= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Open thread, Oct. 12 - Oct. 18, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (250)
Yeah, okay, I worded that stupidly. It's more like this:
"This 20-sided-die just came up 20 twice in a row. The odds of three consecutive rolls of 20 is 0.0125%. I acknowledge that this next roll has a 1/20 chance of coming up 20, assuming the die is fair. However, if this next roll comes up 20, we are witnessing an extremely improbable sequence, so improbable that I have to start considering that the die is loaded."
The equivalent of "considering that the die is loaded" in your example is "the previous owners did a bad job of maintaining the house". It's indeed makes sense to come to that conclusion. That's also basically what your wife did.
Apart from that the difference between sequences picked by humans to look random and real random data is that real random data more frequently contains such improbable sequences.