But, I ... I ... but ... <cry> ... </cry>Quote: Wizard... statman was just permanently banned.
Quote: WizardYou guys will have to figure it out yourselves, statman was just permanently banned.
Dang.
Looks like the board's gonna need a new mole.
whackamole
Quote: WizardYou guys will have to figure it out yourselves, statman was just permanently banned.
I guess that means I'm back to being the mathematical laggard on the board?
Well, I now suspect he committed the same sort of rule violation as Jerry Logan: multiple identities combined with a very bad attitude. Perhaps exacerbated by disrespect for our host.Quote: weaselmanWas he Jerry Logan?
Edit: Whoops! A couple of posts disappeared while I was typing that.
Quote: boymimboI think that Caribou (now removed) was the same as statman and the Wizard was able to see the IP match on that. And I am betting that some of the PMs that statman left either in the Wizard's or another's mailbox was inappropriate, causing the nuclear button to be pressed. Although some of his posts were unpleasant, it wasn't anything on the scale that I've seen on this forum.
Yes, Caribou is the same person as statman. A play straight out of Jerry Logan's playbook. Let me know if you suspect other clones.
As I said before, there is more to the banning than just his posts. That is all I will say for now.
Quote: rdw4potusI guess that means I'm back to being the mathematical laggard on the board?
I definitely have you lapped for that title my friend!!!!
Quote: WizardYes, Caribou is the same person as statman. A play straight out of Jerry Logan's playbook. Let me know if you suspect other clones.
As I said before, there is more to the banning than just his posts. That is all I will say for now.
I wondered if the IP was from a certain area of Arizona....
Quote: boymimboWell each person is either lying or telling the truth. There are therefore 16 outcomes. The odds of each person telling the truth is 1/3. So, if all four people are telling the truth, the odds of that happening is 1/81. (1/3*1/3*1/3*1/3).
Back on topic.
Why are we multiplying these probabilities? Clearly, they are not independent. For example, if A,B, and C all are telling the truth, then the probability of D telling the truth is 1, not 1/3.
Quote: weaselmanBack on topic.
Why are we multiplying these probabilities? Clearly, they are not independent. For example, if A,B, and C all are telling the truth, then the probability of D telling the truth is 1, not 1/3.
I still contend that as soon as statman misquoted the problem, this became the answer. All the other statements became dependent on the fact that D tells the truth 1/3 of the time, rather than the other way around.
Quote: MoscaI still contend that as soon as statman misquoted the problem, this became the answer. All the other statements became dependent on the fact that D tells the truth 1/3 of the time, rather than the other way around.
I don't think statman misquoted the problem. The two givens are (1) A, B, C, D tell the truth with p(1/3) independently, and (2) A affirms that B denies that C declares that D is a liar. The question is "what is the probability that D is telling the truth if both (1) and (2) are true". Here's a writeup I found in Google Books:
"Eddington", by S. Chandrasekhar
Eddington calculated the result of 25/71 (correctly, under his assumptions, despite what statman said before). I arrived at 13/41 under a different set of assumptions, namely that A through D all said something relevant.
Quote: MathExtremist... if D has said nothing, the probability of D having spoken the truth is zero.
God, having said nothing to date, has never spoke the truth?
Interesting. Maybe silence is the only real truth/lie.