All of Wamba-Ivanhoe's Comments + Replies

Going back to each of the finite cases, we can condition the finite case by the population that can support up to m rounds.  iteration by the population size presupposes nothing about the game state and we can construct the Bayes Probability table for such games.

For a population  that supports at most  rounds of play the probability that a player will be in any given round  is  and the sum of the probabilities that a player is in round n from  is ; We can let ... (read more)

2Primer
This seems like great work! If we're allowing to run out of players, the whole paradox collapses.

I posit that the supposition that "At some point one of those groups will be devoured by snakes" is erroneous.  There exists a non-zero chance that the game goes on forever and infinitely many people win.

The issue is that the quoted supposition collapses the probability field to only those infinitely many universes where the game stops, but there is this one out of infinitely many universes where the game never stops and it has infinitely many winners so we end up with residual term of .  We cannot assume this term is zero just because of ... (read more)

1dreeves
I wouldn't say erroneous but I've added this clarification to the original question: It sounds contradictory but "probability zero" and "impossible" are mathematically distinct concepts. For example, consider flipping a coin an infinite number of times. Every infinite sequence like HHTHTTHHHTHT... is a possible outcome but each one has probability zero. So I think it's correct to say "if I flip a coin long enough, at some point I'll get heads" even though we understand that "all tails forever" is one of the infinitely many possible sequences of coin flips.
1Primer
I think that's what makes this a paradox.

Calculating the odds of dying when playing the snake-eyes game with a player base of arbitrary size.

For an arbitrary player base of  players, the maximum possible rounds that the game can run is then the whole number part of , we will denote the maximum possible number of rounds as .

We denote the probability of snake-eyes as .  In the case of the Daniel Reeves market .

Let   the probability density of the game ending in snake-eyes on round n then .

The sum of the probability den... (read more)

2Primer
"The sum of the probability densities of the games ending in snake-eyes is less than 1 which means that the rounds ending in snake-eyes does not cover the full probability space." This is contradicted by the problem statement: "At some point one of those groups will be devoured by snakes", so there seems to be some error mapping the paradox to the math.

Because all scenarios have P(red) >= 50%, the combined P(red) >= 50%. This holds for both SIA and SSA. 

 

The statement above is only true if the stopping condition is that "If we get to the batch  we will not roll dice but instead only make snakes with red eyes", or in other words  must have been selected because it resulted in red eyes.

Where  is selected as the stopping condition independent of the dice result, the fate of batch  is still a dice roll so there exists a  scenario. Any s... (read more)