 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/13/2009 12:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> That actually does make sense to me.
Only if your math teacher can't count!
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 May 2009 06:56:18 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> On 5/13/2009 12:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That actually does make sense to me.
>
> Only if your math teacher can't count!
Precisely. :-)
I've had maths teachers like that...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yay!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Sg2PiQuCo#t=6m35s
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/14/2009 8:33 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 06:56:18 -0700, Chambers wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2009 12:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That actually does make sense to me.
>> Only if your math teacher can't count!
>
> Precisely. :-)
>
> I've had maths teachers like that...
>
> Jim
I had a statistics teacher who like to play lottery games.
She didn't like me.
It might have something to do with the fact that I told the whole class
that the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 07:32:04 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> I had a statistics teacher who like to play lottery games.
LOL
> She didn't like me.
>
> It might have something to do with the fact that I told the whole class
> that the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
Ain't that the truth. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> It might have something to do with the fact that I told the whole class
> that the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
>
My comp sci teacher used to call it a tax on the stupid. :D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> It might have something to do with the fact that I told the whole class
> that the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
Not really, because it's not just math involved. There's also a utility
function that changes based on the amount of money you're betting.
Would you bet $1 once to have a 10% chance of winning $1000?
Would you bet $100,000 once to have a 10% chance of winning $100,000,000?
There's more than math to it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:58:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> There's also a utility
> function that changes based on the amount of money you're betting.
That "utility function" can be represented as a mathematical formula,
though. It isn't a single equation, arguably, and each person's
assessment of the risk involved would be different, but that's what
"playing the odds" is, isn't it?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:58:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> There's also a utility
>> function that changes based on the amount of money you're betting.
>
> That "utility function" can be represented as a mathematical formula,
> though. It isn't a single equation, arguably, and each person's
> assessment of the risk involved would be different, but that's what
> "playing the odds" is, isn't it?
Right. But disagreeing with someone else's utility function isn't "stupid"
or "being better at math". It's the same math. You're just disagreeing
with the value people put on their money.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 11:12:53 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:58:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> There's also a utility
>>> function that changes based on the amount of money you're betting.
>>
>> That "utility function" can be represented as a mathematical formula,
>> though. It isn't a single equation, arguably, and each person's
>> assessment of the risk involved would be different, but that's what
>> "playing the odds" is, isn't it?
>
> Right. But disagreeing with someone else's utility function isn't
> "stupid" or "being better at math". It's the same math. You're just
> disagreeing with the value people put on their money.
Well, with the value they put on their money and their perception of the
chances of their probability of a gain being worth the risk of losing
their investment.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
