Well, /b/? What's the answer?

>>729290195

50%

25%
/thread

>>729290261
/Thread

33%

>>729290261
"at least one of the hits is a crit."
= 50%

>>729290195
HT
HH

>>729290195
Is it entropy?

>>729290485
This. 3 possible outcomes.
1)Hit A is crit, hit B isnt.
2)Hit A is crit, hit B is also crit
3)Hit A isnt crit, hit B is crit.

>>729290195
>>729290430
>>729290495
This

>>729290485
>>729290712
Fucking retarded bait. You already crit them once, now your next hit has a 50% chance to crit

>>729290349
>>729290261

Go back to school, and definitely don't /thread your own wrong answers.

>>729290485
33%
hit miss
miss hit
hit hit

as at least one hit
so this means miss miss wouldn't count

>>729290805
It says at least 1 is a crit, it doesnt specific if the first or 2nd hit is a crit. There is no guarentee the first is a crit.

>>729290894
TWO CRITS RETARDED

>>729290928
It is unordered.

>>729291050
Go take your meds and get a juicebox

>>729291147
Could you elaborate on what you mean?

>>729291180
NN
CN
NC
CC <----- 25%

>>729291312
It means the order doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if crit happens first or second.

>>729291323
NN isnt an option. Either the first or 2nd hit is a guaranteed crit.

"Assuming a 50% crit chance, what is the probability both hits are crits"

each hit is 50/50

so two consecutive crits would be a 25% chance.

There are 4 possible outcomes. two crits is only one of them; 25%.

Some of you are really dumb and, whats worse is you make fun of each other!

>>729291323
Sorry I meant 33%

>>729291472
You're right. I am a drunk retard.

>>729291323
>NN
>CN
>NC
>CC <----- 25%
no. because 'at least one of the hits is a crit. so we are told that the NN possibility didnt happen. Thus CC CN and NC are the only possibilities and 33% is the answer

Its pretty easy. It states that one of the hits is a guaranteed crit, so its either cc or cn, leaving a 50% chance of double crit

>>729291704
Yeah I corrected myself. I apologize.

>>729291413
I suppose I can see what you mean, but as the guaranteed crit isnt specified theres still 3 possible outcomes, so I'm still leaning towards 33%.

>>729291704
So the crit chance isnt 50% for both hits?
If we assume one crit is confirmed and isnt prone to the crit chance. The answer is 50% because we only need one hit to crit.

>>729291541
>at least one of the hits is a crit

theres only three outcomes, crit/miss, miss/crit, and crit/crit. miss/miss can not happen

>>729291541
Theres only 3 outcomes, since one crit is guaranteed. 2 noncrits is not a possible outcome.

File: 390866B9-0B27-4321-B08E-0329952487D2-788-000001281991403B.jpg (48KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 900x900px

It's 33%... fucking autists don't know probability.

3 possible outcomes:
33% CRIT and noCRIT
33% noCRIT and CRIT
33% CRIT and CRIT

the faggots saying 50% are thinking too linear, as if there's only two possibilities:

50% CRIT and noCRIT
50% CRIT and CRIT

What happened to "noCRIT and CRIT"? The pic doesn't give enough info to validate 50%; can't assume.

And lastly, anyone saying 25% is counting noCRIT and noCRIT, which is wrong because one of the hits is a guaranteed CRIT.

Just make a small code and run it. That will answer the question.

>>729291860
There are 3 possible outcomes. Crit/NoCrit
Crit/Crit
NoCrit/Crit
33% chance

we have two hits, each hit has a 50% chance of being a crit

possible outcomes are

no crit -> no crit (p = 0.5*0.5 = 0.25)
no crit -> crit (p = 0.5*0.5 = 0.25)
crit -> no crit (p = 0.5*0.5 = 0.25)
crit -> crit (p = 0.5*0.5 = 0.25)

since we know that at least one of the hits is a crit, this leaves us with the three possble outcomes

no crit -> crit (p = 0.5*0.5 = 0.25)
crit -> no crit (p = 0.5*0.5 = 0.25)
crit -> crit (p = 0.5*0.5 = 0.25)

since all three have the same probability, and only one outcome has both hits actually critting, the resulting chance is 1 in 3

thus 33% is correct

I think I see the point of OP. If one is guaranteed to be a crit and the probability is 50% then it's 50%.
But like the other anon said it's a linear thinking.

>>729290261
this

>>729292380
What I mean since it's "unordered" it's 50%.
It's like this
C <--- guaranteed
/ \
C N <----- 50%

>>729290195
33%
The rest of you are fucking morons.

>>729292656
It really looks like this:

C->N
N->C
C->C

You are assuming the FIRST hit is a crit, when really only ONE of the hits is a crit, either first or second. Therefore, 33%

If the first hit is "critical", then the second hit cannot be either critical or non-critical, because if the first hit destroys the enemy's capability (viz. is "critical"), its capability cannot return before the second hit. There cannot be two "critical" hits. The probability is therefore 0.

That's the OR-Gate. Two inputs, each have two states, each of those 50%. (= 4 possible combinations.)

Three of the four possible compinations hit a 'positive', only they fulfill our condition. ('at least one input is a positive.')

And we are looking for one specific compination out of the 3 possible ones. (Both inputs to '1'/'crit')

A) First positive ('crit'), second positive
B) First positive, second negative
C) First negative, second positive
D) First negative, second negative (not allowed)

One out of three combinations fulfills the condition needed in the question. The answer is 33%.

>>729292980
It says at least one is a crit. It doesn't matter which one happened first or second. Therefore the order doesn't matter.

>>729292656
but that is wrong, you're assuming that the first hit is a crit, but you don't know that and that is not how probability works

you have two hits, you know one of them is a crit

order doesn't matter, EXACTLY, then why do you assume the first hit to be the crit? you're not looking at all possible outcomes and that is why your resulting chance is too high

>>729293048
Shutup, faggot.
Just say you can't math and stop making up bullshit.

>>729293127
Yes, it does. Because the "at least one" can either be the first or second hit, therefore 2 out of three times you won't have two crits.

>>729290195
50%. The probability is fixed no matter how many tries. However, the odds that the event happens twice is different.

>>729293155
I have an AB in Econ and an MBA in Financial Engineering, so I can math a little. This isn't a statistics problem, it's a linguistics problem. Try Wittgenstein.

>>729293270
Got it. Good thinking exercise.

>>729293321
explain then how in many games you can score two critical hits in a row

>>729293321
Still making up bullshit. Where is it written that a "critical hit" removes capability and therefore no second critical hit can happen unless capability returns? Stop being a dumb faggot.

>>729293491
He's just a dumbass that can't add 2 and 2.

>>729293127
But the fact that order doesn't matter to the reader doesn't matter to the math.

Logic is logic. Always was, always will be. Simple.

4 logically possibe combinations, 3 of those fulfill minimum condition for the description in the OP, 1 of those fulfills the demanded extra condition.

33%. Simple.

>>729293491
What games? It turns on your definition of "critical". Imagine it said "lethal shot" and referred to shooting at a person. How many lethal shots against one person can you have?

>>729293653
Yes you are right. I was just basically trying to understand OP's logic and I can see the confusion.

>>729293698
So when given no definition of "critical," but asked to determine the probability that both hits are critical, why would you assume a definition that would always preclude two critical hits, unless you're an idiot?

>>729291759
or nc

>>729291759
It is pretty easy. Except you got it completely wrong. Good job.

>>729293321
I feel bad that you are arguing with these retards who don't get that you are trolling them on the definition of Critical

They are just imaging Master Yi, they will never read Wittgenstein or even a paper by Bayes

>>729293979
thats the fucking same as cn

One of the TWO hits will be a crit therefore we only need to work out the chance of ONE crit which is 50.

No matter the order of the crit vs non-crit. One will Crit therefor we only need to know the chance of a second one crit, the chance of this crit isnt linked to the confirmed crit so the answer is 50%.

File: 1432135156411.png (17KB, 458x323px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 458x323px

:^)

>>729294144
This would be true, but you're forgetting the stipulation that there is at least two crits

That rules out one of the four possible outcomes

The "50% chance to crit" just means that each step has a binary outcome

>>729294096
Probably because they aren't autist losers.

>>729294267
stipulation there is t least one crit* excuse me

>>729294096
shouldn't you be on some reddit talking about your new fedora?

>>729294340
>>729294291
You two should meet

Not this shit again, JUST FUCKING USE BAYES THEOREM, IT'S LITERALLY WHAT IT'S FOR

1 SLASH FUCKING 3

>>729291934
I was only answering the quotation that i had selected.

Which is different to the question OP posted, which is malformed. If two crits are possible and the crit chance is 50% the only logical answer is 25% of two crits hitting.

There being a confirmed crit is impossible which is why the question is malformed.

>>729294263
Nope.

is this dokkan battle

File: mrmpfhmm.jpg (3KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x125px

>>729294263
WTF IS THIS AUTISTIC SHIT?

>>729294096
>master yi

hory shet, are people still playing LoL?

>>729294615
He's right. But, there's always room for improvement using alternative equations but where talking in theoretical sense!

>>729291788
If it's asking for the probability of both but one is guaranteed then we cross out the guaranteed and see the probability of the unknown hit, which would be 50%

>>729294638
It is mind-boggling how dumb you are.

it's still 50 because
50 base
2 hits =100
1 hit is crit so that only leaves 50%

>>729294310
You are getting caught up in the linguistic stipulations of the question. If you break it down and ignore the fact that the question is malformed it is asking you what the chance of a single crit is. One hit is confirmed so you can forget about it, you only need to work out what the chance of One other crit is.

100% cause I hit the fucker with a hammer for talking maths to me... and you're next OP

File: Untitled.png (10KB, 800x443px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 800x443px

This is first grader level probability.

>>729294913
You haven't understood what i wrote.

Let C be a crit, let N be a not-crit

If at least one attack is a crit, the possibilities are:

CN
NC
CC

There is a 33% chance of both attacks being crits. There is a 100% chance that this game has a shitty combat system.

>>729294985

In a statistical scenario, if you are ruling out one of the outcomes of chained events, your domain is reduces to the other possible outcomes

if NN can't happen, which the problem states, you're left with

CN
NC
CC

CC is 1/3

>>729295029
This shows that nCRIT twice is possible when it's not

Lets make a tree

/0.5 \0.5
Nc C
|1 /0.5 \0.5
C NC C

0.5*0.5 is 0.25
There are three possibilities, but one possibility has a far greater chance than the other two, P(NC|C) is 0.5, while P(C|NC) and P(C|C) are both 0.25

So the answer is 0.25, in other words 25%

>>729294263
wong :^)

>>729294864
That's the point I was trying to get across.
That's why this is so damn confusing.

>>729295029
This isn't the correct way to work out the questions. You cannot answer it in this fashion because the question is malformed it is posed in such a way that one would assume you need to work it out with this kind of a probability tree but. One of the hits is confirmed so you only need to work out the chance of a crit in a single attack which is 50.

You 33% people need to go back to school. Now.

>>729295217
At least there's one non retarded person in this thread

>>729295114
You are still caught up in the linguistics of the questions. It isn't asking you about the chances of anything other than a single crit because one is confirmed. No matter which of the two hits crit the chance of the other criting is still going to be 50%.

>>729295029
you dont understand what you read?

>>729294842
i dont give a damn what u use to calculate this until the result isnt 1/2 or 1/4 or I saw someone say 0 up there...

Everyone making a tree is completely ignoring the stipulation that one crit has to occur.

The problem is NOT asking, what is the chance of flipping a coin twice in a row and getting the same result twice. If it were asking this (which IS elementary material), then yes, the 25% people would be right.

If it was asking "After getting a crit, what is the chance of getting a crit", the 50% people would be right

That's why it's a troll question and makes you think you're just supposed to multiply P by itself twice

Cx xC <------ Guaranteed (x is unknown) 50%
CC <------ 50%

>>729295177
Because if the first hit is confirmed to be a noncrit, the second one MUST be a crit. 0.5*1 is 0.5

Also if u add all those 3 together, it still matches,

P(NC|C) = 0.5
P(C|NC) = 0.25
P(C|C) = 0.25

>>729295248
you're an idiot

>>729295427
you are not caught up in the linguistics of the question enough, or you are trolling, or both

>>729290195
50%
25% if you want to get Quantum Mechanical.

>>729290195
You useless cretans are using the materialistic world view to determine what is true, and see where its getting you?

I know a better way. God will provide the answer.

God, to show these nonbelievers that you are the one real god, provide the right answer as the last two digits of this post.

And that will settle it.

>>729295481
2x C? ARE YOU RETARDED?

>>729295646
Bayes BTFO

>>729295646
See?? There you go. The correct answer is 46% and when know its true cause God says so.

>>729295029
NC*NC is not allowed.

>>729295583
Please try to explain you're point of view without being retarded, I'll disprove it.

>>729295604
One hit must crit.
What is the chance of another crit hitting also?

>>729294947
Pic doesn't provide the extra info for 50%.

Crit and no crit (2 hits) 33%
OR
No crit and crit (2 hits) 33%
OR
Crit and crit (2 hits) 33%

These 3 possible outcomes may deal at least one crit, which the pic says is guaranteed.

The only way 50% would be right is if the question eliminates one of the possible outcome, let's say ONLY the first hit crits. You'll have this:

Crit and no crit (2 hits) 50%
OR
Crit and crit (2 hits) 50%

But the question does not eliminate that 3rd possibility. The question is lacking info to confirm 50%

Hope this helps. It's a mix of math and English, because if you aren't familiar with "and" or "or" then you'd get confused

>>729290195
Probability of any INDIVIDUAL hit being a crit regardless of the other is 50%.
Probability of a set in which AT LEAST ONE of the two crits:
Hit/Miss
Hit/Hit
Miss/Hit
33%

Indirect/vaguely worded question/Monty Hall Problem up in this bitch.

>>729295954
>>729295854
Saying it over and over again doesn't make it anymore correct

>>729295776

The event tree of both actions splits into two universes

C or N
Then, the event tree of the subtrees splits agian into two universes
C -> N
C -> C
N -> C
N -> N

Just from this, we see that there is:
25% chance to crit twice
25% chance to not crit
50% chance to crit once

but the troll aspect of the problem is the "at least once" which in statistics is meant to signal that one of the outcomes (N -> N) was never a real probability (for the sake of this problem)
So you remove it as a possible outcome and you are left with
N - > C (at least one crit)
C -> N (at least one crit)
C -> C (at least one crit)

1/3 valid universes contains two crits QED

>>729295646
46 = 4/6 = 2/3 = 1 - 1/3
(1/3 !)
so it's 1/3

>>729295756
see
>>729295481

>>729296053
>doesn't know The Monty Hall Problem
Pretending to be retarded isn't bait, anon.

>>729295065
No, I understood it. And it's retarded.

>>729296053
You're right, because it's 100% correct already.

>>729295756
*yrou'e

>>729296115
Preach it, brother.
All other answers merely show that the field of mathematics is full of rampent homosexualism

Look I see OP's logic even though it may be retarded.
It is essentially saying that Cx and xC is guaranteed. So basically it's 50% AFTER THE FACT. It's how you word the question.

>>729296326
Does math itself prove that, or is this a new form of inkblot test to prove homosexuality?

>>729296053
Then argue against it. It'd be great to see you critically think and challenge this problem.

How well did you do in math/linguistics? Just curious.

>>729296355
>50% after the fact
Enjoy losing in Monty Hall.

>>729295646
The fact that this answer is right shows that all other answers are anti-God.

50%
>Assuming a 50% crit chance

anyone saying otherwise needs to kys

A confirmed crit cannot occur unless the crit chance is 100%. This question is malformed from the start you cannot work out a mathematical answer to a question that doesnt make any sense mathematically.

>>729296131
That problem has literally nothing to do with this.
The real question is, do YOU know what the monty hall problem is because, clearly you don't if you think these two problems are related in anyway.

>>729290195
And how old is the driver?

>>729296457
It's more linguistics and/or specifically statistics.
50% is the correct answer to "what are the odds the second hit crit?"
They either don't understand how to work it out using statistics, or misunderstood the word problem entirely.

>>729296679
The driver was an alcohol.

you faggots are just being dumb and not comprehending the retardedly worded question. this is two exclusive scenarios. quit bashing them together and going HURRR 33%

scenario 1:
NN (not allowed)
CN
CC

scenario 2:
NN (not allowed)
NC
CC


so it's 50% in either case.

>>729296702
Precisely. It's how you word it.
It's either 33% or 50%.

1) open your text editor
2) write a python script to pick 0 or 1 twice
3) increment a value each time, then stuff the result in an array
4) repeat a million times
5) remove all 0 results from your array (should be ~25% of the array)
6) count number of 2's in your array, divide by the size of the array

answer will approximately be 33%

>>729296770
>an alcohol
kek

>>729296431
friend, I said god would provide the answer in my post number and he did. And the answer was right! A miracle. I know you hate that because you don't want God to be right, because you love your sin of homo. But that doesn't make your answers right. In fact, we know they must be wrong, because they are fruit of your sinful gayness.

>>729296773
LOLWUT?

>>729296894
he went full retard

>>729296601
>literally nothing to do with this
Anon pls. People arrive at 50% here the same way they arrive at 50% in the Monty Hall problem. If you can't see that, that's on you.

File: 1491199979175.jpg (115KB, 600x661px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 600x661px

>>729290349
this
.5*.5=.25
/thread

>>729296773
I agree with 50% but you are so fucking dumb

>>729296773
NN (not allowed)
CN
NC
CC

33%

FTFY

>>729290195
its 50% if one is definitely a crit

anything else is gamblers fallacy

>>729296971
Accept in the monty hall problem they were wrong.

This all depends on how you interpret the question. Let's take it one hit at a time.
Now, on the first hit, there is a 50% chance of a crit, and a 50% chance on a non crit, so the probability of each is 1/2.
This next bit is where the confusion happens. As we are guaranteed at least one crit, then if the first hit is a non crit, then the second hit has to be a crit, so the probability of this is 1.
So, the probability of non crit then crit is 0.5 * 1 = 0.5.
However, if the first hit is a crit, then there is again a 50% chance of there being a crit on the second hit, as we can either have a crit then non crit, or 2 crits.
0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
Therefore the probability of having 2 crits is 0.25

>>729296191
No you really didnt understand. In my original comment i was only responding to the portion of the question that isnt malformed.

A confirmed crit is IMPOSSIBLE therefore the question does not make sense. You cannot write out the question mathematically therefore you cannot make a mathematical answer to it.

Having such a thing as a confirmed crit and also having a 50% crit chance is a contradiction. You cannot have a crit chance and a confirmed crit at the same time.

the way to prove monty hall to people is to extend it out to like 100 doors, where 98 others are opened. becomes obvious you're less likely to have picked the right door.

do the same here. you'll see how dumb the 33% crew are.

50%

One is guaranteed to crit so one of the hits is irrelevant.

The other has a 50% crit chance. If it crits both are crits. If it doesn't then both aren't crits.

It's just dependant on one of the hits.

Since the dependant hit has a 50% crit chance.

The answer is

50%

>>729297162
>Accept
I already do accept it.
I also accept that they're wrong this time, too.
Pretending to be retarded is the bait, anon.

>>729297207
No, YOU don't understand. The question isn't "malformed," your fucking brain is malformed. kys

Depends on how you word the question.

CN
NC
CC <----- 33%

(Cx xC)
CC <------ 50%

>>729297207
Oh, this make sense

File: 1491784972929.jpg (51KB, 740x620px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 740x620px

Gave up on math / went to school in the united states
>>729297021
>>729297008
>>729296773
>>729296532
>>729295854
>>729295523
>>729295481
>>729295248
>>729295177
>>729295029
>>729294947
>>729294263
>>729293273
>>729292656
>>729291541
>>729291323
>>729290495
>>729290349
>>729290261
>>729295621

>>729297207
>you aren't allowed to set up specific parameters for a statistics question if it wouldn't happen every time in reality
Gee, Bill, 2 IQ points?

>>729290195
the train arrives first because science

>>729297348
>pretending to be retarded is the bait
So you finally admit it

>>729297124

dumbasses

it's not the probability of the compound event its asking the probability of one individual component which is why it's two split scenarios

go back to school, fuck

>>729297355
This questions is malformed i just explained to you in simple terms how having a crit chance and a confirmed crit is impossible.

In a game where your character has a 50% crit chance the scenario in which you definitely crit without the chance being applied is impossible. A confirmed crit only occurs at 100% crit chance.

>>729297430
Saying "went to school in he United States" is just another way for 3rd world countries to take a jab at the bigger and better.

File: 4L_jzEcuUVQ.png (278KB, 992x994px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 992x994px

>>729297510
Anon, it seems like you're not even trying in this relationship. I think we should take a break and see other people.

>>729290195
This is the three doors riddle in a new skin. Goddammit faggots, learn how to socrates.

Why does my fart smells like a rotten egg while I think about this problem?

>>729297491
The point i'm making is in any system where something has a 50% chance of happening you cannot confirm that it will happen at any specific time.

We can agree on that right? If something has a 50% chance of happening you cannot confirm that it will happen at any point.

>>729297491
Sure you are allowed to do that. Where does it say you're not allowed to do that? Stop being autistic.

How does this relate to the Monty Hall problem? I never understood that shit.

t. brainlet

you have a 50% crit chance.

you hit a dude 10 times.

9 are guaranteed to be crits. what's the probability that all 10 are crits?


according to these niggers, 10%. dumbfucks.

I love watching faggots destroy each other's and their own basic understanding of logic in these threads

>>729290195
0%

File: man-carp-a.jpg (93KB, 575x319px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 575x319px

>>729297727
I'm sorry bb, just lemme love you

This is a more philosophical issue, but fine I'll bite.

Everything is already predetermined, which means that when we're talking about the probability of something happening we're really talking about what is possible within our framework of the laws of physics and, fundamentally, mathematics.

There is nothing inherent to something that makes it likely or unlikely.

When I say I'm going to roll a six-sided die and the probability of it landing on 1 is 1/6 what I'm really saying is, "there is an infinite amount of hypothetical worlds that are all equally possible within the framework of what I know, and the amount of those possible worlds where the cube doesn't land on 1 is 5 times greater than the amount of worlds where it does".

If you have more information about something you can predict it with higher accuracy, and if you have all of the required information about a possible event the probability of it happening approaches either 0% or 100% as you gain more information.

That means that, if you KNOW that something will happen (in this case that you'll definitely have at least one crit), and you predict that you'll get two (or one, it doesn't matter) your chances of guessing correctly have risen from 25% to 50%. And if you test it, you'll find that the probabilities for both rolling one and rolling two crits do indeed approach 50% with a higher and higher sample size.

Saying that it's 25% is as absurd as saying "I'm about to roll a six-sided die, but it could've been a 12-sided die before I found out. Therefore the chance of rolling 1 is 1/12 and not 1/6".

TL;DR It's 50%
/thread

>>729297169
>Now, on the first hit, there is a 50% chance of a crit, and a 50% chance on a non crit, so the probability of each is 1/2.

The problem with this is that a crit is guaranteed (probability of each hit is 1/2 isn't true, because one of the hit is 100% crit) as the question stated. Two hits, one hit is guaranteed crit:

CN
NC
CC

there's a 33% chance that both crits would hit

>>729297901
sure you're allowed to do that, but i think he's saying, in this case, that doesn't accurately portray the numbers

>>729298016
>Two hits
>CN
>NC
>CC
that would mean 3 hits, are you retarded

>>729298016
The question is asking the probability AFTER one crit is known. Not before.

>>729297953
this

>>729297942
The scenario you suggested cannot exist, yes the chance of one crit is obviously 50%.

But a scenario in which you have such a thing as a confirmed crit existing is impossible.

The question just doesn't make any sense.

>>729297942
/thread

File: probnstat.jpg (17KB, 260x323px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 260x323px

>>729290261
NN is not an option.

Your possible hits are:
NC
CN
CC

There's a 1 in 3 chance for the two crits, CC. You can start your journey in probability and statistics by searching up the free pdf download of the book Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences by Jay L. Devore.

idiots, theres a difference between the chances of something happening, and the ratio of possible outcomes

its 25%

>>729297953
>>729298150
retard

>>729290195
33% chance. The two hits (I'll call them A and B) have four possible outcomes:
1) A is a critical, B is a critical
2) A is a critical, B is a normal attack
3) A is normal, B is critical
4) A is normal, B is normal

"At least one of the hits is a crit" means 4 is no longer possible, leaving an equal probability of outcome 1, 2, or 3.

>>729297810
>The point i'm making is in any system where something has a 50% chance of happening you cannot confirm that it will happen at any specific time.
>We can agree on that right? If something has a 50% chance of happening you cannot confirm that it will happen at any point.

I understand the point you're making. Consider what you're doing in the terms of train problems.

"If a train is leaving Los Angeles at 01:35 PM and traveling to Washington D.C. at 25,000 miles per hour, when will the train arrive?"
And your answer is "BUT TRAINS ARE INCAPABLE OF REACHING THAT SPEED/BUT THERE'S NO DIRECT TRAIN LINE FROM LA TO DC!"

>>729298146
No it's not. It's simply saying one of the two hits will be a critical. You don't know if it's the first hit or the second hit. You have a 33% chance the first hit will crit and the second will not, a 33% chance the second hit will crit and the first will not, and a 33% chance both will crit.

>>729290195
0% fucking retards, go back to high school

>>729297993
you're fucking stupid

the actual question is "IF at least one of the two hits is a crit, then what is the probability, the other is too?"

you don't KNOW anything

>>729297993
What about the fact that this scenario cannot exist in a system where the chance of a crit is 50%?

In a system where there is a 50% chance of an event occurring, you cannot confirm its happening before it does.

Can we not agree that the question is only a linguistic way of describing something that cannot exist?

Therefore in answering the question you are essentially wasting your time because the scenario literally cannot exist in the context in which it presents itself.

>>729290195
not enough information to know

>>729296894

CN and NC dont and cant exist in the same problem space retard

File: thefuck.gif (2MB, 300x306px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x306px

>>729298518

>>729298573
It doesn't matter if it can exist or not. That's the point of a fucking hypothetical.

>>729298670
Yes, they can. Stop talking out your ass.

>>729297942

Well, shit.

>>729298485
No it said you have ALREADY hit your enemy twice. So that's after the fact.

>>729298573
>Therefore in answering the question you are essentially wasting your time because the scenario literally cannot exist in the context in which it presents itself.

What you think you are saying:
>If it's 50% then it's not guaranteed so the premise is flawed.

What you're actually saying practically:
>Answering any hypothetical question is a waste of time because it's not guaranteed so why bother?

>>729298790
What does that matter? You already hit him twice at least one was a crit. Could have been the first one, could have been the second one, could have been both the first and the second. Three outcomes of equal probability.

>>729290195
Suposing hits are independet (probabilisticly talking), 50%

>>729298752

if you lead with an N then you have 100% NC the only other option is CC, it is entirely independent to CN and CC in the context of the individual event

were you homeschooled?

File: off_by_one.png (304KB, 472x470px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 472x470px

>>729298887

>>729298931
The 2 hits have already been done. It's how the question is worded.
You KNOW that either Cx or xC happened. The question is asking what is the probability the x is a crit.

>>729298573
>In a system where there is a 50% chance of an event occurring, you cannot confirm its happening before it does

The way you're looking at it is fundamentally wrong. There is no inherent 50% chance of an event happening. All events have either a 0% or a 10% chance, since everything is predetermined. That is not to say that probabilities are useless - we just have to imagine it as a huge set of equally possible worlds. If we already are in a world where we roll a crit at least once, then it's equally possible that this world is one where we don't roll a second crit and that it's one where we do.

File: 1491493434075.jpg (14KB, 261x216px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 261x216px

>>729290195

>>729298390
You've missed my point again, that isn't how i'm trying to end the question.

In our universe a train could travel at such a speed therefore saying because no know train can reach such speeds the question is stupid; is silly. I understand that.

But the question posed by OP cannot ever occur in the scenario described. A train may travel at such a speed one day, but there will NEVER be such a thing as a CONFIRMED crit at anything lower than 100% crit chance.

>>729299014
Uh no. If you lead with N (a 50% chance) you have 100% NC. If you lead with with C (a 50% chance) you have a 50% chance of CN and a 50% chance of CC.

>>729297938
In outcome-based probability, exclusion of impossible results (ex: when you pick the goat and monty eliminates a goat door) eliminates certain end states that would otherwise be part of the chance of getting to that result

the fact that we are excluding no crit -> no crit has an impact on the problem, and the question is asking how you arrive at one of 3 possible end states

>>729299054
Right, you know that either happened, but you don't know if it is Cx or xC. There are three probabilities there. CN, NC, or CC.

>>729298701
Imagine if someone asked you what are the chances of something happening? but the chance doesnt work when i decide for it not to.

File: 78111-large-318406.jpg (24KB, 500x561px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x561px

>>729299200
>>729299014

>>729299079
Then the question is malformed is it not. If it was posed how you have written it here it makes sense, but is isn't is the point.

>>729298117
...
see literally any of the proofs above, this doesn't mean there are three hits, this means that after two hits, there are only three possible outcomes once we eliminate the NN outcome

>>729299200

you just agreed with everything i wrote?

>>729299054
you also know that NN didn't happen, which is the info that leads to 33%

>>729299332
Let me make it easier for you to understand. Let's say that you are in a theater with the curtain down. They tell you that the two hits have already been done. Now what would you figure the probability for the OTHER hit (not first or second) to be a crit?

I understand it really. It's either 33% or 50% depending on how you word the question.

>>729299172
>But the question posed by OP cannot ever occur in the scenario described. A train may travel at such a speed one day, but there will NEVER be such a thing as a CONFIRMED crit at anything lower than 100% crit chance.
yes it can. if a single crit will kill whatever is being targetted and you are only able to know afterwards if the target is alive or dead then the only 'single' option you can eliminate is 'no crits occured'. OPs situation can happen. Now you can compute odds that guesser can figure out if 2 occured.

>>729299172
Then your argument is just "BUT THERE'S NO DIRECT TRAIN LINE FROM LA TO DC" which is even MORE retarded. Congratulations. You played yourself.

>>729298261
Also, we can turn this up. Imagine there are 3 hits and you want to know the probability that they all crit.

NNN is not an option.

NNC
NCN
NCC
CNN
CNC
CCN
CCC

1 in 7 chance for CCC.

Now, let's turn it back down to 2 hits, with a 25% crit chance.

NN isn't an option.

NC
NC
NC
CN
CN
CN
CC

1 in 7 chance. The "N" counts 3 times as many possible times as the "C" here, so you get only 1 C for each N option. All the guaranteed crit does is remove the multiple copies of NN that are possible.

>>729299777
incorrect, retard.

you hit a dumbass btard 1000 times. you have a 50% chance of a nutshot.

at least 999 of the hits are nutshots. what's the probability that all 1000 are nutshots?

protip: it's not 0.1%

>>729299777
There could be a trainline, but there cannot be such a thing as a confirmed crit.

everyone who thinks its 50% should

>>729298261

read more books

>>729299750
The question is not posed after the fact it is posed af if you know a single crit is confirmed before hitting the crit.

>>729299750
Did you really just disagree that a confirmed crit cannot occur at anything lower than 100%?

File: crit.png (6KB, 545x436px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 545x436px

Picture related.

the amount of retardation in this thread is absolutely amazing

>>729299916
Then you misunderstand the fundamental premise of hypothetical questions and setting up parameters for questions as a whole.
Pretending to be retarded doesn't qualify as bait when people call you out on being retarded.

File: 1492298282270.png (25KB, 800x443px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 800x443px

>>729295029
Fixed it, you autist.

>>729300292
The world in which this is meant to occur cannot exist hypothetically. It literally doesn't align with the mathematical laws of our universe.

>>729300199
You will lose Monty Hall every time. Congratulations.

File: 1491863564663.jpg (75KB, 602x481px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 602x481px

>>729299777

16.66666666666667

Listen ameritards, here an argentinian will teach you.

At least one IS critic, the other is the only one that can have a 50% chance, but we don't know if is the first or the second.
So the possibilities are:

First Critic, second doesn't
First Critic, second does too
First doesn't critic, second does
First critic, second does too

You have 2 from 4, so it's a 50% both critics.

>>729300199
So NC is twice as common as CN. Why?

>>729290195
Critical chance OP has autism

>>729300411
Literally, not figuratively, ANYTHING can occur hypothetically.
Period.

>>729300467
This has already been explained by about 10 other people in pretty much the same terms. Why bother posting this? Unless you are arguing against the question or against the idea that the answer is 50% why bother posting?

>>729300467
you have 3 cases in which the first hit is a crit, you fucking argentino nigger

>>729300390
CC is still 1/2 * 1/2 you halfwit

>>729300544
You cannot hypothetically know that a crit is going to occur beforehand. You can only know that a crit has happened or has not and the chance of it happening, therefore the question can be condensed and made to make more sense if you ask if two hits can crit and one does what is the chance of another crit. But that question can ONLY be proposed after a crit has already happened which cannot be confirmed BEFOREHAND so it still does not make sense.

>>729290195
16.66666666666667%

>>729298317
>hepry derpy you can crit someone twice derpy herp

>ITT:faggots who took statistics but didnt really understand it talking down to what is the obviously correct answer.

Let S be any set of 2 hits with a least one being a critical. By definition, one member of S must be a critical, so let a equal that member. Let b be a member of S such that b =/= a. Assuming a hit has a 50% chance of being a critical and 50% chance of not, we show the odds of both being a crit is 50%.

We have a is a critical, and therefore the odds of it being a critical is 100% additionally, b is a standard hit, and therefore there are to equally likely scenarios:

a is a crit and b is a crit

or

a is a crit and b is not a crit.

Because there is 1 out of 2 scenarios in which the criteria of all hits in S being a crit is met, the likelihood that both are a crit is 1/2, or 50%.

This is mathematical refutation of the 33% argument. The more hand wavy explanation is that the 33% argument assumes that we can know the outcome of one event with the odds of that event still being 50%, which is absurd. We know one of them is definitely 100% going to be a crit, and so treating it as though it is still uncertain is ridiculous. By this logic I could hold out a coin showing heads and then say "well, if I flip this other coin, then the likelihood of it also being heads is 33% because I have this one that's heads." If I'm about unknown outcomes from a statistical perspective perhaps, but an actual event in which one outcome is already known makes that outcome a certainty.

>>729300869
>You cannot hypothetically know that a crit is going to occur beforehand.
Stopped reading here. Yes you can. Hypotheticals aren't bound or confined by anything.

>>729300544
>Literally
stop confusing 'literally' with 'ACTUALLY' you fucking spastic

Yes linguistically you are correct but you cannot propose this question while keeping with mathematical laws. You literally CANNOT propose this question mathematically, knowing that you have to see why people arguing over a mathematical answer is simply redundant.

>>729301096
Yes linguistically you are correct but you cannot propose this question while keeping with mathematical laws. You literally CANNOT propose this question mathematically, knowing that you have to see why people arguing over a mathematical answer is simply redundant.

>>729290195
1:2 Hiroshima
1:2 Nagasaki
1:28,327 Both.

Knowing the answer beforehand: 33%
Knowing the answer after: 50%

QED
/thread

>>729301374
>Yes linguistically you are correct but
No, I'm correct period. Hypotheticals don't give a shit about anything that might contradict the premise.

>>729301446
YEAAAAAAAAAAH WHO"S ZOOMIN WHO NOW MOTHERFUCKER

33%
Let 0=no crit and 1=Crit
There are 4 possible outcomes normally, 00,01,10,11. However, 00 can never happen due to the question stating "at least one of the hits is a crit". Ergo we are left with three possibilities, 01,10,11. Since only one of he possibilities satisfies the solution to the given problem, 11, the chance of it happening out of the three total possibilities(1/3) is 33%

>>729301096
The only way you could propose this question mathematically is if you already know that a crit has occurred. You cannot make a scenario in which you attribute a crit which is based on a 50% chance a confirmed occurrence before it occurs.

Saying a crit has a 50% chance then saying it is confirmed is contradictory mathematically.

It is as if you had said X=12
but X= also equals 23

You cannot know what x means but you are meant to guess at something happening which relies on x's value. its literally impossible.

>>729301531
What does QED mean?

All I know it as is the common abbreviation for Quantum Electrodynamics.

illiterate scifag, halp plox english majors

>>729301531
if you're not talking about an actual event but abstract statistics its 33%, but an actual event is 50%. This is an actual event, and therefore the answer is 50%.

>>729301655
We know that. It's how the question is worded. The question said that the two hits have already happened. So that's after the fact.

>>729300752
And one that is not. 50% fatty bro

>>729301565
You are so dense :(

>>729301729
quod erat demonstrandum

>>729301614
>feelsgoodman.jpg

jamming things up yer ass
not just for homos anymore

>>729301729
Quod erat demonstrandum, basically marking the point when a mathimatical proof proves its premise.

People use it a lot to mean "end of story"

Through actual experimentation I get 25% over 1,000,000 trials???!

What the fuck have I done wrong?


>>> import random
>>>
>>> def two_crits():
... first = random.choice((True, False))
... if not first:
... second = True # need at least one crit, so if the first isn't then the second must be
... else:
... second = random.choice((True, False)) # first one crit, so second can be either crit or non-crit
...
... return first == second == True
>>>
>>> def test(count):
... both, once = 0, 0
... for _ in range(count):
... if two_crits():
... both += 1
... else:
... once += 1
... return both, once
>>>
>>> test(1000000)
(248906, 751094)
>>>
>>> test(1000000)
(250552, 749448)
>>>
>>> test(1000000)
(249861, 750139)

>>729301729
"Q.E.D." (sometimes written "QED") is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be demonstrated"), a notation which is often placed at the end of a mathematical proof to indicate its completion.

Or as we love to say it Quite Easily Done

File: 1456795098701.jpg (51KB, 514x536px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 514x536px

>>729301830

>>729301962
Refer to my comments about how the scenario cannot exist mathematically.

>>729290195
Its 16.66666666666667

100 divided by 3 is 33.33

Factor in 50% crit and you get 16.66666666666667%

>>729301963
Oooooh that explains it. I had a vague sense it was some kind of greek, punctuating "in your face" kind of coda when i've heard people say it in conversation.

So, I've been thinking about this. I've identified a couple of what I believe to be problems with the thread's thinking.

>There are 3 cases so it's 33%
This is by far the most common response and fairly intuitive. The problem with is that the 3 outcomes are not equally likely. There's a 50% of not criting on the first hit followed by a 100% chance to crit on the next hit. Meaning that the likelihood of N->C is 1/2 * 1 = 1/2, not 1/3.

If the first hit is a crit then then the next hit is either a crit or not a crit. Meaning that the likelihood for C->C is 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4 and C->N is 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4, or 25% respectively.

>We can ignore one hit because we know it's going to be a crit
They are of course right when they say it's 50% -- assuming we make the first hit a guaranteed crit.

Maybe I'm just a fucking moron. I'm confident you'll let me know.

>>729290195
As long as one hit is a crit, what does it matter about the porbability? Fucker's dead, and we can stroll on.

>>729301962
You literally cannot run a test of this scenario in keeping with the rules presented in the image because you cannot confirm a crit if the chance of a crit is 50%

>>729302170
>I had a vague sense it was some kind of greek, punctuating "in your face"
Basically yeah LOL

But in the mathematical world it signals the end of proof.

File: morans.jpg (40KB, 480x468px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x468px

>>729290195
The answer is none

>>729302178
The answer is 50% if we assume either hit could be the confirmed crit. That doesnt change the fact that you cannot confirm a crit unless its a 100% crit chance.

>>729301962
you are missing the cases in which both hits are not crits

you have to include those to properly model the experiment

after that, you have to look at the cases that have at least one crit and those with two and then calculate the ratio between those

File: iu.jpg (269KB, 620x412px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 620x412px

>>729301962
>1,000,000 trials

Not enough trials.
You have to go back anon.

You have to go back and do more trials!

>>729302354
That isn't in keeping with the model presented in the image, in the image there is ALWAYS one crit. not matter if that could occur in reality or not.

to further put a hole in the 33% fags, let's note they constantly arbitrarily label the two hits as "the one that came first and the one that came second." however, there's nothing in the original question that implies that they happened at different times. both hits could have been at the same time, making using time as a label invalid. Using the one which was a crit as a label IS valid because we know it exists and is distinct; the one that may or may not be a crit can be labeled simply by not being the other one.

>>729302314
I hope north korea gets an icbm from somewhere and nukes you with it.

Hit A is critical, hit B is critical
Hit A isn't critical, hit B is critical
Hit A is critical, hit B isn't critical
None are critical

25%

File: lose.jpg (72KB, 625x468px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 625x468px

>>729302354
your not taking into the equation the OP's requirements for completion.

the answer is 0 to not be wrong, cause you already said there is a half chance to be wrong and half to be right. if the chance to be 100% fail is any chance? its the answer to complete the OPs requrements for the answer. OR >>729302314
like i said

P( Crit | Crit) = 0.5

>>729302557
im right so
i hope you get nuked cause your inbred and your civilization is retarded and will fail

16.66666666666667

File: EugeneVolokh.jpg (6KB, 150x229px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 150x229px

mfw /b/ doesn't know monty hall

>>729302562
fuck off go read the thread. No crits is IMPOSSIBLE. it cannot be 25% and before u say it must be 33% if no crits are possible go fuck yourself and read the fucking thread.

>>729290195

Bayes' theorem, you faggots.

Pr(A and B are both crits | at least 1 crit) = Pr(A is crit and B is crit) / Pr(At least 1 crit)

There are 4 combinations.

A = crit, B = crit
A = not crit, B = crit
A = not crit , B = not crit
A = crit, B = not crit

Since there is a 50% chance of criting and assuming A and B are independent events, the probably of each of those 4 events is .5 * .5 = .25.

The denominator then becomes .75 and the numerator becomes .25.

.25 / .75 = 1/3.

>>729302637

Look up Bayes' theorem.

>>729301086
>Let S be any set of 2 hits with a least one being a critical. By definition, one member of S must be a critical, so let a equal that member. Let b be a member of S such that b =/= a. Assuming a hit has a 50% chance of being a critical and 50% chance of not, we show the odds of both being a crit is 50%.
>We have a is a critical, and therefore the odds of it being a critical is 100% additionally, b is a standard hit, and therefore there are to equally likely scenarios:
>a is a crit and b is a crit
>or
>a is a crit and b is not a crit.
>Because there is 1 out of 2 scenarios in which the criteria of all hits in S being a crit is met, the likelihood that both are a crit is 1/2, or 50%.

this is a formal proof btw, if you can't refute it then you have to admit the odds are 50%.

Everybody but me, >>729302599
>>729302314

is wrong and needs to go read a dictionary and learn what probability means and you already know all teh combinations of predictions. He needs a probability of Both being crits. i take into account the HIT%

so far it's between 50%. 33%. none, and 25%
WELL, WHICH OF THE ANSWERS IS FUCKING CORRECT?

File: trench.jpg (15KB, 420x270px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 420x270px

a probability is an exact or major in grammar
i think thats what the lesson is here in this problem

Depends. Did you hit him twice with the same attack? Does it do a random status effect that can possibly negate crits? Does the enemy get an attack of opportunity, or have interrupts available? Is this turn based, ATB, or what? Are we playing yu-gi-oh, where even if we "think" we crit, there are trap cards possibly face down?

>>729302216

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I can (and have!) enforced that at least one should be a crit.

If the first doesn't crit, the second is forced to. If the first does crit, the second gets a 50/50 chance to crit.

I then sum up the trials with two crits, and those without. It's always ~25% dual crits, ~75% not dual crits.

>>729302934
If we forget about how the question is posed 33% is right, it is in keeping with bayes' theorem.

>>729302873

The set S has 3 elements, not 2.

>>729302934
you need to ask yourself, whats hte probability of it being 100%.

if cops need probable cause does that mean they have any chance of being wrong?

that means you have 0% chance of getitgng this right.

0 chance to have probably being 2 hits of crits. thats the lamest lamens terms answer I can give.>>729303091
>>729302599
>>729302314
Me

It is 33%. Here:
https://jsfiddle.net/81fbfjfa/

why dont these threads ever give away, (good) prizes?

>>729303353

you need to divide against the total number of runs, not each group against the other

>>729302788

1. A = Crit, B = Crit
2. A = Not crit, B = Crit
3. A = not crit, B = not crit
4. A = crit, B = not crit

We know that case 2 and 3 does not occur, so the options are case 1 and 4.

Either you:

A = crit, B = crit

or you:

A = crit, B = not crit.

It's a 50/50, you degenerate black

File: qU0yAxg.gif (1MB, 413x192px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 413x192px

50% the question isnt asking if the last or first hit is a critical.
Its only asking if Both are a crit, and one is gauranteed.

Its basically asking what the chance to crit is, if the chance is 50% than the chance for the one that isnt a gauranteed hit is 50%

The question is tricking you into thinking the gauranteed crit even matter in solving tee problem. Its not dependant on anything, and the crit that not gauranteed ismt dependant on it.

Its basically asking what are the chances of 2 coins always landing on head, but one is gauranteed 100% of the time to land on heads.

Your just left with the coin that isnt gauranteed, which is 50/50. And its not influenced by the gauranteed hit or if it came first or second.

>>729303353
No because the run we just completed had to have at least one critical hit in it, so we discount anything that has no criticals.

>>729303161
The way the question is posed says that crit chance is 50% but it also says that one crit is guaranteed. You cannot run a test in that scenario because the question HAS to be posed after at least one crit has occured, to "confirm" the crit. You cannot confirm a crit before it occurs so you cannot run a test in which crit chance is 50% and also confirmed to occur at any point.

>>729303161
why don't you have your program print the outcomes as well so you can check for funny business?

I'm not familiar with that particular language so I couldn't tell you if there's some shenanigans going on or not. You should get 33% because you're looking at the issue from an abstract statistics viewpoint.

File: clickshit.jpg (14KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x250px

>>729303353
>>729303459

>>729303536

How is case 2 not possible?

Can we all come to a consensus that the question was worded too vaguely to come up with a definite and universal solution and move on with our sad pathetic lives?

>>729303459
see
>>729303576

>>729303278
Uhh, there are 2 hits, not 3....

>>729303578
he didnt ask for an exact end result, he said probability you need to learn to read

>>729303673
WTF are u talking about?

>>729303599
Sorry you're paranoid. Javascript is nothing to be afraid of.

>>729303663

You said S is "any set of 2 hits with at least 1 being critical".

The elements are (C, C), (NC, C), (C, NC)

>>729303645
>>729303641
>>729303645

you rwrong ...

>>729303320
>me

>>729303865
How am I wrong? I'm ( >>729303641 )

ok, >>729303812

...
its 0 because why take the chance to be wrong, at the answer, your not 100% sure. your only kind of sure, where the hell do you get the idea its probbably a absolute crit in 2 hits? its not. pro tip

>>729304130
Huh? Learn to English, dumbass.

>>729303573
>Its basically asking what are the chances of 2 coins always landing on head, but one is gauranteed 100% of the time to land on heads.
But P(A,B) =/= P(A)P(B) so you can't treat them individually, that's the problem with the whole 50% nonsense.

>>729303645

but by doing it the way it's done there, the 'impossible' events are still occurring they're just not being counted.

i fully agree that 33% of all events with at least one crit contain two crits, but like the python guy found when you force the logic to the rules in the image then the numbers change.