Recommended online casinos

DorothyGale
DorothyGale
DorothyGale
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 639
Joined: Nov 23, 2009
October 26th, 2011 at 3:54:15 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

... statman was just permanently banned.

But, I ... I ... but ... <cry> ... </cry>
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
weaselman
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
October 26th, 2011 at 4:45:55 PM permalink
Was he Jerry Logan?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
MrV
MrV
MrV
  • Threads: 364
  • Posts: 8158
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
October 26th, 2011 at 5:45:27 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

You 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
"What, me worry?"
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
October 26th, 2011 at 7:35:36 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

You 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?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
Doc
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
October 27th, 2011 at 11:58:02 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Was he Jerry Logan?

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.


Edit: Whoops! A couple of posts disappeared while I was typing that.
boymimbo
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
October 27th, 2011 at 12:13:40 PM permalink
I 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.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Mosca
Mosca
Mosca
  • Threads: 191
  • Posts: 4140
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
October 27th, 2011 at 12:29:36 PM permalink
He'd passed his expiration date, both literally and figuratively. It was beyond fun and into embarrassing. I'm sure he was most likely quite competent when he was younger.
A falling knife has no handle.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Wizard
  • Threads: 1493
  • Posts: 26489
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
October 27th, 2011 at 1:07:31 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

I 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.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
avargov
avargov
avargov
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 615
Joined: Aug 5, 2010
October 27th, 2011 at 2:10:43 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

I guess that means I'm back to being the mathematical laggard on the board?



I definitely have you lapped for that title my friend!!!!
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes." ~ William Gibson
thecesspit
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
October 27th, 2011 at 2:17:13 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

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.



I wondered if the IP was from a certain area of Arizona....
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
boymimbo
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
October 27th, 2011 at 3:56:46 PM permalink
Geez, eh, and he posed as a Canadian, eh? Perhaps I am statman.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
weaselman
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
October 30th, 2011 at 7:48:22 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

Well 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.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Mosca
Mosca
Mosca
  • Threads: 191
  • Posts: 4140
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
October 30th, 2011 at 8:32:28 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

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.



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.
A falling knife has no handle.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
October 30th, 2011 at 11:37:47 AM permalink
Quote: Mosca

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.


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.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Garnabby
Garnabby
Garnabby
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 197
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
October 30th, 2011 at 2:36:45 PM permalink
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.
Why bet at all, if you can be sure? Anyway, what constitutes a "good bet"? - The best slots-game in town; a sucker's edge; or some gray-area blackjack-stunts? (P.S. God doesn't even have to exist to be God.)
RSS Feed
  • Jump to: