Kyrisch

Yes, I am well aware that there are various accents, and the one I do is definitely not the posh received pronunciation. From there, I'm lost though... I simply don't have the ear to tell the differences, and I've listened to so many different accents that the one I do is sort of a combination of all those I've been exposed to. As such, it probably won't sound very region-specific, but I am nevertheless curious as to what regionalism it most closely resembles.

The question was never "which strategy wins more prizes", but rather "which strategy yields a greater chance of winning", meaning not-losing, meaning the inverse of the probability of getting zero prizes, which is what the math portrays. EDIT: And here's my edit after reading your edit. I think we're on the same page.

Nor have you heard of links, either, I gather

I am an eighteen-year-old American who lives in New Jersey. I have been interested in linguistics for quite some time, and have studied various languages on my own, as well as plan to major in linguistics in college. Besides foreign languages, however, I have also been interested in accents for quite some time. What I found most intriguing was how learning to speak (one's native tongue) with an accent is of comparable difficulty of learning to speak an entirely new language. I figured this was because learning a new language is a completely new skill, while learning an accent is simultaneously "over-writing" a skill and learning a changed one. I thought of the analogy of learning to write with one's left hand and learning to write backwards with one's right (given right-dominance, of course). How does this relate to "the" British accent? Well, first, I put "the" in quotes because it's a common misconception on this side of the pond that there is one definitive BRITISH ACCENT, while I know full well the diversity of the dialects of the kingdom. (It often confounds me how there is more diversity in dialect in a landmass so small as compared to the relatively little across the wide country of the U.S.) Further, a British accent is the first accent that I actually tried to learn to do, mostly by imitation. The problem with imitation is that, often, one exaggerates the features one hears and disregards the ones they do not, resulting in a caricature of the accent. However, I seem to have an innate ability to subconsciously pick up the nuances usually missed in imitation, so it works for me and I excel pretty quickly in accents of all sorts, given only a small audio sample. Now, I have always wondered how "good" the accent actually is, because pulling it in public here (as I often do for the entertainment ) is no test because Americans simply do not have the ear. I've also wondered what regionalism I most closely mimic (as the accent I do is a sort of amalgam of all the accents I've heard). I realized that, because there are quite a few resident Brits on this here forum, this could be a good opportunity to get these questions answered. First and foremost, I don't mean any sort of mockery in doing this, as it is purely a linguistic and intellectual endeavor on my part, and I think this is a good place to request this because while many may take offense, or dismiss my attempts (as many have done upon similar requests in the past), I figured the users of this forum are the most unbiased group I could come across. The problem is, how do I upload an audio file? Any suggestions, not only how but also what to read, perhaps? Thanks.

Perhaps an antihero? Antiheroes are very intriguing figures in literature, and I think it applies here -- a character whose feats are heroic, but whose nature is controversial and socially unacceptable (like Batman in The Dark Knight).

This is the issue. The expected value and the probability according to the binomial distribution are different. The expected value is zero multiplied times the probability. The probability itself is: [math]_{10}C_0 \cdot (0.10)^0 \cdot (1 - 0.10)^{10-0}[/math] Since the first two terms are equal to 1, the probability is: [math](0.90)^{10} = 34.9\%[/math]

To discuss further, a hypocritical politician has the same effect on the populace as a politician who does not follow through on their campaign promises. Both are contradictions between what they say and what they do, and both are simply due to the fact that people believe that in those kinds of positions, politicians ought to be held responsible for what they say.

So you argue that the tortoise's position in the story I linked to is essentially untenable?

So I think I covered more prizes, the probability that you would win with an even spread would approach 100% more quickly than the probability of winning with a boatload of tickets in one, so no good there. What about fewer prizes? 3 pots, 2 people, 3 tickets each. 2 tickets in each pot: All in one: 3/5 = 60.0% Even spread: 1 - (2/3)^3 = 70.4% So, with fewer prizes it is still more advantageous to go with an even spread. This makes sense, too, because even though number of pots is variable, the way we've set it up is so that number of participants is equal to number of pots, so the math is identical to the above by Sisyphus.

I realize that my calculations did not address this question. Let me try to tackle this one... 10 cups, 99 people, 10 tickets each. You are the hundredth. 99 tickets in each cup. Probability of winning if you put all your tickets in one cup: 10/109 = 9.17% Probability of winning if evenly spread: 1 - 0.904 = 9.60% Hmm, the two seem to be converging. Time for some good ol' algebra... [math]\frac{10}{n + 9} = 1 - (\frac{n-1}{n})^{10}[/math] ...Except I'm going to end up with like a tenth-order equation there. Oh well. That's the form of it, if anyone feels like solving tenth-order equations And... Sisyphus beat me to it.

Alright, I did some recalculations: The cumulative probability of getting AT MOST ten wins in the given circumstances is: 1 (I see now, but then you have to...) subtract from that the binomial probability of zero successes: 34.9% = 65.1%. So, you should put a ticket in each pot. Just playing around with numbers, now, here... What if there were 100 pots (9 people, each with 100 tickets, 9 tickets in each)? The chance of winning if you dump all 100 in one is much greater: 100/109 = 91.7% But the chance if you put one in each is 1 - 0.0000266 ≈ 100% It is still advantageous to put 1 ticket in each.

Ahah! For the second case I have to use a binomial distribution! I forgot about that, I took Statistics two years ago >.<. Anyway... The probability of winning given ten drawings, each with a probability of 1/10 each is: Binomial distribution given 10 trials, 1 success, and p = 0.10: [math]_{10}C_1 \cdot (0.10)^1 \cdot(1-0.10)^{(10-1)} = 38.7\%[/math] In conclusion, you would have better chances dumping all your tickets into that prize you really, really want. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, that could not have been right. It is obviously not a sure thing to win in that circumstance. I don't remember why that approach does not work, however, I just remember that one must use binomial distributions in this case.

Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you were concluding that after turning over 18 cards, because 12 of them were red and 6 of them were black, the initial probability was not 50-50. I see now that you're saying that given that spread of 18 cards face up, there will be more black cards face down, and the new (called conditional) probability is different. This is true -- however, the turns (unlike coin-flipping, I'm regretting using that analogy), are not independent of each other, as you realize. This means that turning over a black card will increase the probability of turning over a red card, BUT in the end, as long as you choose randomly, you will still get an approximately even number of black and red cards face up, no matter what "system" you use.

If you put all your tickets in one cup, your chances of winning would be: [math]\frac{10}{19} = 52.6\%[/math] If you put one ticket in each cup, your chances of winning would be: [math]\frac{1}{10} \cdot 10 = 100\%[/math]? yeah... that's not right... The first one is though. >.< What have I done wrong?

This may be true, but for evolution to occur, natural selection must take its toll. And that means death of the unfit. We should rather like to avoid that, so the better route is to cut down on emissions.

In fact, your whole idea is fundamentally flawed. No matter how many cards you "pick in your head", the probability of the next card you flip being red or black is based solely on the number of cards of each colour showing and face down. In fact, there are many outright false statements in the OP. First, of course, is the gambler's fallacy, that flipping over a black card first would cause the odds to shift drastically in favour of a red card immediately following. However, given 26 cards, 13 of each colour, the probability that you will choose a red card on the second flip given that one black card is face up already is only 13/(26-1) = 0.52, close enough to 50-50 that it would only make a difference an average of twice in one hundred turns. Second is this idea that because after 18 cards you ended up with 12 red and 6 black, the probability is somehow NOT 50-50; this is patently false. Just because an outcome does not match perfectly with its assigned probability does not mean that the probability is invalid. If you flip a coin four times, it is not very unlikely that you might produce three consecutive heads, and one tails (1 in 16 flips). In fact, this outcome is just as likely as heads, tails, heads, tails (1 in 16 flips) and does not indicate that the probability for heads is something like 3/4 and that of tails is 1/4. Probabilities are outcomes on average. Flip a coin 1,000 times and if the spread is something like 3:1, then you have an issue (or a weighted coin xP).

Yes, I realized this: that science works is a sign that logic is externally consistent with materialism [empiricism]. But materialism is also an assumption we take for granted (although, like logic, it would be impossible to operate without).

In the classic dialogue between Achilles and the Tortoise by Lewis Carroll, it is shown that that logic works is a premise that cannot ever be demonstrated or proven because proofs require the use of logic; such proofs might be internally consistent, but would invariably be circular. Now, it's clear that logic is necessary to function sanely in the world. It is also so deeply ingrained that you're probably trying to think of a reason why logic is inescapable, but must stop yourself because you've already begun a process of logical deduction without even realising. So the best we can come up with is internal consistency in the form of: 1) In order to live sanely and to make sense of the world, logic must be utilized, and 2) logic is so deeply ingrained in our thought processes that we use it without being conscious of its use, so to avoid hypocrisy it must be applied in all cases. (Keeping in mind, of course, that these statements are logical constructs) But self-consistency is supremely unsatisfying. I mean, even the most ludicrous forms religion are self-consistent. The only reason many religions remain so strong is because they make sense within their own framework (although even some necessary doublethink doesn't decrease the fitness of a religion too much). For example, it is nearly impossible to challenge religious precepts on the grounds of religion because they are not falsifiable (i.e. internally consistent). (Oh, are we not allowed to talk about religion again? Read "religions" as "belief systems which ignore outside reality" xP) Regardless, this whole "internal consistency" thing reeks of circular logic. And true, an internally consistent system (that may be externally inconsistent) is better than one that is internally inconsistent (containing, for example, cases of doublethink), but it is still unsettling to me. Then again, the only alternative to logic is a complete disregard thereof, but then you start speaking in Zen-Buddhist Koans: "What is Buddha? Three pounds of flax." Thoughts?

Awhile back I saw a diagram that I can't seem to find on google images that tried to explain the phenomenon of the sonic boom. I seem to remember the wavefront of the sound being likened to the wake of a boat in the water. When the boat travels faster than the propagation velocity of the water waves, the wave front actually recedes from the rear of the boat and appears to follow the craft a ways off the aft in a manner similar to what the OP describes. Anyone know anything about this?

Haha I wrote a short story on this exact premise. The creatures were silicon-based lifeforms, so they didn't recognize us as life. The point of it was that you didn't know that the visitors were not human until the very end. I thought it was half-decent.

So I've been lurking in this thread, and I feel like bombus is doing something very, very similar to what Creationists do to the theory of evolution. Granted, there is a lot more missing from the theory of plate tectonics than from the theory of evolution, but the treatment is essentially the same. I hope this will point out a nuance that has been being passed over numerous times. When deciding whether or not to accept a theory, scientists generally look for two things: completeness and consistency. An inconsistent theory is one that is flat-out contradicted by evidence. Such a theory would make a prediction like "The Earth is growing," and then be contradicted by the evidence that no measurable increase in radius has occurred. This makes it inconsistent. An incomplete theory would say "The Earth is growing," but provide no known mechanism that could cause such an effect. As we can see, the EET is inconsistent and incomplete. However, the plate tectonics model is consistent: we can observe shifting rift valleys and subduction zones. We see that the age of the Earth is consistent with the plate tectonics model. Admittedly, however, the model is incomplete. You are convinced that it does not fully explain what is happening around Antarctica, and (although I have little to no background in geology) you are probably right. However, this does not invalidate the theory any more than the fact that no evolutionary biologist can tell you with any certainty where or when or how the first birds appeared. I hope this has helped you understand why plate tectonics is accepted by the scientific community despite its incompleteness, and why it is okay that we don't really know what's going on around Antarctica as long as there is no competing theory which can explain all that the plate tectonics model does and then some.

--You never responded to this.

I looked at the film description, and I think it's called "Creation" because Darwin's life was full of his own struggle with his personal and social religious identity. As a scientist, he forsook his own belief in creation as the evidence he collected added up, but he knew that more religious, less scientific people (especially his wife) would not react so open-mindedly.

First of all, the electrons must have ceased acting like waves and began acting like particles sometime before and up to the moment they passed through the slit in order for the interference pattern on the screen to disappear. Since the only conscious rendering of the situation is formed after observing the electrons' imprints on the screen, and the devices inside the slits are not actually recording anything, it is clear that conscious observation is not the issue here. Also, as soon as you say "This is IMHO a big issue in science," you lose. Nothing is anything in your opinion, as far as science is concerned. Science really doesn't care what you think if you don't have evidence. And a single paper is not evidence enough for the controversy you seem to point to.

At the risk of saying something that might already have been touched upon, in the double-slit experiment, the results changed without ever being relayed through a consciousness. Electrons through double slit = interference pattern; electrons through double slits with (non conscious) detectors = particular behaviour (as conveyed by the screen on the other side of the slits). Sure, a consciousness observed the photons coming from the screen which showed the difference in behaviour of the electrons, but surely the wavefunction collapse occurred much earlier, at the point of detection. And even if the detectors did not actually record anything, their very presence caused the breakdown of the probability curve.