Puzzle

[iluvparis]

Dan, you think Andrew Bolt and that idiot Monkton speaks with greater authority on climate change than most scientists in the world. Why anyone would listen to your opinion is beyond me. Put simply, you're an idiot.

He might have the political views of Adolph Hitler but that doesn't prevent him explaining pure laws of mathematics with accuracy.

 

[Dan26]

He might have the political views of Adolph Hitler

Ron Paul/Milton Friedman/David Lleyonhjelm actually. Libertarian here.

Hitler was closer to the modern day Greens.

 

[iluvparis]

Ron Paul/Milton Friedman/David Lleyonhjelm actually. Libertarian here.

Hitler was closer to the modern day Greens.

As stated may be a complety idiot/moron but doesn't prevent you presenting a mathematical proof.

 

[iluvparis]

Say there are 23 people at a dinner party.

What are the chances that any two of them share the same birthday (not the YEAR, just the date.) Not counting leap years or anything.

To the nearest 5%(i.e 5% chance 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% etc) what are your guesses?

Closest to the pin gets an accolade, personally by Dan26

First guess would be 5% (for any individual odds of having same birthday is 1/365 * 22 possible chances) but I am guessing that is wrong.

 

[Dan26]

As stated may be a complety idiot/moron but doesn't prevent you presenting a mathematical proof.

You don't believe me about the Nazi's have a closer look. They were far, far closer to the Greens* than either of the two major parties. 50% more likely to adopt Green big-government policies.

*Not suggesting that the Greens and Nazis are the same mind you. Just a lot closer than our two big parties here in Oz.

 

[Dan26]

First guess would be 5% (for any individual odds of having same birthday is 1/365 * 22 possible chances) but I am guessing that is wrong.

Over 50%

50.7% chance to be exact of any two people in a group of 23 sharing the same birthday.

Seems wrong, but it's legit.

 

[Gough]

Ron Paul/Milton Friedman/David Lleyonhjelm actually. Libertarian here.

Hitler was closer to the modern day Greens.

I've never come across a libertarian that doesn't present like a twelve year old child complaing about being forced to clean their bedroom. In a political paradigm that is pathetic, libertarians are without doubt the saddest of all creatures.

 

[kfc1]

I've never come across a libertarian that doesn't present like a twelve year old child complaing about being forced to clean their bedroom. In a political paradigm that is pathetic, libertarians are without doubt the saddest of all creatures.

 

[Dan26]

I've never come across a libertarian that doesn't present like a twelve year old child complaing about being forced to clean their bedroom. In a political paradigm that is pathetic, libertarians are without doubt the saddest of all creatures.

Take it to the SRP board

 

[PaddyO]

I've never come across a libertarian that doesn't present like a twelve year old child complaing about being forced to clean their bedroom. In a political paradigm that is pathetic, libertarians are without doubt the saddest of all creatures.

Look, it's obvious you just dislike librarians because you have a bookshop and they take business off you.

 

[iluvparis]

You don't believe me about the Nazi's have a closer look. They were far, far closer to the Greens* than either of the two major parties. 50% more likely to adopt Green big-government policies.

*Not suggesting that the Greens and Nazis are the same mind you. Just a lot closer than our two big parties here in Oz.

 

[MarcusP2]

Over 50%

50.7% chance to be exact of any two people in a group of 23 sharing the same birthday.

Seems wrong, but it's legit.

Given there are over 250 pairs in 23 people I'm surprised it's that low.

 

[Piss Poor]

this is the only way to describe how to solve this puzzle

 

[treefingers]

Over 50%

50.7% chance to be exact of any two people in a group of 23 sharing the same birthday.

Seems wrong, but it's legit.

Better still, you only need around 70 people or so to be 99.9% certain that someone will share the same birthday.

 

[treefingers]

Another one that's bugged me for a while - it's not a math problem but a paradox moreso.

Imagine you have a pile of sand. If you take one grain of sand away, it's still a pile right? If you take away another one, it's still a pile. But if you keep repeating this, eventually there will only be one grain of sand left. Does this mean one grain of sand counts as a pile? Following on, is no grains of sand also a pile? After all, if you take away one grain of sand, it remains a pile. And if this isn't the case, at what point did it change from a pile to non-pile?

 

[Run n Spread]

There are three doors. One door has a million dollars behind it, the other two doors have nothing.

The host of this game asks you to choose a door. You choose door number 1

The host then opens up one of the other doors (door 2) that has nothing behind it. So, this leaves two doors - door 1 and door 3.

The host says you can keep your original choice or switch to door 3

What door should you choose and why?

Stick with 1. Original choice and odds have increased from 33.33% to 50%. Why change?

 

[SterlingArcher]

Would you have sex with your dad to save your mums life?

 

[HugeJohnson]

I pick the first door because you said the one door has the million dollars behind it.

 

[Northworth]

I don't get how that works.

Aren't the two choices completely independent of each other?

If you have zero indication of which it is, how can it be anything other than 50/50?

because the host isn't actually revealing any info

you choose door A

he tells you door B has a goat/nothing

your initial choice was already A: $$, B:goat, C:goat

by the host saying one of the other doors has a goat - is just consistent with your initial choice


you originally had a 1/3 chance of success and a 2/3 chance of failure

the second choice is not a continuation of the first… it is a new 50-50 choice.. you improve the odds by 1/6 by switching as your first choice will always be 1/3….. your second choice is 1/2

 

[JuddsABlue]

There's a 1/3 chance that your door has the price

There's a 2/3 chance the other doors have the prize

When the host reveals on of the other two doors as no prize, it means your door still has 1/3 chance , but the remaining door still has 2/3 chance

So you get better than 50/50, you actually improve from 33% to 66%

You're effectively getting two doors for the price of one when you change

 

[HugeJohnson]

There's a 1/3 chance that your door has the price

There's a 2/3 chance the other doors have the prize

When the host reveals on of the other two doors as no prize, it means your door still has 1/3 chance , but the remaining door still has 2/3 chance

So you get better than 50/50, you actually improve from 33% to 66%

You're effectively getting two doors for the price of one when you change

When the other door is opened, both remaining doors now have a 1 in 2 chance. Opening another door doesn't suddenly decrease or increase any likelihood of the money being behind your door.

 

[Dan26]

When the other door is opened, both remaining doors now have a 1 in 2 chance.

Wrong.

 

[PaddyO]

When the other door is opened, both remaining doors now have a 1 in 2 chance. Opening another door doesn't suddenly decrease or increase any likelihood of the money being behind your door.

 

[PaddyO]

 

[aflcliche]

puzzle hurts brain