You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

army1987 comments on The Fallacy of Large Numbers - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: dspeyer 12 August 2012 06:39PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (31)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 August 2012 09:13:12PM *  17 points [-]

What happened to the Law of Large Numbers? Short answer: 100 isn't large.

It is. The problem is that 3 isn't large. Having 10000 cars and 0.03% failure rate would give almost exactly the same probability distribution for the number of cars broken on a given day (namely, the Poisson distribution with lambda=3). Even for N = 20 and p = 15% the Poisson distribution would be a decent approximation.

Comment author: DanielLC 13 August 2012 04:03:30AM 1 point [-]

If you have 100 cars and there's a 50% failure rate, there'd be a standard deviation of five, so you'd need an extra 15 or so cars to be safe. You have to give up almost a third of them. Three not being large is the bigger problem, but 100 still isn't all that large.