Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Wittgenstein shows Gödel semantic proof ends in contradiction
Next: Radioactive decay and the myth of randomness
From: Richard Tobin on 12 Nov 2009 04:59 In article <518b1ddb-3081-49cd-8009-a3ed96a61ccd(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, IlBeBauck(a)gmail.com <ilbebauck(a)gmail.com> wrote: >I would think the probability of a 2 sided coin landing on either >heads or tails would be almost100 percent. I say almost because >there is a very remote chance that it could land on its edge and stay >there especially if it were tossed over soil or grass , in which case >it would be neither heads or tails. I tossed handfuls of pound coins on a wooden floor, and found that more than 1% of them finished up on edge. A lot depends on how you toss them. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
From: Alan Smaill on 12 Nov 2009 05:12 Michael Gordge <mikegordge(a)xtra.co.nz> writes: > On Nov 12, 2:12�pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 11, 1:11�pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin? Scientists and gamblers > > > have occasionally grappled with this problem. For the philosopher, > > > however, the answer is straightforward. There are no outcomes for a > > > tossed coin. > > > > > For a philosopher, there is no possibility that an outcome of a tossed > > > coin is either heads or tails. Seen from above we may see heads, seen > > > from below we may see tails. > > > > > The geometry of the coin means that we can only see one side at a time. > > > Which side is seen depends not on "possibilities" but on the fickle, > > > subjective reasons for our preferred spatial orientation that we adopt > > > AFTER the coin has been tossed. > > > > Your suggestion that we can "toss" a coin is obvious nonsense. > > From the spatial orientation of the coin, the coin itself is entirely > > motionless; any tossing is impossible. It may be however that > > the universe spins about the coin. Heads? Tails? These cannot > > exist without a framework, and the coin itself specifies no framework. > > The coin exists as a whole, undivided into "sides." Both sides > > exist simultaneously. Indeed, they MUST exist; there can be no > > possibility of a coin with only heads, or, obversely, only tails. The > > coin cannot imagine it, and neither can the universe, though either > > may give the appearance of spinning to the naive observer. > > > > Marshall > > > > j/k > > You're as pissed as Jones. You missed the parody -- pretty good IMHO. > MG -- Alan Smaill
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Nov 2009 07:40 Uncle Al wrote: > John Jones wrote: >> Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin? Scientists and gamblers >> have occasionally grappled with this problem. For the philosopher, >> however, the answer is straightforward. There are no outcomes for a >> tossed coin. >> >> For a philosopher, there is no possibility that an outcome of a tossed >> coin is either heads or tails. Seen from above we may see heads, seen >> from below we may see tails. > > Hey stooopid - what happens if it lands on its edge? ..... <snip> Or a gull eats it? /BAH
From: Jan Burse on 12 Nov 2009 07:52 John Jones schrieb: > Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin? Scientists and gamblers > have occasionally grappled with this problem. For the philosopher, > however, the answer is straightforward. There are no outcomes for a > tossed coin. > > For a philosopher, there is no possibility that an outcome of a tossed > coin is either heads or tails. Seen from above we may see heads, seen > from below we may see tails. > > The geometry of the coin means that we can only see one side at a time. > Which side is seen depends not on "possibilities" but on the fickle, > subjective reasons for our preferred spatial orientation that we adopt > AFTER the coin has been tossed. Mathematically, if the coin is a bernoulli coin, and if the odds are 1:1 then prediction makes no sense. Mathematically, if the coin is a bernoulli coin, and if the odds are p:q where p<>q then some prediction is possible without knowing the history. Mathematically, if the coin is not a bernoulli coin, and if the odds are 1:1 then even some prediction might be possible by inspecting the history. (*) In the same way you can predict the outcome of roulette play. The prediction there is that in the average the bank wins. Bye (*) For example the sequence 0 1 0 1 .. is not bernoulli, but knowing the history helps predicting the future.
From: Errol on 12 Nov 2009 07:57
On Nov 11, 11:11 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin? Scientists and gamblers > have occasionally grappled with this problem. For the philosopher, > however, the answer is straightforward. There are no outcomes for a > tossed coin. > > For a philosopher, there is no possibility that an outcome of a tossed > coin is either heads or tails. Seen from above we may see heads, seen > from below we may see tails. > > The geometry of the coin means that we can only see one side at a time. > Which side is seen depends not on "possibilities" but on the fickle, > subjective reasons for our preferred spatial orientation that we adopt > AFTER the coin has been tossed. Yes this is true, IF you can adopt a spatial orientation, that allows you to see under the coin (the side facing down) but this is not easy if the coin is lying on three feet of concrete, or is even the possiblity of it sufficient to repudiate an outcome as far as you are concerned? You really need to adopt a clearer writing style so that people can understand what you are on about |