~~<br>He asked me for advice~~, ~~which I was more than happy~~ to ~~provide~~. ~~A year later~~, ~~Jim has not only lost several bmi chart men pounds, nevertheless also felt better and more energetic~~. ~~He is today not only able to rest correctly yet also perform~~ his ~~regular escapades without~~ a ~~problem~~. He is ~~usually full of stamina plus enthusiasm!<br><br>Needless~~ to ~~say~~, ~~its not usually black~~ and ~~white~~. ~~We know which females tend to have a higher percentage~~ of ~~body fat than men~~, ~~even if they are~~ the ~~same weight and height, plus thus have~~ the ~~same BMI.~~ (~~Sorry, women.~~) ~~Also~~, the ~~elder we receive, we tend to~~ have ~~more body fat than younger adults~~. ~~And again, athletes~~ and ~~quite muscular individuals like bodybuilders can not have an accurate BMI according for this method.<br><br>The ideal weight for ladies of~~ the ~~medium frame measuring 64~~-~~67 inches is between 124-147 pounds~~. ~~This leads to a lot~~ of ~~variance inside what will~~ be considered ~~an perfect fat~~. ~~Women ought to be accorded for each inch over 5 feet~~ (1.~~52 m)~~. So a ~~female who~~ is 52 (~~1.57m~~) ~~has an perfect fat of 110 pounds~~ (~~49.89 kg~~).~~<br><br>BMI refuses~~ to ~~measure body fat directly bmi chart women~~, ~~but it relates closely to direct measures~~ of ~~body fat~~. ~~For adults~~, ~~BMI is interpreted while factors like sex or age~~ are not ~~taken in account~~.~~<br><br>It is vital~~ that ~~while functioning out~~ the ~~BMI~~, the ~~body frame plus build moreover be taken into consideration~~. So, the ~~BMI by itself could not~~ be ~~exact for a weight trainer, a pregnant female, or an athlete. Folks that are~~ over ~~60 years of age cannot calculate their BMI by this tool because their bones begin~~ to ~~weigh less due to old age~~.~~<br><br>Unfortunately far too several children~~ have ~~considerably more body fat then that, plus you~~, because ~~adults and their parents, are failing them. They will likely~~ not ~~thank~~ us ~~inside years to~~ come ~~for failing them in~~ this ~~way~~. ~~Dont blame~~ the ~~overweight child. Blame~~ the ~~parent~~, ~~if there is any blame. Some is due to genetics or illness~~, ~~yet only~~ a ~~comparatively especially little amount~~.		The '''inverse gambler's fallacy''', named by philosopher [[Ian Hacking]], is a [[formal fallacy]] of [[Bayesian inference]] which is an inverse of the better known [[gambler's fallacy]]. It is the fallacy of concluding, on the basis of an unlikely outcome of a [[random]] process, that the process is likely to have occurred many times before. For example, if one observes a pair of fair [[dice]] being rolled and turning up double sixes, it is wrong to suppose that this lends any support to the hypothesis that the dice have been rolled many times before. We can see this from the Bayesian update rule: letting ''U'' denote the unlikely outcome of the random process and ''M'' the proposition that the process has occurred many times before, we have

			: <math>P(M\|U) = P(M) \frac{P(U\|M)}{P(U)}</math>

			and since ''P''(''U''\|''M'') = ''P''(''U'') (the outcome of the process is unaffected by previous occurrences), it follows that ''P''(''M''\|''U'') = ''P''(''M''); that is, our confidence in ''M'' should be unchanged when we learn ''U''.

			== Real-world examples ==

			The inverse gambler's fallacy is unquestionably a fallacy, but there is disagreement over whether and where it has been committed in practice. In his original paper,<ref>Ian Hacking, ''The Inverse Gambler's Fallacy: The Argument from Design. The Anthropic Principle Applied to Wheeler Universes''. ''Mind'' 96:383 (July 1987), pp. 331–340. {{doi\|10.1093/mind/XCVI.383.331}}</ref> Hacking takes as his main example a certain response to the [[argument from design]]. The argument from design asserts, first, that the universe is [[fine-tuned universe\|fine tuned]] to support life, and second, that this fine tuning points to the existence of an intelligent designer. The rebuttal attacked by Hacking consists of accepting the first premise, but rejecting the second on the grounds that our (big bang) universe is just one in a long ''sequence'' of universes, and that the fine tuning merely shows that there have been many other (poorly tuned) universes preceding this one. Hacking draws a sharp distinction between this argument and the argument that all possible worlds coexist in some non-temporal sense. He proposes that these arguments, often treated as minor variations of one another, should be considered fundamentally different because one is formally invalid while the other is not.

			A rebuttal paper<ref>John Leslie, ''No Inverse Gambler's Fallacy in Cosmology.'' ''Mind'' 97:386 (April 1988), pp. 269–272. {{doi\|10.1093/mind/XCVII.386.269}}</ref> by [[John A. Leslie\|John Leslie]] points out a difference between the observation of double sixes and the observation of fine tuning, namely that the former is not necessary (the roll could have come out different) while the latter is necessary (our universe [[anthropic principle\|must support life]], which means ''ex hypothesi'' that we must see fine tuning). He suggests the following analogy: instead of being summoned into a room to observe a particular roll of the dice, we are told that we will be summoned into the room immediately after a roll of double sixes. In this situation it may be quite reasonable, upon being summoned, to conclude with high confidence that we are not seeing the first roll. In particular, if we know that the dice are fair and that the rolling would not have been stopped before double sixes turned up, then the probability that we are seeing the first roll is at most 1/36. However, the probability will be 1 if the roller has control over the outcome using omnipotence and omniscience which [[monotheism\|believers]] attribute to the creator. But if the roller doesn't have such powers, the probability may even be less than 1/36 because we have not assumed that the roller is obliged to summon us the first time double sixes come up.

			Suppose a man walked into a room and saw someone rolling a pair of dice. Furthermore, imagine that the result of this dice roll is a double-six. The man entering the room would commit the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy if he said, "You've probably been rolling the dice for quite a while, since it's unlikely you would get a double-six on your first attempt."

			==See also==
			{{Portal\|Mathematics}}
			* [[Gambler's fallacy]]
			* [[Gambler's conceit]]

			==References==
			<references/>

			{{Formal_Fallacy}}

			[[Category:Causal fallacies]]
			[[Category:Gambling terminology]]

en>Annielogue: /* History */ link

2012-08-31T07:33:38Z

History: link

New page

Did you understand which almost 9 out of 10 folks with newly diagnosed sort 2 diabetes are obese? If you are overweight, losing some weight could assist we better manage a diabetes. Weight Loss Matters is an American Diabetes Association system that will help you lose fat and take care of the diabetes. You are able to lose weight and keep it off. One thing I wish to caution we about is to never eat under 1200 calories for ladies or 1500 calories for men. This really is the lowest amount of calories that a body can consume and still do daily existence functions. If you are already eating this amount of calories, we will already be at a ideal fat. This is determined by checking a [http://safedietplans.com/bmi-chart bmi chart]. These are everywhere online, so simply plug the terms "bmi chart" into a look engine. However after finding a BMI,; in the event you do see which you are considered overeweight, fat, etc; then the technique for you to get that negative caloric consumption would be from exercise. He asked me for advice, which I was more than happy to provide. A year later, Jim has not only lost several bmi chart men pounds, nevertheless also felt better and more energetic. He is today not only able to rest correctly yet also perform his regular escapades without a problem. He is usually full of stamina plus enthusiasm! Needless to say, its not usually black and white. We know which females tend to have a higher percentage of body fat than men, even if they are the same weight and height, plus thus have the same BMI. (Sorry, women.) Also, the elder we receive, we tend to have more body fat than younger adults. And again, athletes and quite muscular individuals like bodybuilders can not have an accurate BMI according for this method. The ideal weight for ladies of the medium frame measuring 64-67 inches is between 124-147 pounds. This leads to a lot of variance inside what will be considered an perfect fat. Women ought to be accorded for each inch over 5 feet (1.52 m). So a female who is 52 (1.57m) has an perfect fat of 110 pounds (49.89 kg). BMI refuses to measure body fat directly bmi chart women, but it relates closely to direct measures of body fat. For adults, BMI is interpreted while factors like sex or age are not taken in account. It is vital that while functioning out the BMI, the body frame plus build moreover be taken into consideration. So, the BMI by itself could not be exact for a weight trainer, a pregnant female, or an athlete. Folks that are over 60 years of age cannot calculate their BMI by this tool because their bones begin to weigh less due to old age. Unfortunately far too several children have considerably more body fat then that, plus you, because adults and their parents, are failing them. They will likely not thank us inside years to come for failing them in this way. Dont blame the overweight child. Blame the parent, if there is any blame. Some is due to genetics or illness, yet only a comparatively especially little amount.