quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

No I just proved that sarkeizen is dancing around my statement and not on it @mark E

Dude you said...

if I point to one item and declare it a 2lot violation people might laugh,a handful might take it serious.if I point to over 100 different combinaton of items and declare them a 2lot violation,you'd better

That is exactly what we were talking about.  Clearly you think there's a significant difference between one thing you hope is a 2LOT violation and 100.  I predicted that you don't know why 1 or 100 or 100 000 don't matter. 

and it's pretty clear that you don't

HINT: You can't just combine any two probabilities.

[profitis]

Because the 100 combos are realife combos not theoretical mr sarkeizen.you're arguing probabilities on the significance of engaging a statement on real experiments when you should be adressing it direct.one realife combo eg. Karpen pile is going to spark massive debate.100 realife combos is going to hammer it down to a rule.ie.your arguing with the child about where the remote is when its in your pocket the whole time.you're dancing around a statement on realife combos instead of addressing it.

[sarkeizen]

you're arguing probabilities

No YOU'RE arguing probabilities.  You said that if I can't determine that some statement is FALSE then (by some virtue of the statement) it is massively likely to be TRUE.  That is arguing that the PROBABILITY of it being true is HIGH.

I just happen to know considerably more about statistics than you likely ever will.

You also probably don't realize how you are weakening your own argument by pursuing this line of reasoning....but please continue...because I always use anecdotes like this to demonstrate how people's instinctive ideas about statistics are incorrect and in your case batshit insane.  

[MarkE]

There's no math required.just plain logic.if I point to one item and declare it a 2lot violation people might laugh,a handful might take it serious.if I point to over 100 different combinaton of items and declare them a 2lot violation,you'd better be damn well prepared to offer a counterexplanation otherwise your going to trip people up @sarkeizen.the statements seriousness is proportional to its broadness in this case.

Three men step up to the roulette wheel at an honest .  The wheel is a USA type:  00, 0, 1-36.  The house pays 35:1 for a win.  The first man declares 4 winning numbers by placing $1. bets on each.  The second man declares 10 winning numbers by placing $1. bets on each.  The third man declares 20 winning numbers by placing $1. bets on each.  Each man plays 100 spins.  How much money is each man likely to win or lose based on his betting scheme? What are the winnings / losses of each man as a percentage of the total bets each man placed?  What would happen if each man played 1000 spins, or 10,000 spins?

[profitis]

You forgot that I included people in the above statement highlighted by markE.You're neglecting the 3dimensionality of the probability factor mr sarkeizen.your correct on a calculator but incorrect when you take into account human perception and emotion.the perceptions being sight,hearing,smell,touch.if humans see a statement on 100 existing combos giving energy from 'somewhere' and no counterstatement,they are going to take it serious.thus a broad-based statement on something that exists requires urgent address.a statement on   100existences is going to have much more impact than a statement on one existence.unless it is countered successfully.now you see how statisticaly the statement becomes more important.