How can I understand probability? I feel completely retarded.

>>8481410
Get a PhD in pure mathematics and then study genetics.

Else you won't get anything.

>>8481420
I'm too stupid for math

not gonna lie, I wasn't convinced I was a brainlet until I took a proper university level probability and stats course

shit makes your brain hurt yo

>>8481442
what are we gonna do bruh?

>>8481445
idk I managed to pass with a B but I only understood it on a formulaic mechanical level

also fwiw soft sciences don't need an in depth understanding of stats as actual statisticians do

maybe stats for bio majors course?

I dunno lol

File: 2929e470710350b12d9b3a55d724d3d7.jpg (12KB, 236x229px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x229px

If in a continuous event the probability that something happens is 0, how does ANYTHING happen AT ALL?

>>8481451
I think I can pass too but i would still be very limited in it and i don't know how much I need it for genetics

File: Clip.png (48KB, 637x444px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 637x444px

>>8481410

>>8481455
The probability it will happen at any given point is 0, because the points are infinitely small and there are infinitely many of them (that's why it's continuous). The probability can be nonzero over an interval.

>>8481429
Then that's your problem. You cannot understand shit because you are too stupid to study.

Are you taking a course right now or self learning? If you want a full intro course aimed at math/EE people both Harvard and MIT have full online courses available.

http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/stat110/home
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-041-probabilistic-systems-analysis-and-applied-probability-fall-2010/

If you need an ME/CIV engineers level of knowledge a general survey course should do. This book is very popular with non-EE engineering departments.

https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Concepts-Engineering-Applications-Environmental/dp/047172064X

This course uses that book.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-38-probability-and-its-applications-to-reliability-quality-control-and-risk-assessment-fall-2005/index.htm

He is another general prob/stats course for a general audience.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-05-introduction-to-probability-and-statistics-spring-2014/index.htm

A good survey knowledge book aimed at the general public would be this one.
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Probability-Statistics-William-Mendenhall/dp/1133103758
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Mathematical-Statistics-Its-Applications/dp/0321693949

Note: Books aimed at engineers will have nuts/bolts in the examples, while the general audience books will have cards/dice as examples. They come the same general material. Remember youtube will have many videos that correspond to each section of any textbook.

Here is another course:
https://www.probabilitycourse.com/
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Probability-Statistics-Random-Processes/dp/0990637204

>>8482063
Not OP but I really appreciate the work you have put in. Thank you, anon.

I don't know about you, but you're probably retarded.

>>8481420
>muh pure mathematics meme

turbo autismo detected

>>8481927
>Fucking this

>>8481455
Well, the event of any given thing happening is zero, but of course the event of *anything* happening is one. This can be counterintuitive because in introductory probability classes, you probably wrote things like [math] P(\cup_iA_i)=\sum_i P(A_i)[/math] for disjoint events. However, this is only required to hold for *countably* many events.

this is pretty subtle but it makes sense if you think of a random variable as the outcome of an experiment. when you measure something in real life (say a length), you don't measure the exact value, but you measure it to within some tolerance. If you were doing a careful experiment, you'd never say, for example "that rod is one meter long", you'd say instead "that rod is between .999 and 1.001 meters long". Spend a few minutes pondering how you could measure *anything* to arbitrary precision, and you'll see why it makes more sense to work with the probabilities [math] P(a<X<b)[/math] than [math] P(X=a)[/math] for "continuous" quantities like lengths.

>>8481879
NOOOOOO
Consider the following probability measure on the set of rational numbers: fix some enumeration q_1,q_2, ... and then define P(q_i)=1/2^i. There are infinitely many points, but each has a positive probability. "continuous" in this context means that the probability of being in any Lebesgue-measure zero set is zero.

>>8481410
Who cares if you don't understand probability? That hasn't stopped Nate Silver and he still has a job.