You have a blue die with 6 sides and a red die with 4 sides.

do your own homework kekold

>>7719863
underage b& please leave

50%

>>7719863
0.4

.5
Duh

>>7719874
>>7719876
retards

>>7719879
you only know it could be either, it's 50/50.

>>7719885
imagine die with 1000000000 sides and a coin (1 or 2). What probability you chose die if you rolled 2?

>>7719879
>posting anything other than 50-50 in a probability homework thread
The real retard is (You)

>>7719889
ok, you convinced me

>>7719863
The real question is how can a die have 4 sides?

>>7720401
tell me you aren't serious

Let's be honest with ourselves. Probability doesn't exist. It's a man made concept used to falsely determine the result of an unknown, simply because we cannot or do not calculate the problem in full. 50/50 chance for a coin flip? No. If you were able to understand, comprehend, and create a formula for every single variable, (including spin, trajectory, velocity, rotation, density of coin and landing surface, degree of air pressure and resistance, etc.) then you could tell the exact result of every single coin flip. Ever..

But you can't or don't, And neither can I. But one thing is certain, it's not random, it's not chance. It's always exact. No matter what.

>>7720436
Nice job stealing that from Vsauce

>>7719887
50/50, jesus fucking christ, are you this stupid?

>>7720407
>>7720401
Dice - a small cube with each side having a different number of spots on it, ranging from one to six, thrown and used in gambling and other games involving chance

Its a fucking cube! No cube has 4 sides!

>>7720436
Doesn't quantum physics disprove deterministic behaviour like this?

>>7719863
The given condition is that you had rolled a 2. what you are trying to find is whether the 2 came from the blue or red die. The probability of rolling a 2 on the blue die is 1/6, on the red die 1/4. The probability of picking either die in the first place without considering the 2 rolled is 1/2. Therefore the aggregate probability of rolling a 2 is (1/6+1/4)/2. The probability of it happening on the blue die is (1/6)/2. Divide (1/6)/2 by (1/6+1/4)/2 and u get the probability you were trying to find, 0.4. To help you understand this better, imagine if the question was instead rolling a 5. What would the answer be in this case? Certainly not 0.5.

>>7720922

How do you know whether to take the aggregate probability and not just conditional probability?

OK, but what if each of the dies are behind a door, and there is a third door with a goat behind it. After rolling, the host opens a door revealing either the red die or the goat. What is the probability that a 2 is rolled with the blue die and should you switch doors?

>>7720944
Because in this case you are given the condition of the result being 2

>>7720950
>Proofreading mistakes
First line is supposed to be [math]P(2|B) \times P(B)[/math, and .667 in the last line is supposed to be .1667, but the result is still valid.

>>7720950
>1/4=0.5
Are you fucking kidding me

>>7720961
Lol, more proofreading errors. Look at the later equations though, that error isn't used.

>>7720950
Fixed my typos
[eqn]P(B | 2) = \frac{P(2 | B) \times P(B)}{P(2)}[/eqn][eqn]P(2 | B) = \frac{1}{6} \approx 0.1667[/eqn][eqn]P(2 | R) = \frac{1}{4} = 0.25[/eqn][eqn]P(B) = P(R) = \frac{1}{2} = 0.5[/eqn][eqn]P(2) = \frac{1}{6} \times \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} \times \frac{1}{2} \approx 0.2[/eqn][eqn]P(B | 2) = \frac{.1667 \times 0.5}{0.2} \approx 0.416[/eqn]

>>7720970
Why not forego the rounding and say 5/12?

Also you're right.

>>7720955
Wouldn't that imply that you would use conditional probability? I mean, the answer is .5 but let's be diligent here.

>>7720979
Mostly because I did these calculations in a python terminal and then copied the values I saw to the tex.

wtf you can't have a dice with four sides, what would happen to the two empty faces? you just leave them blank? empty? that's not how squares work.

A die can be made out of each platonic solid.

>>7720401
triangular pyramid?

File: 15045_Sig.pngb925b2d3-08db-4273-a3ad-78c9b8c2d2bbLarge.jpg (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

>>7720401
Like this.

>>7719870
>>7719871
This

>>7720859
Not intentional. Just personal thoughts. Infact, I've not heard of Vsace, but I'll look him up, thanks.

>>7720894
Yes and no. Quantum physics can be used to to say that as we don't know the exact nature of the material being used in process, then we can't determine the exact results the material would yield. But it also gives us the formulas required to do just that.

>>7723555
quantum mechanics gives us the formula's required to measure the PROBABILITY of states. This means even if we knew everything there is to know about a coin flip we cannot determine what side it will land on. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that there is a lower bound to the knowledge of an energy of a system in a given time interval. If this energy is enough to flip the coin over an extra turn, then coin flips are fundamentally random. That means that for a particular height of a coin toss, the time taken for the coin to land will be large enough that the energy uncertainty will be enough to flip the coin once more or less than what we would classically predict.

>>7720870
You made that definition up, didn't you? Dice is plural, the real retard is you.

>>7723584
That's just it though, uncertainty. If you knew ALL the variables, there would be no uncertainty. With no uncertainty to a given subject, there would be no phenomena that could be described as random.

Maybe I'm just too dense to understand it in the waay you do, but I see it as that the ideas of random, chance, probability, chaos, idiosyncrasies, all that describes the unknown, are just our human made name for the things we can't understand or comprehend. And that 'nature' itself contains no such things, only exacts.

>>7724109
But we do understand it. We cannot know every variable in the way you put it. It's not a limitation on technology, it's an underlying physical property. If we know the coin's position with a high enough degree of certainty, the momentum of the coin is uncertain to us (it could give an extra flip) If we know the momentum enough, we cannot know the position (it could be higher up in the flip than we thought and flip an extra time before landing). If you don't understand it the way I do, just do some reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
Basic tldr; the degree of certainty of momentum*position must be less than or equal to Planck's constant. If we know a particle's exact momentum, it's position uncertainty is infinitely large. Meaning the particle is everywhere, making it more like a wave. If we know more about the position, then we call it a particle, if we know more about the momentum we call it a wave, but light and particles are "both" in a sense, depending on how we measure it.

>>7720401
I think you should ask >>>/tg/ that question.

>>7719887
>rolled

Well, you've got the answer there

>>7719863

You have a blue die with 6 sides and a red die with 4 sides.

BUT
blue die has numbers: 17, 4, 635, 7, 8, -pi
red die has numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4

Suppose you randomly roll a die and roll a 2. What is the probability that you chose the blue die?

The answer is 50%

I don't see what the big deal about this is. There are only these possible rolls:
R1 B1
R2 B2
R3 B3
R4 B4
B5 B6
All of these possibilities are equally likely, so there is a 1/10 chance that you rolled a 2 with the blue die.

>>7724341
Are you being coy?

>>7720979
where are you getting 5/12?
I'm getting (1/6)*(1/2)/p(2)
p(2) is (1/12)+(1/8)=20/(12*8)
so we end up with (1/12)/(20/(12*8)), the 1/12 cancels leaving 8/20 or 40%

>>7720922
The only question being asked was which die was chosen. There are two. It's 0.5 that he chose blue.

As far as I'm concerned the preliminary roll was irrelevant

>>7724341
But, the blue die is the only one with a 2. In that circumstance you couldn't have chosen the blue die and rolled a 2.

So actually 0%.

>>7719863
This picture is a lie. Both of these die are 6-sided, also neither is blue. A 4-sided die would be a triangular prism. Nice try!

>>7724621
roll blue die, do not look
ask junkie what he sees
junkie says 2

tfw you are redpilled

File: e69878b401d805edf958fb11a382d669.jpg (13KB, 236x282px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 236x282px

>>7724641
MFW you take the opinions of junkies seriously.

Also, to collapse a probability wave by observation, the probability has to actually be within the realm of possibilities. In this case it is not.

>>7724647
The chance of objects going against greater entropy is not zero. So, it is actually in the realm of possibilities since dice is a material object.

False observation is not the basis of reality. False observations are the basis of delusions and and a symptom of schizophrenia. See a doctor.