Aren't the originals red, blue and yellow?sage42 said:In the original S/G/C pokemon games (haven't played the re-makes so I don't know) the day-care center, where the breeding is done, is on Route 34.
Aren't the originals red, blue and yellow?sage42 said:In the original S/G/C pokemon games (haven't played the re-makes so I don't know) the day-care center, where the breeding is done, is on Route 34.
Because you are working out 99% and 50% of 365 your not actually calculating any probabilities there. Just doing an irrelevant equation.GirDraconis said:Okay, I get the 100% statistic and agree it makes perfect sense (except for the February 29th babies, then it's 367). I'm not getting the other two. 365 x 0.99 = 361.35. My brain says you'd need 362 (rounding up) people. Same for the 50% statistic. How do these last two statistics work?Hennofletch said:For there to be a 100% chance two people share the same birthday there must be 366 people.
A 99% chance is reached by 57 people and a 50% chance by just 23.
A Free Man said:Because you are working out 99% and 50% of 365 your not actually calculating any probabilities there. Just doing an irrelevant equation.GirDraconis said:Okay, I get the 100% statistic and agree it makes perfect sense (except for the February 29th babies, then it's 367). I'm not getting the other two. 365 x 0.99 = 361.35. My brain says you'd need 362 (rounding up) people. Same for the 50% statistic. How do these last two statistics work?Hennofletch said:For there to be a 100% chance two people share the same birthday there must be 366 people.
A 99% chance is reached by 57 people and a 50% chance by just 23.
I haven't actaully checked the other two statistics but are you sure about that first one? Because if you have 3000 people there is no possible chance that none of them share a birthday. Think about it... If there are more people then there are days in the year at least one of them will have to share a birthday with another. Statistically speaking that is a 100% probability.4RM3D said:This is not true. First of all, there can't be a 100% chance. If you pick 366 random people, you can still be statistically unlucky to not have the same birthday. Heck, even if you pick 3000 random people you still have no guarantee. Even though it is statically unlikely, you never get a 100% chance.Hennofletch said:For there to be a 100% chance two people share the same birthday there must be 366 people.
A 99% chance is reached by 57 people and a 50% chance by just 23.
Not sure about the following, but if you say you have a 99% chance you share the same birthday with 57 random people, then you are saying the other 308 days fall within the 1% margin, meaning about 80% off all people have a birthday within the same 57 days of the year. That is just... weird.
I actually already mentioned this in a reply further back in this thread. The premise wasn't explained very well. When I read the wiki page, I understood what the issue was. See my original reply below.A Free Man said:I haven't actaully checked the other two statistics but are you sure about that first one? Because if you have 3000 people there is no possible chance that none of them share a birthday. Think about it... If there are more people then there are days in the year at least one of them will have to share a birthday with another. Statistically speaking that is a 100% probability.
4RM3D said:I understand what went wrong, now that I have read the wiki page. As stated:Hennofletch said:Just to make life easier I'll link the wiki page = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
I apologise if i explained poorly, I'm just an interested ignoramus.
I first learnt about this at the royal institution Christmas lectures in the nineties. Some damn good stuff on them.
"The birthday problem asks whether any of the people in a given group has a birthday matching any of the others ? not one in particular."
Now it makes sense.
Are you sure about the purple one?doomspore98 said:the color purple was invented by crayola. Also the image of santa that we have locked in our minds forever, was made by coca-cola for a marketing campaign.
No, it's A diamond, not made OF diamonds.Gizmo_Gia_Gias said:There is a planet made of diamonds
That doesnt really make chemical sense :/ Its a single molecule in the same way any covalent latice is a single molecule. Many atoms of carbon form all 4 bonds with eachother in a diamond shape that repeats over and over. Its one huge structure, but its one molecule in the same way EVERYTHING made of a single element in a lattice or block is one molecule.Daverson said:Despite their size, perfect diamonds are composed of a single molecule.Gizmo_Gia_Gias said:There is a planet made of diamonds
I don't know if the diamond planet is a single molecule, it'd be pretty awesome if it was...
I don't see how that's any different from what I said? It's a molecular lattice repeating endlessly. The entirety of the crystal is held together by intramolecular bonds, as opposed to a crystal like ice, which is formed from distinct molecules held together by intermolecular bonds. That's why ice melts easily, and diamond doesn't!BiscuitTrouser said:That doesnt really make chemical sense :/ Its a single molecule in the same way any covalent latice is a single molecule. Many atoms of carbon form all 4 bonds with eachother in a diamond shape that repeats over and over. Its one huge structure, but its one molecule in the same way EVERYTHING made of a single element in a lattice or block is one molecule.Daverson said:Despite their size, perfect diamonds are composed of a single molecule.Gizmo_Gia_Gias said:There is a planet made of diamonds
I don't know if the diamond planet is a single molecule, it'd be pretty awesome if it was...
Just red and blue. Yellow was made afterwards as a tie in to the tv show (or was it the comic? I'm not sure which came first)A Free Man said:Aren't the originals red, blue and yellow?sage42 said:In the original S/G/C pokemon games (haven't played the re-makes so I don't know) the day-care center, where the breeding is done, is on Route 34.
I know but when you think about it such an occurence is very common. It isnt special that a pure element is a single molecule, or as you said other compounds can form in such a way, it just struck me as something that sounds rare and impressive but actually is far more common than you would think.Daverson said:I don't see how that's any different from what I said? It's a molecular lattice repeating endlessly. The entirety of the crystal is held together by intramolecular bonds, as opposed to a crystal like ice, which is formed from distinct molecules held together by intermolecular bonds. That's why ice melts easily, and diamond doesn't!BiscuitTrouser said:That doesnt really make chemical sense :/ Its a single molecule in the same way any covalent latice is a single molecule. Many atoms of carbon form all 4 bonds with eachother in a diamond shape that repeats over and over. Its one huge structure, but its one molecule in the same way EVERYTHING made of a single element in a lattice or block is one molecule.Daverson said:Despite their size, perfect diamonds are composed of a single molecule.Gizmo_Gia_Gias said:There is a planet made of diamonds
I don't know if the diamond planet is a single molecule, it'd be pretty awesome if it was...
It's not just that it's a single element that gives it this property, you can have similar crystals made of several elements, such as rubies, which are made of a repeating lattice of Aluminium, Oxygen and Chromium.
It is pretty common, but it's an interesting fact, because not many people know it! =DBiscuitTrouser said:I know but when you think about it such an occurence is very common. It isnt special that a pure element is a single molecule, or as you said other compounds can form in such a way, it just struck me as something that sounds rare and impressive but actually is far more common than you would think.Daverson said:*snip*
The name was invented by crayola. sorry about the confusionBurst6 said:Are you sure about the purple one?doomspore98 said:the color purple was invented by crayola. Also the image of santa that we have locked in our minds forever, was made by coca-cola for a marketing campaign.
I learned in history class that purple was made in ancient Phoenicia. Apparently they used the juice from snails to make it, and that a small bottle was about as rare and expensive as gold. Because of the cost it was generally used by Royalty and nobles.
No it was not. Even a cursory glance at the wikipedia article would inform you that it is derived from an Old-English word, which is in turn derived from Latin.doomspore98 said:The name was invented by crayola. sorry about the confusionBurst6 said:Are you sure about the purple one?doomspore98 said:the color purple was invented by crayola. Also the image of santa that we have locked in our minds forever, was made by coca-cola for a marketing campaign.
I learned in history class that purple was made in ancient Phoenicia. Apparently they used the juice from snails to make it, and that a small bottle was about as rare and expensive as gold. Because of the cost it was generally used by Royalty and nobles.
I actually did this once, (but to be fair, my right arm is double jointed, which kinda helped)usmarine4160 said:It's impossible to lick your own elbow