Completely wrong for the first part. The chance of your freind dying is infact 100% because all people die. The odds of friend dying at that exact moment is slightly better, but almost indistinguishable from, 1/(the world's population) because he could die from something unrelated to the button press. Finally the chance of your friend dying BECAUSE of the button press is 1/(the world's population). There are no 50/50 odds concerning life and death anywhere near this question.Weslebear said:
1/7000000000000 or 50/50
- Thread starter Zersy
- Start date
The chance of your friend being killed out of everyone in the world is 1/(7billion - 1) or whatever the population is.UNKNOWNINCOGNITO said:
You're logic is that there are 2 possibilities and its a 50/50 each way. You're looking at it wrong. Flipping a coin is 50/50 NOT because there are 2 options. Its because there are 2 options and BOTH ARE EQUALLY likely. The chance that one person OTHER than your friend dying is almost guaranteed, the chance of your friend dying out of everyone is tiny, these are 2 options but they do not have the same chance.
I know that chance is actually really low but normally chance could be proven only when tested. If you would have done it multiple times and the chance would be proven, you would not have a problem pressing the button again however mental state of person who is going to press this button for a first time would be that anything can happen and subjectively for him/her it would be 50/50 . I know we are talking about two different things and and that 50% isnt chance but the thing is if someone told you they will give you 1000? if you press a button that has 0.0001% chance to kill you or do nothing, would you press it?OldKingClancy said:
It depends on the truth of algorithm this so called killer button uses. Depending on the malicious intent of said button, and whoever made it, it could be more than a 50/50 chance. I wouldn't trust that whoever puts that choice before me to be completely honest.
err noHerbertTheHamster said:
a 100 year storm happens once in a 100 years or 1/100
its (part/total) not (part/total-part)
It is either him, his neighbour, his mother, his brother, his aunt, his childhood friend, the child who made his shoes in a factory in Indonesia, the person who lives in a building on the exact opposite side of the earth or anyone else.UNKNOWNINCOGNITO said:
The odds of it being him are one in 6.8 billion and the odds of it not being him are 6.799999999 billion in 6.8 billion
You're thinking this the wrong way. The outcome isn't either your friend or not your friend. It's your friend or one of the other 7 billion people out there. With your way of thinking, winning in the lottery is really easy. It'd be either you win or you don't but the real chances are much much much lower. The same goes here, if it's really random between all human beings, then the probability of it being your friend who dies, is 1/7billion. Of course the 7 billion is just a number used to make it easier.
But the rules for this box were already stipulated, so no, it's not 50/50. you might be able to argue some odds based on the likelihood the information was correct, but even then it would not be anywhere near a 50/50 chance. Numbers are not subjective, I am sorry if you do not realize this.Vhite said:
as for you question, 0.0001% to kill me or do nothing I wouldn't press, because there is a 99.9999% chance that it will do something that won't kill me and I don't have any clue what that something is. if you meant 0.0001% that it will kill me and a 99.9999% it would do nothing, Hellz yeah I would press it.
Imagine the same on a smaller scale: rolling a die when you want a six.
Theoretically, you have two potential outcomes: you get a six or you don't. But that does not make both possibilities equally likely; it is more likely to be 'not six' than 6; there are 5 equally likely 'not six' outcomes as opposed to only one 'six'.
Theoretically, you have two potential outcomes: you get a six or you don't. But that does not make both possibilities equally likely; it is more likely to be 'not six' than 6; there are 5 equally likely 'not six' outcomes as opposed to only one 'six'.
A half would mean that it would have to favour him 6.97 billion times more than anyone else on the planet.
Pretty sure the number in the title is larger than 7 billion. Actually, that number is 7 trillion.
Pretty sure the number in the title is larger than 7 billion. Actually, that number is 7 trillion.
Dammit this is mind boggling me!
Quite frankly I think possibility are correct. Yes it is 50/50 but to be honest the chanse of your mate being being killed is very slim due to the other random people involve in the chance.
Quite frankly I think possibility are correct. Yes it is 50/50 but to be honest the chanse of your mate being being killed is very slim due to the other random people involve in the chance.
The fact that a possibility is an either/or (or can be viewed as an either or) does not mean that the two possibilities are equally weighted. You could be struck by a wildly off-course bus the instant you walk out the door. You could be struck by a wildly off course bus at the same moment your lottery ticket is announced as the winner. That there is a state of "not being struck by a bus and simultaneously winning the lottery" and a state of "being struck by a bus and simultaneously winning the lottery" does not make the chances of those two possibilities "50/50".
Look, the way you enumerate the range of states you consider is exactly what matters when it comes to ascribing probabilities. How you do that is a matter of understanding the logical division of any given problem into state descriptions, which is in the abstract a very difficult question. I phrased it as a philosophical problem to draw upon the notion of "explanation", but it's equivalently a very difficult computational problem too (most likely an intractible one, if Godel is to be taken at face value).SirBryghtside said:
What happened in the OP's case is that he misunderstood the space in question as being one of each person's dying being independent of anyone else's. In such a state space, the probability of 1/2 would be entirely correct. It's quite easy to make misinterpretations like this, especially if you're inclined to take a more generous view of the range of logical possibilities that might be available than whoever posed the question. And in fact people generally share the view that not all classical rules of logic apply in all interpretable circumstances (three-value and continuum-value logics have been used more widely recently in theoretical computer science), despite classial logic being taken for granted in high-school/junior undergraduate mathematics.
Basically, there is usually a good reason why people get confused about certain mathematical features and structures. It's just plain arrogance to dismiss it as incomprehensible ignorance, and in this case, suggests you're taking things for granted that you most likely haven't even realised.
The button doesn't randomly choose between killing him or not killing him, it randomly chooses which person to kill.
Imagine you flip a coin a hundred times. Either it comes up heads one hundred times or it doesn't. Does this mean that there's a 50% chance it comes up heads a hundred times?
Imagine you flip a coin a hundred times. Either it comes up heads one hundred times or it doesn't. Does this mean that there's a 50% chance it comes up heads a hundred times?