Lurker > tiornys

Am I good at math? By a layperson's standard, yes. By a dedicated mathematician's standard, I'm decent but not brilliant. I understand these problems well enough to know how much I would have to learn in order to have a reasonable chance at solving them. I doubt I'll ever have the kind of time I'd need to make such an attempt.

He's playing around. He's treating the name of the problem as if it were an algebraic problem. "P" and "NP" refer to different sets of problems where anything P is also NP. The question is whether or not anything NP is also P.

Specifically, a problem is P if it can be solved "quickly" by an algorithm, that is, by an algorithm that runs in polynomial time. NP is a problem for which answers can be verified "quickly". There are several problems for which a polynomial-time verification algorithm is known but for which we do not have a polynomial-time solving algorithm. If P = NP, then a polynomial-time algorithm must exist for these problems. Most critically, it would imply the existence of efficient algorithms for cracking our modern cryptographcial methods.

Antifar posted...

Anyways I think the impulse to get rid of parties is misguided; the aggregation of people with similar views is going to happen regardless, and it's better that happen out in the open.

Agreed with this. What we need is more diversity of viable parties and that won't happen as long as our voting system is first past the post.

Antifar posted...

Your back or the envelope math here doesn't pass the smell test; you've ended up with more identified Republicans who support the tax bill than there were Trump voters in 2016.

Only ~62% of the voting-age population voted.

edit: but you know, even if we apply the 67% to the number of Trump voters we're still talking multiple 10's of millions of people. Which is still a vast number.

Antifar posted...

[Citation needed]

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ea36346c5b6d376358fa7cc
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-americans-disapprove-of-gop-tax-plan/
https://wapo.st/2B4T1Cb
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/reopening-country-greater-risk-americans-poll/story?id=70555060

I think you'd be hard pressed to find an issue on which even a majority of Americans agree with Trump.

I think you're confusing "a vast amount" with "a vast majority". To take one of those links, 67% of Republicans approved of the tax overhaul plan. Wikipedia tells me that 30% of Americans identify as Republicans. So, 67% of 30% of 328.3 million people is just shy of 66 million people. That is both a vast amount and a minority of the US population.

edit: I didn't even bother to look at approval percentages for non-Republicans, so the total number of approvals is probably higher for that particular issue.

The Senate is fine. It's supposed to represent states, not populations. The House is the problem.

ThisGuyAreSick posted...

i have a third answer

not everything that can be proven on paper means it exists physically.

like, why is it that we can "prove" multiverses and shit on paper but the entire scientific community acknowledges that physically it has yet to be proven? but when it comes to probability craziness everyone goes "ITS TRUE THE MATH PROVES IT"

We can prove multiverses exist if certain models about reality are completely correct. We haven't proven whether or not those models are completely correct, and in many cases we have reasons to believe they aren't completely correct. Importantly, the predictions for multiverses rely on parts of the models that we don't have complete confidence in.

Conversely, in this sort of probability problem, we understand the models well and the scenarios in these problems come from parts of the models we have complete confidence in.

theres so much mathematical "glitches" that result from number manipulation and an absurd set of criteria. take into account imaginary numbers, or .9999999~=1, and so on and so on....

In our normal number system, 0.999... = 1 because of how we've defined that number system. The definitions we've chosen were chosen to work well with the types of problems we were trying to solve (mainly things in calculus). Change certain definitions and you can get number systems where 0.999... =/= 1, but if you do that there are other consequences.

Imaginary numbers are a thing that also result from a mathematical definition. Lots of abstract things result from mathematical definitions. Most of those things are just fun stuff to play with that have few or no known applications. Imaginary numbers happen to have several extremely useful applications, so we give them more importance than other highly abstract concepts.

CanuckCowboy posted...

I sort of get that but i mean youre still only really picking one door arent you?

i know it works but at this point i have to admit im too dumb to get why.

Wait fuck no i literally just got it. I still have a hard time with it though.

Right, a lot of the unintuitiveness comes from exactly this. You're technically only picking one door, but the actions of the host mean that switching lets you effectively pick both of the other doors (or in the larger examples, all of the doors except one).

If you have someone to work with, it may be even more instructive to take turns being the "player" and the "host".

CanuckCowboy posted...

Mythbusters did it.

I still didnt get why switching was always the better option though.

Because it's better to pick two doors than to pick one door.

MT_TRAEH posted...

so basically
first chance to get a car is 33%
but i have a 66% chance of getting a goat

and if i do get the goat on the first pick, which is 66% chance, and the other goat is removed, i have a better chance of taking the car by switching my pick?

am i getting this right?

Correct.

I recommend doing a google search of "Colorado tourism" + that other thing.

dave_is_slick posted...

I already said percentages were never my strong suit. That's why I asked for simple terms.

Would you accept that the odds are different for the second card depending on what the first card was?

VideoboysaysCube posted...

Does the original problem state whether the host has knowledge? Because I think that's what everything depends on. If the host has knowledge and picks a goat on purpose, it's better to switch. If the host picked randomly, then it doesn't make a difference.

Correct.

dave_is_slick posted...

No. I don't get how it's the same when all the others have been eliminated and don't matter anymore.

You're focusing too much on current conditions and dismissing your prior information. If I flip a card off of a deck, what are the odds that it is red? If I flip a second card off the deck, what are the odds that it's red if the first card was black? What if the first card was red?

Hello_Hello_Hey posted...

What if you would prefer to have a goat? Much less expensive to maintain.

Then you should switch to the open door.

dave_is_slick posted...

How is it not a decision? You switch or you don't. That is a decision. All others have been eliminated. Then you have to make a decision and since it comes down to only two at the end, I'm either right or wrong. Now, if it wasn't only two doors at the end I might see it but as it is I don't.

The function of the host opening a door is to let you pick two doors by switching.

Let's take the host out of the problem.

Here are three doors. One has a car, two have goats. You can pick one.

Now, I'll let you keep your one door, or switch to both of the other two doors. Do you want to switch? (assume I will always offer this choice--if I only sometimes offer the choice, that changes the problem again).

Nadal prime vs. Federer prime on hard court, single head to head match? Federer, easily. Nadal's greatest advantage is his ability to wear his opponent down through excellent defense and a punishing forehand. One match isn't enough for him to wear Federer down enough to win.

dave_is_slick posted...

Or it's behind what I already picked. You are either right or wrong once everything else has been eliminated.

Yes, you're either right or wrong, but the odds are no longer 50/50.

If your initial door is right, you were right at the initial choice, which you get right 1/3 of the time. If your initial door is wrong, you were wrong at the initial choice, which happens 2/3 of the time.

dave_is_slick posted...

Behind one of two doors, with my door possibly being it. I'm not switching.

No. If you missed the car originally, he's guaranteeing you that it's behind the door you could switch to.

dave_is_slick posted...

But he's not since he's not telling me anything. All he did was eliminate one. I could still very much be right. How is at all indirectly telling me where it is?

Well, it's not guaranteed that he's telling you something, which is where a lot of the confusion comes from. He's only telling you where the car is if you didn't pick the car to begin with.

dave_is_slick posted...

And that knowledge is?

That the door he opened never had the car.

Basically there are two scenarios. 1: your initial guess hit the car. In this case the host can open either of the other doors and you don't actually gain information, and if you switch you lose. 2: your initial guess missed the car. In this case the host must open the remaining door with a goat, and if you switch you win.

Scenario 1 happens 1 time in 3, scenario 2 happens 2 times in 3. If you're in scenario 2, the host is indirectly telling you where the car is (because he has no choice about which door he opens).

dave_is_slick posted...

I guess this is just a problem I'll never truly get because I still don't see, even after all these explanations, why holding onto your pick when it's only two options left, is the "wrong" thing to do.

It's because you're not acting on the information that you've been indirectly given by the actions of the more knowledgable host.

ChocoboMogALT posted...

That was going to be my point. If the host reveals the car, you switch to the car (presumably you're allowed), if the host reveals the goat,you switch as the problem is solved above (I think it's 66%).

No, because the reason the odds are 66% as the problem is generally presented is because the host can't (or doesn't ever) reveal the car, which basically pushes the 1/3 * 100% portion of the odds into the goat + switch scenario.

To put it another way, take that scenario with 1 million boxes. If you pick one, and then 999,998 are taken away, and it's possible to take away the prize, where do you think the prize is most likely to be?

ChocoboMogALT posted...

Doesn't matter.

It can matter. Specifically, if it is possible for the host to randomly open the door that the car is behind, then the odds for switching are actually 50% if a goat was revealed (and 100% if the car was revealed).

The_Bitcoin posted...

a little jump and a strong kick?

Takes a punch from the enhanced arm with minimal injury and an extremely fast recovery from being launched. Super human jump. Holds, bends, and distorts the enhanced arm with one hand. Doesn't even notice a punch from the unenhanced arm. Strong kick. Two story drop without even being fazed.

Details, yo.

Frankly, you only need one scene to see that Black Panther is enhanced to superhuman levels even without the suit. Captain America: Civil War: https://youtu.be/KmZPfYK_LgM?t=102

Automatic because hybrid. I live near mountains and don't generally need to deal with stop and go traffic, so if I go back to a traditional engine my preference will be for manual.

Antifar posted...

Am I the only one who read the topic title like TC was bad at math?

Nope.

And frankly, even the correct reading suggests that TC is bad at math.

ssjevot posted...

A lot of East Asian countries didn't do lockdowns or force businesses to close and have among the lowest infection/death rates of any country. The thing a lot in the West don't want to accept is that cultural factors are the main reason they are being devastated, not government policy. Not wearing masks, shaking hands, generally not caring about people around you to the point of going out when you are sick and thinking it's the other people's problem, not yours.

Part of this is cultural, yes. Part of it is because they responded much faster and much more proactively. This early response allowed them to largely manage outbreaks with testing and contact tracing instead of having to resort to lockdowns.

Of course, these are the countries that took the brunt of the SARS epidemic; it appears they learned some good lessons from that experience.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Didn't that happen before the apocalypse?
Oops!

I mean, there were still people responsible for pandemic response. From all reports, they were urging action at least a couple of months before we actually took action at the federal level. So, the reduction in personnel is before the crisis, but the failure to act on their advice was definitely during it.

Questionmarktarius posted...

That's not entirely wrong.
But, what could have been done, without stomping on the constitution and basic liberty?

Ramp up the production of PPE. Ramp up the production of testing kits. Take action to address the testing bottlenecks. Facilitate supply chains.

Or, you know, just don't disband the team meant to lead the pandemic response--and then follow their plan of action.

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

They handled it exactly how they handle everything. In all different ways. Anyone solely blaming one person or one thing is just a biased person that is so out of touch with reality that they shouldnt even be listened to.

You can literally put anyone in the presidents shoes and the exact same thing would have happened. Literally.

Nah. A toaster would have done better at being president during this crisis. It would at least have done nothing.

Yes, I am claiming that Trump's actions have actively made things worse than they would otherwise have been.

It's a trailer for people who watched the first season.

Masks should be changed every few hours to avoid bacterial issues. Employees should be able to take regular breaks where they can take off and change their masks. But then, I know how well US companies comply with giving their employees the breaks they're supposed to get....

LeperMessiahXX posted...

Am I the only one the link isn't working for? I'm also not seeing it on any other news site.

The link works for me.

sauceje posted...

I'd try to get some help wtf

This.

I mean, I also like John Oliver and generally agree with his politics. But if it were Tucker Carlson or Steve Bannon or similar--people who I do not like and definitely do not agree with--I would still try to get some help.

This recent article seems relevant to this discussion: https://www.tor.com/2020/05/13/classic-sf-with-absolutely-no-agenda-whatsoever/

Ok. Let's try to really lay this out.

1) Covid-19 is potentially dangerous to everyone. Young healthy people with no preexisting conditions have died and/or been rendered horribly sick and suffered permanent damage to lungs and possibly other organs. It is less dangerous if you are young and healthy, but it is still significantly more dangerous than the average flu.

2) It is difficult to pin down the lethality rate of Covid-19, but most estimates put it about an order of magnitude more deadly than the flu (around 10x more deadly). For the purpose of this discussion I'll go with 1%; it's not really all that important what the exact percentage is.

3) What is important is this: the chance of a lethal infection being ~1% only holds true if medical treatment is available. If medical treatment is not available, the lethality of Covid-19 skyrockets. We don't know how exactly how much worse it gets, but we know it gets a lot worse. Looking at Italy and New York--two areas where the medical system was quickly overwhelmed, suggests we can conservatively estimate this higher lethality rate at 10% or more.

The point of lockdowns/stay at home orders/closing non-essential businesses etc. is not not not not to stop the spread of Covid-19. The point is to slow the spread enough to prevent healthcare systems from being overwhelmed so we can keep the lethality rate at that ~1% figure instead of dealing wtih the much higher 10+% lethality rate. (note this does not count the add-on increase in overall mortality that results from overwhelmed healthcare systems being unable to properly respond to everyday illness and injury--treatable heart attacks become lethal, treatable strokes become lethal, treatable injuries from car accidents are much more likely to be lethal, etc.)

We do not need a vaccine to responsibly reopen the economy while keeping the infection rate low enough to avoid overwhelming health systems. Some combination of proper hygeine, social distancing, rapid testing, and contact tracing is sufficient. A vaccine would let us responsibly return to pre-Covid normalcy, but it is irresponsible to simply sit and wait for a vaccine.

"But herd immunity can also let us get to pre-Covid normalcy!" True, but naturally acquiring herd immunity will take years even without lockdown/stay at home measures--and this is assuming that herd immunity is even possible without vaccines, which it might not be depending on how much immunity a recovered Covid-19 patient has and how long that immunity lasts.

"But lockdowns/stay at home do too much damage to the economy!" Yes, they do a lot more damage to the economy than we want. Letting large numbers of people get sick and die will also do a lot of damage to the economy.

"But my personal rights!" Sorry, they don't apply here. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Your right to pollute your environment ends at your property line. Your right to risk infection ends at the point where you contribute to the catastrophic failure of our health systems.

Sayoria posted...

If the government was doing their job and actually keeping the money coming in so people could live, we'd be fine. A lot of people are worried about income. I get that some have a claustrophobic thing happening, but money can keep people comfortable. One 1200 dollar package isn't doing s***. It needs to be continuous until this thing is beat.

This.

FFX and FFXIII have advanced versions of Defend that are extremely useful. But the basic Defend command? Yeah, it was never worth much.

Chrono Cross. Self isolate in a tropical archipelago? Yeah, I can probably manage that.

We decided we didn't like choosing between "screw the economy" and "screw the population"--we demand BOTH.

pegusus123456 posted...

Because, and I cannot stress this enough, we are stupid as fuck.

Eh, it's a thing. If I hear really good things about it I may check it out.

monkmith posted...

also, wasn't the whole series originally some form of fanfiction?

You're probably thinking 50 Shades of Gray, which originated as Twilight fanfic.

Drumiester posted...

Yep that's why states are opening up next week

So we'll get a great verification check in about two and a half weeks.