3 ms·
You could think of the statement as being about knowing the actual bias as a function of only being able to look at the previous rolls. In other words, it is “c
by IggleSniggle 5y ago
You could think of the statement as being about knowing the actual bias as a function of only being able to look at the previous rolls. In other words, it is “contingent” on the specific roulette wheel being observed, not “contingent” on which exact rolls were seen recently, per se. But language and thinking on these subjects has evolved since 1969, so the way to frame it to a layman would obviously evolve as well. It’s been over 50 years, after all! Trying to understand the statement in the context of 1969 makes the framing much more reasonable.
Edit: I can also see how this framing might have been important to funding ongoing research, ie, perhaps you are right that there was some degree of unethical framing here.
- lisper 5y agoRecall the quoted passage: > “If numbers 1, 2, and 3 won the last 3 rounds, [I could determine] what was most likely to win the next 3.” That is unambiguously claiming not just a contingent bias, but a bias contingent on the previous three rounds. My math was based on a one-round contingent bias. That is already in the realm of extremely unlikely. Three-rounds is just flat-out impossible.
- anamexis 5y agoI don't think it's unambiguous. I think the parent's interpretation is also quite possible (even probable, given your point that the contingent interpretation is impossible).
- Nullabillity 5y ago> That is unambiguously claiming not just a contingent bias, but a bias contingent on the previous three rounds. No it isn't, only that three rounds may be enough to predict the bias. Whether the bias actually depends on previous results is irrelevant to the quote.
- lisper 5y ago> three rounds may be enough to predict the bias That is an even more absurd claim.
- melony 5y agoWould a bias contingent on the previous 3 be considered Markovian in this case?