3 ms·
Having to understand probability problems like this by writing code is like having to count the dots to multiply. It's functional innumeracy. Not something to b
by drewcoo 3y ago
Having to understand probability problems like this by writing code is like having to count the dots to multiply. It's functional innumeracy. Not something to be shamed, but something that needs to be fixed.
What is 3 x 2?
. . .
. . .
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 . . . six?
Edit: To add to that, check out the Erdos book from the 90s on innumeracy (here's Wikipedia instead of an AMZN affiliate link):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innumeracy_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innumeracy_(book)
- eigenvalue 3y agoThe purpose of the code was to make it clearer what is happening here. If someone is confused by the direct calculation, then they can also look at the simulation and maybe things will become clearer. Also, you do need to have some actual insight into the problem to solve it directly with calculations, whereas you just have to model the situation to brute force a simulation and arrive at essentially the same answer (with a lot more compute used, but that's basically free now!).
- svat 3y agoThe book Innumeracy that you linked: why did you call it "the Erdos book"? It is not connected to Erdős in any way, as far as I can tell.