I guarantee you almost all of /sci/ will get this wrong

>>8186514
It's 50/50 either way.

>>8186528
So you're saying there is a 50% chance of licking a female if you lick the lone frog? And a 50% chance if you lick the two frogs?

>>8186528
Wrong. Try again.

Hint: That would imply that males are as likely to not croak as females, which can't be true.

>>8186514
Luckily, the snake isn't venomous, so I'll be fine.

>>8186514
Nearly 100% chance that the croaker is a male. That leaves the other 2 as 50/50 each, meaning that other anons guess of 50/50 was reasonable.

>>8186514
You lick the one in front of you.
You being between the two behind you and the one in front of you I doubt they'd be croaking at you. And who knows those could be two males behind you about to fite 2 the death.
>also lol what if none of them were the one that croaked then go with the two behind you for max probabilities

>>8186557
>That leaves the other 2 as 50/50 each
Nope. Wrong.

Again, in order for a frog that was not heard to croak to have equal chance of being male or female, males would have to never croak. But we know they do croak.

>>8186573
Wrong, try again. Don't assume anything about the behavior of the frogs that was not mentioned in the question.

>>8186552
By
>That would imply that males are as likely to not croak as females, which can't be true.

I surmise you mean that there was a considerable probability that a male frog would croak on that situation.
With that in mind, you should probably lick the lone frog, as that yields a higher probability of licking a female.

Probability of licking a female from the group:

50%

Probability of licking a female by choosing the lone frog:

50% + (X/2)

X being the probability of a male frog croaking in said situation. The value of X is unknow, but it can safely be assumed to be higher than 0, since there is no such a thing as "negative croaking".

If we model croaking as a Poisson process with rate r, then in front
[math]P(no~croak|female) P(female) = 1 \cdot \frac12[/math]
[math]P(no~croak|male) = e^{-rt} \cdot \frac12[/math]
[math]P(female|no~croak) = e^{rt} / (1 + e^{rt})[/math]
whereas behind you
[math]P(1~croak|male+female) P(male+female) = rt e^{-rt} \cdot \frac12[/math]
[math]P(1~croak|2~males) P(2~males) = 2rt e^{-2rt} \cdot \frac14[/math]
[math]P(male+female|1~croak) = e^{rt} / (1 + e^{rt})[/math]
Not 50/50, but still a wash assuming we've been in hearing range of both sets of frogs for the same time.

>>8186514

Licking the lone frog would be your best bet.

Why would the male frog croak if it already had a mate in close proximity? This is assuming the croak is a mating call, which they usually are. Wouldn't that mean theres a greater chance that the frogs behind you are both male than the lone one being a male?

Also even if it isn't a mating call, if the males croak at any decent frequency the silence of the lone one would be an indication of it being female.

>>8186593
>I surmise you mean that there was a considerable probability that a male frog would croak on that situation.
Not necessarily. We know there is a *non-zero* probability since we heard a male frog croak. And we already knew that male frogs have a distinctive croak. There cannot be 0 chance a male frog will croak.

>With that in mind, you should probably lick the lone frog, as that yields a higher probability of licking a female.
Nope.

>Probability of licking a female from the group:
>50%
Why? Let's look at the possibilities. Since we only heard one croak:

M(croak) F(no croak)
M(croak) M(no croak)
M(no croak) M(croak)
F(no croak) M(croak)

So if we say that there is a 50% chance of there being a female in the group, this would mean that a non-croaking frog is as likely to be male as female. But we already know this is not true. So it can't be 50%.

>>8186614
Very good, congratulations.

>>8186615
>Why would the male frog croak if it already had a mate in close proximity?
See >>8186580

>Also even if it isn't a mating call, if the males croak at any decent frequency the silence of the lone one would be an indication of it being female.
Yes, and how does that not apply to the group which contains a frog which did not croak?

behind = 1/3 chance to survive
50/100 would do front again

>>8186593
Ooops. I screwed up pretty badly there.

So, to surmise it up:

Assuming X as the chance of a male frog croaking on said situation, the probability of getting specific licks from the frogs behind you are:

Male: [50+25-(X/4)]%
Female: [25+(X/4)]%

Therefore it can be certainly concluded that the probability of licking a male frog from the group is >50%(higher than 50%)


The probability of getting specific licks from the frog ahead of you is:

Male: [50-(X/2)]%
Female:[50+(X/2)]%

Therefore it can be certainly concluded that the probability of licking a male frog by choosing the lone frog is <50%(lower than 50%).

Lick the frog ahead of you. it wields a chance of success that is certainly more than half, while licking from a frog behind you wields a chance of success that is certainly lesser than half.

>>8186514
Actually, as a biologist, I would gladly accept the fate of death by poison, to eliminate my cancerous genes from the human pool.

>>8186514
>you hear the distinctive croak of a male of the species behind you. You turn around and see two frogs where the croak came from.
>implying it was one of them whom croaked
gg no re you died from the confusion

>>>>>poisonous

>>8186555
OH MAH GAWD

File: 1465325215082.jpg (76KB, 435x960px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 435x960px

>>8186555
kek, trips confirm that OP is a faggot

File: dead eyes.jpg (13KB, 244x236px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 244x236px

>>8186671

the one in front of you. the male behind you shouldnt need to croak if it's with a female already
but as aonon said, the snake was poisonous not venomous so you shouldnt even fret m8

>>8186514
>can only be distinguished by the distinctive croaking of the male.

>>8186580
> Don't assume anything about the behavior of the frogs that was not mentioned in the question

within the specific language of the question, which does NOT state that females do not croak, only that the males croak is "distinctive", you obviously lick the 2 frogs. I hope the question isn't about this dumb trick, but lets weed it out if it is

I would stop at my tracks, and ponder about this most interesting dilemma, until the poison slowly kills me

>>8186874
This. Then realise that I haven't left my basement for nearly 18months and that I probably his my head falling off the toilet.

>>8186514
With the frog in front of you there is a 1/2 chance that it will be female. The variables are changed when the two frogs from behind come. It's really 2/3s chance.

Either it is the wrong frog or the right one, so 50/50

File: high noon.png (382KB, 557x605px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 557x605px

>>8187021
I love this meme

>>8186660
I have no idea what you're doing, but it's wrong. Both probabilities are greater than 1/2 and are exactly the same.

>>8186839
>the male behind you shouldnt need to croak if it's with a female already
See >>8186580

>>8186846
>which does NOT state that females do not croak
It states that males have a distinct croak AND you heard the distinct croak of the male behind you.So females croaking is irrelevant. Nowhere does it say you heard a female croak.

>>8186972
>With the frog in front of you there is a 1/2 chance that it will be female.
Wrong. If that were true then males would be as likely to give the distinct male croak as females, i.e. never. But we know they do.

>>8186514
I lick all of them because fuck you I'll lick the backs of every god damn frog in the Forrest

>>8187127
Finally some reason

>>8187127
This. The OP sets up the problem incorrectly by suggesting that you hesitate after seeing the first frog long enough to hear the other frogs. If you had been running to lick the first frog asap, you might still have time to turn around and lick the next two frogs as well.

>>8187136
>Amazingly, you spot a frog of this species in front of you. At the same time you hear the distinctive croak of a male of the species behind you.

>>The OP sets up the problem incorrectly by suggesting that you hesitate after seeing the first frog long enough to hear the other frogs.

>At the same time

>>you hesitate

can someone explain to me how this isn't 50/50 as if my iq was 90?

>>8187156
The chance of licking a female is the same, but not 50%. We know that males give a distinctive croak. So males sometimes croak, and females never give the croak. Thus if we observe a frog which doesn't croak while we are listening, there is a higher chance it is female. A female would not be croaking 100% of the time. A male would not be croaking only sometimes.

>>8187163
And the longer we wait, the higher the chances that the frog is female.
The probability that it's a female would increase over time as prob = 0.5 (1 + (1-x)^t), where t is the number of arbitrary time periods passed and x is the probability of the male frog croaking during the arbitrary time period (note that the arbitrary time period tends to 0)
You could probably integrate this but i'm too lazy to.

>>8187174
Wait, fuck, make that 0.5 * (2-(1-x)^t)

Plot twist: you turn to the left and see a goat. The probability is now 2/3.

Lick the frog in front and blast off into a psychedelic world

they're all males kek

>>8186555
broke the game

>>8186555
I LOVE YOU

>>8186514
It's 50/50, things either happen or they don't.

>>8186528

The trick is that

1. You don't know which frog behind you croaked
2. Just because one frog croaked the other one might still be male

>>8186555
I would have said the same but I'm starting to "fade out" so I'm probably hungry so I eat a frog. Since the snake is poisonous I'm not gonna eat that.

>>8186514
Two frogs behind. More likely for both a male and female frog together. Male frogs won't be next to each other due to competition of food resources.

>>8186514

Lick all the frogs. There is apparently no danger to accidentally licking a male frog. Depending on how much tine you have, go for the two frogs since they are near each other.

>>8186514
Biological engineer here. I'll suck the male frog's dick, because surely some of the female's antidote will still be on it.

>>8186514
In front.

If I pick a frog from behind, I've got a 50/50 shot of picking the one that croaked vs the one that didn't. The one that didn't croak has a 50/50 shot of being male anyway. So I've only got a 25% chance of picking a female.

In front, though, I have an even chance of the frog being M or F, so I have a 50% chance of licking a female.

We are presented with two options.

1. Lick frog in front of you

2. Lick BOTH frogs behind you. "or [run] to the frogs behind you and lick them.

So what we must determine is the probability of finding a female frog in one of these options.

Option 1: The probability is easy to determine. The frogs are 50/50 male/female. Because the frog did not croak we can't rule out that it is female so the possible sexes look like this.

Option 1:
M
F

Or 50% chance of female.

Option two is different. With two frogs our options look like this.

Option 2:
M M
M F
F M
(F F)*

*However we heard a croak from behind us so one of these frogs must be male.

Therefore

Option 2
M M
M F
F M

2/3 of these options contain a female frog. If we lick both frogs then our chances of survival are 2/3 or 66%

In summary:
Option 1: 50% chance of survival
Option 2: 66% chance of survival
Go to the two frogs behind you and lick them both.

>>8186514
You would die either way, because snakes aren't poisonous, the are venomous.

Also to ruin the fun for everyone, the answer is go to the two frogs. There's a TED ED about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpwSGsb-rTs

>>8186514
Going to the first frog you saw.

Either M or F so 50/50

Going to the other frogs, then the possibilities are

MM
FM
MF

We rule out FF because we know at least one of the frogs is M.

Now, assuming that you have time to lick both then 2/3 of the possibilities let you live so 66.67%

Therefore you should go to the two frogs behind you.

>>8186514
Why the fuck are you autistic retards over complicating this by making assumptions which aren't present in the question?

You hear one frog croak and know it's a male. You can immediately discount that frog. But you lick both frogs behind you anyway, knowing one of them is a male (but not which one). So there's a 50/50 chance of the non-croaking frog behind you being a female and there's a 50/50 chance of the non-croaking frog in front of you being a female. Anyone who says anything different to try and sound clever is making assumptions which can't be validated from the information in the question and aren't valid as, for there to be any point to asking the question, the hypothetical action you take (your answer) has to be decided purely on the parameters of the hypothetical scenario.Otherwise we're all answering a different (our own) question.

>>8188005
This is pretty close, but...
>>8186514
>the population is split evenly between females and males
Since at least of of the two frogs behind you is male, the set of all other frogs is slightly more than 50% female.

>poisonous snake

TOP KEK.

Snake is VENOMOUS.

Frog is POISONOUS.

>>8187978
M F and
F M

are the same option in this case. It is better to partition the phase space into

One of the frogs is Male
Both of the frogs are Male

Both of which have equal probability (assuming croaking rate of males and females is the same). So it is 50% chance of survival in turning around.

The original question was vague/misleading as we were not told that female frogs don't croak/croak less, only that the male croak is "distinct." In assuming that both genders croak at an equal rate, the answer is 50/50.

>>8187873
>1. You don't know which frog behind you croaked
This doesn't actually change anything. You know one and only one frog croaked, so it's not like the boy girl paradox.

>>8187929
You didn't get the problem at all.

>>8188133
>You know one and only one frog croaked
just because only one croaked doesn't mean the other isn't also capable of croaking

>>8187976
I said you can lick both frogs behind you.

The frog which didn't croak cannot have a 1/2 chance of being male because that would imply males are as likely to not croak as females, i.e. never. But we know males croak. The same is true for the frog in front which did not croak. It has a higher chance of being female.

So everything you just wrote is wrong.

>>8187978
You made the same mistake as everyone else. You ignored that not croaking increases the chance of being female.

>>8187985
The TED video is wrong though. I emailed the guy who made it abd he said he will debutant correct it.

>>8187990
Wrong. Read the thread.

>>8188005
Wrong. Try again.

>>8186555
top lel

>>8186555
O U T P L A Y E D

trips as well

>>8187153
>You turn around and see two frogs where the croak came from.
That usually takes time, anon. That's called hesitation. You turned around because of the sound of a male frog that you already know is useless to see if there were more. Should have been running to lick frog already, and turning around to investigate after.

>>8188087
If you actually read the question I clearly state that you heard the distinct male croak. I never stated you heard any other croaking, nor would it affect the problem if you did!

I would lick the lone frog. A male croaking behind you could mean that there are two males tryinv to get the lone frogs attention.

Monty hall, anyone?

>>8188141
Yes, and how does that respond to what I said?

>>8188190
It has nothing to do with Monty hall.

>>8188197
>do you stick with what you have, or go switch to a group with one of the options revealed?

The question says if I switch, i get to lick both frogs.

>>8188219
So because your lamp has a switch it must also be the Monty Hall problem.

>>8186514
Lick the two frogs behind you because 1 out of 2 frogs are female by probability as stated in the question.

Or you know you could just whip out your cell phone and call for help or something.

Frog in front - 50% chance of being female
Frog that didn't croak behind - 50% chance of being female

>>8187967
I know you like to find new ways to suck dick, but what makes you so sure it isn't a touchless wizard frog engineerbro?

>>8188226
Lamps have determined outcomes, idiot.

If monty hall hosted his show in the rainforest and instead of a new car, you got an antitoxin for a snake bite, it would be the exact scenario.

>>8188240
No you fucking autist. For knew you don't understand an analogy. Second it is not even closely related to Monty Hall. There is no difference in survival rate between the two frogs and the line frog.

>>8188234
Nope. Try again.

This is just a variant of the Monty Hall problem.

>>8188347
It's not.

So far I count only two correct answers out of 28 substantive responses. As I predicted, almost no one got the answer correct.

>>8188350
Well anyway. I'm going to give you the "wrong" answer by saying, in realistic and functional terms, it's 50/50. I view the vast majority of statistical applications as based around faith when applied naively, and they're almost always shown as such when compared to real world outcomes and conditions. You might think choosing the lone frog drops your odds to 50% or whatever, while choosing the set is 75, but that's gibberish at best. You don't know anything about this species, their distribution, their group / social structures.

Instead I'd probably place my faith in the machinery of intuition, and choose the two frogs behind me. Just because it'd be grand to die rejecting salvation that appeared literally right in front of you. Human history in a nutshell.

>>8188373
>Well anyway. I'm going to give you the "wrong" answer by saying, in realistic and functional terms, it's 50/50
No. For example, let's say the probability of a male frog croaking in the amount of time you were listening is 1. Then a frog which didn't croak while you were listening must be female. Therefore the chance of survival is 1, since if you lick the lone frog you must be licking a female. And if you lick the group of two, the frog which you didn't hear croak must be female.

If the chance that the frog which you did not hear croak is female is 1/2, then this implies that females are as likely to not croak as males. But since we already heard a male croak, we know this is false. So the probability CANNOT be 1/2.

>You might think choosing the lone frog drops your odds to 50% or whatever, while choosing the set is 75, but that's gibberish at best.
Of course it's gibberish. It also has nothing to do with the answer to the question I asked.

>You don't know anything about this species, their distribution, their group / social structures.
You know what I said you know. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>8188393
Too many embedded assumptions about the nature of these frogs (machines). No offense, but I came to this thread thinking there might be something clever and interesting.

ie:
>You know what I said you know. Nothing more, nothing less.
Then we aren't going to do this:
>let's say the probability of a male frog croaking in the amount of time you were listening is 1.
And the rest falls away as a result.

>>8186514
> you turn around and see two frogs where the croak came from.
Now the single frog is behind you and the two are in front of you.
> you have time enough to run to the frog in front of you
You are hallucinating by now. There are now two frogs in front of you. Turn around an lick the lone frog so you don't fuck up. Believing there is currently one in front of you is wrong.

>>8188400
>Too many embedded assumptions about the nature of these frogs (machines)
Like what? I have not assumed anything which does not directly follow from what I stated in the problem. You simply did not think about what it means for a frog to not be heard croaking. You assumed the chance was 1/2, and you were wrong. Now you seem to be blaming the question instead of accepting you made a mistake.

>Then we aren't going to do this:
It was simply an example to show how you could be wrong. I also proved the answer could not be 1/2. But you ignored that.

There are several unintuitive things going on in this problem. For one, the question asks for which choice maximizes survival, which leads many to assume that one choice is better than the other when they are in fact the same. It also leads many to assume that there is a single value instead of a range of probabilities dependent on the chance of a male frog croaking. People assume that there is an easy answer instead of actually trying to solve the problem. Some people confuse this problem with the boy girl paradox because it sounds similar, and thus conclude that the two frogs give a higher chance of survival than the lone one. You seemed to expect this by writing that I thought the group of two had a 2/3 chance of containing a female. But mostly, people just get the wrong answer because they don't understand conditional probability, and don't realize that a lack of croaking can be informative in the same way croaking is.

>>8188430
Yes, they are the same. Each frog as far as you know, has a 50% chance of being female. No matter your choice, it's still 50%. Instead of thinking about what I said, you just anchored on what you already had in mind.

I didn't say 2/3, I said 75%. Which was mocking the idea of probability naively weighted by sample size.

>>8188425
Now that I think of it. You turn around and see two frogs. Perhaps that is a hallucination, or at least there's a chance of a hallucination. There may only be one frog on either side of you. But you know you heard a croak behind you originally. If you hallucinate and see double, then the chance of only males behind you is 100%. If you hallucinated, your only chance is to lick the quiet frog.

>>8188455
>your only chance is to lick the quiet frog.
This made me laugh for some reason.

File: wat r u stoopid.png (151KB, 1333x569px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1333x569px

>>8186514
guys
listen guys...
h-h-.. guys
hold m-my beer
guys
...
I-I got this

>>8188448
>Each frog as far as you know, has a 50% chance of being female.
No, as I already said, that's impossible. Either the frog croaked or it didn't. If it did, you know it is male. If it did not, it must be more likely to be male than female, as males sometimes croak but females never croak. If one of two frogs croaked then there are four possibilities:

M(croaked), F
M(croaked), M(didn't croak)
M(didn't croak), M(croaked)
F, M(croaked)

Due to symmetry, this is equivalent to the case of a single frog which did not croak, which again cannot have a 1/2 chance of being male.

>>8188477
As already stated, too many embedded assumptions about the nature of these frogs (machines). You don't know anything about what it is for one to croak, you don't know anything about if context or environment potentiates croaking, you don't know how the tendency to croak is distributed across the population as a whole and if there is any useful clustering.

For all you know the probability a male will croak around females is higher, the probability to croak immediately after another male is higher or lower. You know nothing. This is why it falls to intuition.

>>8188490
Although it's worth noting, a good deal of venoms are rapid sodium channel blockers. Comparatively few even need to cross the BBB. I do like the trippy scene of being on the brink of death and having three frogs appear. One lone frog, and one group of two. Singular and dual. Neat contrast, sense of balance through lack thereof.

Well inspired.

>>8188490
>As already stated, too many embedded assumptions about the nature of these frogs (machines).
And then I asked what assumptions there were. And you ignored the question.

>You don't know anything about what it is for one to croak, you don't know anything about if context or environment potentiates croaking,
You know what the problem says you know. That's it. If you want to answer a different problem then this is not the thread for you. If you want to answer the question I asked, then go ahead.

>For all you know the probability a male will croak around females is higher, the probability to croak immediately after another male is higher or lower.
I never said that it does, so it doesn't.

>This is why it falls to intuition.
Your intuition couldn't even give you basic insight into the problem. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how males would be as likely to not croak as females when we already know the croak is distinct to males. You keep avoiding the point with equivocations.

>>8188490
>Biologist
>Don't know shit about the frogs

Fuck it, I deserve to die

>>8188515
>And then I asked what assumptions there were.
I just told you.

>You know what the problem says you know.
Which doesn't include anything affording the assumptions you've made. Construct your axioms better. (This is now blaming the question, rightly so)

>I never said that it does, so it doesn't.
Not how logic or ambiguity works. This would be better asked without real world metaphors.

>I'm still waiting for an explanation of how males would be as likely to not croak as females when we already know the croak is distinct to males.
I'm still waiting on an explanation for why the probability a male will croak in this very specific window of time is 1. A male croaked, that's all you know.

>You keep avoiding the point with equivocations.
You keep claiming you laid out more of a logical framework than you did, then complaining when unbacked, illogical leaps of reasoning aren't made.

>>8188526
most biofags on /sci/ are molecular biofags, so you probably don't need to feel bad, you don't stand out

>>8188532
He's speaking in context of the problem.
>You are a biologist traveling in the rainforest.

why would a biologist be travelling in a rain forest?

the whole question doesn't make any sense.

>>8188530
>I just told you.
You just told me assumptions THAT weren't in the problem. That you made up. So you did the exact opposite.

>Which doesn't include anything affording the assumptions you've made
Which assumptions???

>Not how logic or ambiguity works. This would be better asked without real world metaphors.
That's how word problems work.

>I'm still waiting on an explanation for why the probability a male will croak in this very specific window of time is 1. A male croaked, that's all you know.
Jesus Christ, you fucking autist. I did not say the probability of a frog croaking is 1, I merely gave it as an example of how the answer could not be 1/2, but 1. And you just avoided the question again, because you know you're wrong.

>You keep claiming you laid out more of a logical framework than you did, then complaining when unbacked, illogical leaps of reasoning aren't made.
What specifically is illogical about what I said? You are equivocating in response to me accusing you of equivocating. Hilarious.

>>8188545
fuck, this is my cue to go to sleep. sorry about that

>>8188547
Hearing a croak tells you nothing beyond that at least one male is present.

>>8188554
hearing a croak doesn't even tell you that
Because it could have been a different unseen frog
Or some sort of animal/insect that immitates the frog
Or you may just be seeing double due to the poison & the heat.

>>8188554
>Hearing a croak tells you nothing beyond that at least one male is present.
So what does it tell you? Make sure to reference what is said in the problem instead of your imagination.

>>8188462
c'mon guyz. plz I'm from /b/ I tried. I put 2 minutes in that. Roast me plz XDDDDDDDD.

>>8188560
Except I said it was the distinct croak of the male of that species and that the croak came from the group of two frogs. Why is it so hard for people to read?

>>8188560
True. Since this is already an idealized scenario I'm keeping the spectrum artificially narrowed, though.

>>8188561
It tells you that one of the dual frogs is male. The problem provides no further means to evaluate the others. The croaking is not an indirect indicator of the traits of the other frogs, and within this question it cannot act as one.

>>8188565
If you had started out looking at the two frogs, and saw one croak, then turned around to see the lone frog, would that change the problem?

>>8188569
>It tells you that one of the dual frogs is male.
That's what you just said the assumption I made is. Except it's not an assumption, it's what the problem says. So what is your point exactly?

>The problem provides no further means to evaluate the others.
I have explained several times how it does. Not croaking indicates a higher chance that the frog is female, since females don't have the distinctly male croak. So far you have ignored this.

>The croaking is not an indirect indicator of the traits of the other frogs, and within this question it cannot act as one.
I just proved it could. Repeating over and over again that it's impossible when I just clearly showed it is possible does nothing except embarrass yourself.

>>8188575
No, not substantively. The result is the same.

>>8188575
It's hard to explain why you would turn around without a sound cue when you see a potential frog and you're near death.

>>8188577
>That's what you just said the assumption I made is.
No. The assumption is around croaking probability. Lack of croaking does not guarantee a given frog is female.
>Not croaking indicates a higher chance that the frog is female
Chances so marginally increased they might as well be ignored.
>I just proved it could.
You didn't. You hung your everything on nothing.

>You turn around and see two frogs where the croak came from.
>two frogs where the croak came from.
>two frogs
It doesn't even say they are the same species you're looking for.

So because the first frog has been not croaking longer as seen by you
Statistically you have an unknown better chance of the solo frog being female?

>>8188586
>No. The assumption is around croaking probability.
Croaking probability is unknown. You can still answer the problem with it as a variable.

Let the probability of a male frog croaking while you were listening be x

A frog which didn't croak is either female or male and didn't croak. A random frog has 1/2 chance of being female. A random frog has (1/2)(1-x) chance of being male and not croaking. So the chance that a frog which didn't croak is female is

1/2 / ( 1/2 + 1/2 (1-x) ) = 1/(2-x)

Two frogs of which one croaked has four possibilities:

M(croaked), F -> (1/2)(x)(1/2) chance two random frogs are as such
M(croaked), M(didn't croak) -> (1/2)(x)(1/2)(1-x) chance two random frogs are as such
M(didn't croak), M(croaked) -> (1/2)(1-x)(1/2)(x) chance two random frogs are as such
F, M(croaked) -> (1/2)(1/2)(x) chance two random frogs are as such

So the chance two frogs of which one croaked contains a female is

2(1/2)(1/2)(x) / ( 2(1/2)(1/2)(x) + 2(1/2)(x)(1/2)(1-x) ) = 1/(2-x)

Ta da!

>Lack of croaking does not guarantee a given frog is female.
Are you illiterate? I said it makes it more likely that frog is female, not guarantees it.

>Chances so marginally increased they might as well be ignored.
Pure bullshit. Since x is on the interval (0, 1], the chance of the frog being female, 1/(2-x), is on the interval (0.5, 1]. So the increase is clearly significant. Why are you just making shit up? Do you like being proven wrong?

>You didn't. You hung your everything on nothing.
More avoidance of the question. You lose, fuck off.

>>8188599
Yes.

File: Reagan-saluting.jpg (56KB, 607x450px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 607x450px

>>8186555
Oh shit, 10/10

>>8188623
>Two frogs of which one croaked has four possibilities:
Obviously. There are two possible states for a given frog, and two frogs with unknown states.

>2(1/2)(1/2)(x) / ( 2(1/2)(1/2)(x) + 2(1/2)(x)(1/2)(1-x) ) = 1/(2-x)
>[Superfluous mathematical proof, etc]
Again, there are two frogs of unknown state. They have two possible states. The chance either one is female is 50%. Regardless of your choice, the chance of survival can only be known as 50%.

>Are you illiterate? I said it makes it more likely that frog is female, not guarantees it.
Don't compartmentalize. I address this the very next statement you respond to.

>>8186614
How in the hell is this not 50/50? For the same r and t the probabilities are the same for one female existing in either case.

Any argument that the rate for female's is lower than males is poor, because it is known that the female have a different croak this must mean that they have been observed to croak, and assuming the rate is different only from your very limited experience is a poor prior.

>>8188629
Reagan was garbage and so is his trickle down nonsense.

>>8188639
>Again, there are two frogs of unknown state. They have two possible states. The chance either one is female is 50%. Regardless of your choice, the chance of survival can only be known as 50%.
This would be true, if you ignore the fact that you heard a male croak. So you are just ignoring the problem. Again.

>I address this the very next statement you respond to.
Addressing it (with an empirically false statement) does not make it any less irrelevant.

Until you reply with a substantive counterargument, I am not replying to anymore of your bullshit.

>>8188642
Wrong

>>8186538
Choice 1: Lick one frog, which may be either male or female.
Choice 2: Lick one frog, known to be male, and a second frog which may be either male or female.

Either way, you have a 50% chance of licking a female frog.

>>8188641
>How in the hell is this not 50/50? For the same r and t the probabilities are the same for one female existing in either case.
The chances are the same in either case, but they are not 1/2 in either case.

>Any argument that the rate for female's is lower than males is poor, because it is known that the female have a different croak this must mean that they have been observed to croak, and assuming the rate is different only from your very limited experience is a poor prior.
You don't seem to understand the argument. It is not the rate of croaking, it is the rate of making the distinctly male croak. Females cannot make the male croak and thus a frog which does not make the male croak while you are listening is more likely to be female.

>>8188651
>This would be true, if you ignore the fact that you heard a male croak.
Has no impact. We've been over this. Hearing a croak only indicates the presence of a male.

>I am not replying to anymore of your bullshit.
I don't blame you, it's obnoxious feeling like someone just doesn't get it no matter what you say, how you frame and reframe it. Even when it's so clear and readily apparent in your own head. But they just don't understand, their responses are left wanting, they miss the core of the matter, and you derive no value from the conversation. Just wasted energy and if you're honest, vague disappointment masked with disgust.

What you're claiming is disjointed nonsense from my perspective, and from what you've said. You continually loop back and claim things that just aren't so. I'm learning Russian, so I don't really care to continue either. I will say keep at it. This one is faulty by nature, but eventually you will unearth and highlight flaws in human logic, and intuition. Like cutting a mobius strip lengthways.

>>8188673
>Has no impact.
I just proved that it has an impact by directly calculating the probability. It's 1/(2-x) where x is the chance of a male frog croaking while you were listening. You have continuously ignored the substance of my arguments, which are mathematical proofs. Disprove them or leave.

>>8188683
Mathematical "proofs" not rooted in reality, basic logic and reason, and how the universe appears to be able to function.

>>8188687
How are they illogical. Disprove them or leave. I have explained exactly why you are wrong and why I am right. You have simply claimed that you are right without an argument and without explaining how I'm wrong. The burden of proof is now on you.

>>8186514

Did I win yet OP?
>>8188587
Was I pedantic enough?

>>8188689
>How are they illogical.
This has been explicitly stated, many times.
-Lack of croaking is not proof of being female
-A given male frog is not guaranteed to croak in this window of time
-Male croaking only guarantees >= 1 male is present
-4 possible states. There is a 50% chance either choice results in death. They're independent events, you could lick all frogs and still die.

>I have explained exactly why you are wrong and why I am right.
You have not.

Before we continue, can you tell me if you're on any sort of stimulant? Amphetamine, phenylethylamine? Perhaps something that spurs histamine release from mast cells, or alters cAMP in various brain regions? (eg flavanoids, theobromine, caffeine, etc. The methylxanthines). Just curious.

>>8186514
> You also remember that the population is split evenly between females and males.

Since you know there is at least one male in the group of two, that leaves a higher probability of a female in the group of one because initially the population is split evenly. Then you'd pick the single frog.

>>8188714
>-Lack of croaking is not proof of being female
This is a non-sequitur. Lack of croaking indicates a higher chance of being a female. It does not prove the frog is a female and I never said it did. I have proved this and you have not responded to it.

>-A given male frog is not guaranteed to croak in this window of time
Another non-sequitur. I never said a male frog is guaranteed to croak over a certain amount of time. Either you are lying or too illiterate to read what I'm saying. Which is it?

>-Male croaking only guarantees >= 1 male is present
Never said any different. Are you a liar or stupid?

>4 possible states. There is a 50% chance either choice results in death. They're independent events, you could lick all frogs and still die.
I have proven it cannot be 50%. You're just claiming it's not without responding to the argument. You are scum.

>You have not.
I did right here: >>8188623 Show me a single sentence in the proof that is false. You can't.

>>8188733
Alright, I'm done.

Your general demeanor, and apparent response / motivational patterns reminds me of myself when I eat far too much cocoa beans over a long span of time. I made a thread about the native of motion, location, and direction relative to the notion of a "stationary" object a while back. It panned out much the same as your thread. Of course I eventually realized the universe itself, as a whole, was the stationary object as far as we're concerned. And unlike you, what I was saying was correct and sensible. But no one understood and I wasn't capable of letting it go and just doing something else. I wanted something.

Good luck. Your faith in mathematics that disagree with basic ontological and epistemological principles, classical logic and reason, and base empirical sense, is misplaced. I hope you re-learn the obvious that was educated out of you, or whatever happened.

Off to resume learning Russian.

OP fucked up the question with the wording "distinctive croaking of the male."
This phrase could mean too many different things.
Distinctive croaking as in distinctive from male to female?
Distinctive as in you can identify the right species?
Distinctive as in you can hear it above all the other noises?
OP is a huge faggot, as usual.
Not even gonna bother.

>>8188748
nature of motion*

> Amazingly, you spot a frog of this species in front of you.
Frog A is in front of you
> At the same time you hear the distinctive croak of a male of the species behind you. You turn around and see two frogs where the croak came from.
Frog A is behind you now, frogs B and C in front of you
> You are starting to fade out and only have enough time to run to the frog in front of you and lick it
> to the frog in front of you
> frog
No. Frogs B and C are in front of you ... ?
> or to the frogs behind you and lick them.
And only frog A is behind you

You are obviously under the effect of the venom and you're disoriented and hallucinating. You heard a croak, turned around and saw double. There is only one frog there and it's male. Frogs B and C are the same. Turn back around and lick frog A which has a slightly higher than 50% chance of being female.

Or am I missing something?

>>8188641
Yeah, I think you're right. I didn't account for female croaks there. So it should be
in front
[math]P(no~croak|female) P(female) = e^{-rt} \cdot \frac12[/math]
[math]P(no~croak|male) = e^{-rt} \cdot \frac12[/math]
[math]P(female|no~croak) = \frac12[/math]
behind you
[math]P(1~male~croak|male+female) P(male+female) = rt e^{-rt} \cdot e^{-rt} \cdot \frac12[/math]
[math]P(1~male~croak|2~males) P(2~males) = 2rt e^{-2rt} \cdot \frac14[/math]
[math]P(male+female|1~male~croak) = \frac12[/math]

>>8188748
So let's say there is a test for male hormones. 50% of the people who take this test are female and 50% are male. When a male takes the test, the chance it returns a positive result is x > 0. When a female takes the test, the chance it returns a positive result is 0. person of unknown sex takes the test. The test does not give a positive result. Now your position is that the chance this person is female is exactly the same as the chance they are male given they did not get a positive result? How fucking stupid are you? Take a probability 101 course you delusional hack.

>>8188759
The croak is the distinct male croak. Whether or not females have their own croak is irrelevant, as none of the frogs gave a female croak.

>>8188749
Also:
>>8188560
>>8188587
>>8188755

>>8188762
Again, conflating different contexts with abstract high level ideas that don't necessarily map correctly, ie, misplaced faith in statistical methods leading to their misuse. This is what is meant by applying a method "naively", in every unique context there are many more details to better inform your heuristic so you can weight things correctly.

>>8188766
If you're calculating the probability the frog is female, the lack of a female croak is evidence against the frog being female. In the decision of what to lick, it washes out, as you can see.

>>8188770
I like how you didn't even answer the question. Is there a higher chance the person who got a negative result is female or not?

>>8188772
>If you're calculating the probability the frog is female, the lack of a female croak is evidence against the frog being female.
For one, nowhere does it say there even is a female croak. Even if it did, it doesn't change anything as we never heard a female croak. All the frogs lacked the female croak, so it changes nothing.

>>8188773
It indicates there is -a- chance. Without more detail on how the test works and related mechanics, ie applying the system naively and in a vacuum, that's about all you can say.

>>8188782
Actually, I'll rephrase that. It's not all you can say. It's all you should say.

>>8188782
>It indicates there is -a- chance.
No it doesn't. You are just making shit up that isn't in the problem.

>>8188789
Idealized theoretical cases are boring and largely worthless.

>>8188797
Then why are you in the thread?

>>8188802
Because you asked about frogs in the rainforest.

>>8188803
You don't want to answer what I asked, you want to bullshit and equivocate.

>>8188806
I want to talk about which frogs to lick when dying in a rainforest.

suppose there is a female croak, but its outside the range of human hearing

>>8188324
Monty hall.

>stick with the frog in front of you
>or pick the two frogs, which one is a male, and you get to lick both

You have a 66.66...% chance of survival with the two frogs and a 33.33...% chance of survival with the frog in front of you.

>>8186514
I guess the ones behind you, if you're just gonna lick both.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

I'd like to switch doors, Monty

>>8186555
Only correct answer. Also, trips.

The frog in front of you gives you a 50 % chance of survival.

There are three scenarios for the combination behind you.

MM
MF
FM

Each are equally likely so each has a chance of 33.3 % if occuring.

So your chances of survival if you lick a random frog behind you are 1/3 * 1 + 1/3 * 1/2 + 1/3 * 1/2 = 2/3. So that's 66.6 % and better than licking the front frog

>>8188988
You would be right, except it's the female that secretes the antidote, so the odds of licking a frog behind is worse than licking the one in front.

>>8188988
>Each are equally likely
There's your mistake. You're more likely to hear the croak from two male frogs than one.

>>8186555
10/10

>>8188565
You didn't say that though. It is not stated that one of the toads behind you actually croaked. Kill yourself

>>8186555
I'm done

The group of two.

You know there is one less male from the population because you know a male is present in group 2. This means the other frog in the group has a slightly higher than 50% chance of being female, because the total number of females equals the total number of males.

The single frog.

You know that the second frog in group 2 has higher than 50% of being female. So you are probably left with an equal population of males and females from which the long frog is chosen (in other words, probably exactly 50%).

In an extreme, valid case of 4 total frogs in the population, the second frog of group two has a 2/3 chance of being female, which yields a 1/2 chance of the lone frog being female. There is also a 1/3 chance that the group of two are both male, which yields a 100% of the lone frog being female. But those odds aren't good.

Lick the group of two.

The two. It is more likely that the male is hanging out with a female than another male. The one in the front has an even 50/50.

Or apply some weird monty hall logic and move the 50% chance over to the other frog and the other one has 100% chance of being female.

It's still irrelevant which group you pick. True yesterday, true today.

>>8188766
>Whether or not females have their own croak is irrelevant
Nope. The males have a distinct croak, so if a frog croaks and it isn't the distinct croak then it can't be male, making it female, therefore it is NOT irrelevant to this problem.

If females have a nonzero rate of croaking then that must be considered.

>>8186514
Its 50/50 for the frog in front of you, but only 1/3 for the 2 frogs behind

>>8190415
Wait never mind you get to lick both frogs behind you, so its 2/3 to get at least one female

>>8188087
sure you can partition the state space that way, but if you do then you have to assign a probability of 2/3 that one of the frogs is male and a probability of 1/3 that both the frogs are male.