Extension to Murphy's Law

[petrushka.googol]

"Too many sequential wrongs make a right"......

 

Events are essentially random (quantum) eg) 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

 

However when the same event recurrs consistentially, the model changes from quantum to deterministic. eg) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 

This is even if the event has "negative" connotations.

 

What is wrong or right then becomes a matter of perspective.

[TheGeckomancer]

This reminds me of your "music is symmetry of noise" post.

[Strange]

"Too many sequential wrongs make a right"......

 

Do they? Where is that quote from? (Or did you make it up and put quotation marks around it to make it sound authoritative? It just sounds wrong (and even if you repeat it, sequentially, it will still be wrong.)

 

Events are essentially random (quantum) eg) 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

 

Are they? (And "quantum" does not mean random.)

 

What is wrong or right then becomes a matter of perspective.

 

From my perspective, your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent.

[petrushka.googol]

 

Do they? Where is that quote from? (Or did you make it up and put quotation marks around it to make it sound authoritative? It just sounds wrong (and even if you repeat it, sequentially, it will still be wrong.)

 

 

Are they? (And "quantum" does not mean random.)

 

 

From my perspective, your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent.

 

Have you heard of the adage "delay defeats equity". Mathematically a delay is a negative event and a succession of such events actually is interpreted as an endorsement of status quo. Now do you see my point ?

[Strange]

Have you heard of the adage "delay defeats equity".

 

I haven't. But I gather it is an idiomatic description of the legal principle of laches.

 

 

Mathematically a delay is a negative event

 

Citation needed.

 

and a succession of such events actually is interpreted as an endorsement of status quo.

 

By whom?

 

 

Now do you see my point ?

 

No.

 

You are mixing up legal idioms and pseudo-mathematical mumbo-jumbo to come up with yet another of your famously ludicrous conclusions.

[Ophiolite]

1.

"Look before you leap"; "He who hesitates is lost".

 

"Don't rock the boat"; "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

 

"A new broom sweeps clean"; "You can't teach an old dog new tricks".

 

For many and adage we can find a counter example. Context and experience can guide as towards the better one to follow in each instance. This may be suitable for dealing with the complexity of social interactions, but it has no place in establishing, or validating scientific hypotheses. Therefore, at the outset, Petrushka, your speculation is without foundation.

 

2.

You claim this sequence is random (while simultaneously displaying ignorance of basic quantum theory):

 

1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

 

However, if it continues in this fashion, we see it is has a distinct non-random pattern. (The pattern may be easier to see if you convert to octal.)

 

100101000010011000001001010000

 

Which at worst invalidates the second part of your argument and at best means you have presented it badly.

 

3.

A delay is a non-event, rather than a negative event.

 

4.

Why?

[petrushka.googol]

"Too many sequential wrongs make a right"......

 

Events are essentially random (quantum) eg) 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

 

However when the same event recurrs consistentially, the model changes from quantum to deterministic. eg) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 

This is even if the event has "negative" connotations.

 

What is wrong or right then becomes a matter of perspective.

 

My central theme is if a person regularly makes a mistake then that "mistake" ceases to be one.....

[Daecon]

So... anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, and too many sequential wrongs make a right?

 

What connection does that have to quantum theory or determinism?

[petrushka.googol]

So... anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, and too many sequential wrongs make a right?What connection does that have to quantum theory or determinism?

 

So... anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, and too many sequential wrongs make a right?What connection does that have to quantum theory or determinism?

At the macro level it is deterministic even though at the micro level it is not.

[Daecon]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm really not following what you mean.

[Strange]

 

My central theme is if a person regularly makes a mistake then that "mistake" ceases to be one.....

 

There are cases where that can be true. For example, that is how language evolves: when large numbers of people start using a construction that is considered "wrong" it will eventually become the correct form of the language.

 

But if someone regularly slams their fingers in the door and swears in pain, I don't see how that can cease to be a mistake.

At the macro level it is deterministic even though at the micro level it is not.

 

That doesn't appear to make any sense. I think you need to explain. How does micro and macro level, and determninism, relate to someone making a mistake?

[petrushka.googol]

 

There are cases where that can be true. For example, that is how language evolves: when large numbers of people start using a construction that is considered "wrong" it will eventually become the correct form of the language.

 

But if someone regularly slams their fingers in the door and swears in pain, I don't see how that can cease to be a mistake.

 

 

That doesn't appear to make any sense. I think you need to explain. How does micro and macro level, and determninism, relate to someone making a mistake?

 

If you view each event atomically then that seems random, but not when seen as a repetitive sequence, inclusive of the error event.

[Strange]

Can you be more specific? Why would a repeated series of random events not seem random?

 

Do you think that you could win at dice games with this logic? Or is that what you mean: you can't tell what any given role of the dice will produce, but you can say that over the long term, there will be a 6 roughly 1/6th of the time?

So is this just a statement of the law of large numbers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

And, if so, what does it have to do with Murphy's Law?

[John Cuthber]

 

My central theme is if a person regularly makes a mistake then that "mistake" ceases to be one.....

Just about every time I use the word "probably" I mistype it as "probabaly" .

How often must I do this before it stops being an error?

[petrushka.googol]

Can you be more specific? Why would a repeated series of random events not seem random?

 

By virtue of their repetitive predictability.

 

Do you think that you could win at dice games with this logic? Or is that what you mean: you can't tell what any given role of the dice will produce, but you can say that over the long term, there will be a 6 roughly 1/6th of the time?

So is this just a statement of the law of large numbers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Yes

And, if so, what does it have to do with Murphy's Law?

It follows.

Just about every time I use the word "probably" I mistype it as "probabaly" .

How often must I do this before it staops being an error?

Till it is statistically significant

 

There are cases where that can be true. For example, that is how language evolves: when large numbers of people start using a construction that is considered "wrong" it will eventually become the correct form of the language.

 

But if someone regularly slams their fingers in the door and swears in pain, I don't see how that can cease to be a mistake.

 

 

That doesn't appear to make any sense. I think you need to explain. How does micro and macro level, and determninism, relate to someone making a mistake?

Maybe this is how cuss words entered the lingo. Edited January 30, 2016 by petrushka.googol

[Strange]

It follows.

 

Doesn't.

 

Not without further explanation, which you seem unwilling / unable to provide.

 

Are you just talking about the law of large numbers? Or something else?

 

Maybe this is how cuss words entered the lingo.

 

Ultimately, it is how all words entered the language.

[John Cuthber]

Till it is statistically significant

 

That's nonsense.

Why did you post it?

Did you not understand that my point was that it never does become correct.

So your suggestion that " if a person regularly makes a mistake then that "mistake" ceases to be one." is simply wrong.

 

And, since it's your "central theme "you should accept that you are just wrong.

[Phi for All]

Just about every time I use the word "probably" I mistype it as "probabaly" .

How often must I do this before it stops being an error?

 

Till it is statistically significant

 

 

What a ludicrous claim! What if the misspelling actually had a different meaning, like writing "affect" when you mean "effect"?

 

My word (like John's) is "becasue". My left ring finger hits s after a quicker than my right index finger hits the u in between, so I'm in error almost every time I try to type "because". If I didn't correct it, people might get used to it, understand what I really wanted to type, but that will never make it correct.

[Ophiolite]

 

My central theme is if a person regularly makes a mistake then that "mistake" ceases to be one.....

That's true. I agree. Here are examples.

 

If someone routinely steps into the roadway without looking for approaching traffic they will eventually die, or be seriously injured. They and the mistake will cease to be.

 

If someone routinely makes mistakes in their work, quite soon they will no longer have work in which to make mistakes. The mistakes will cease to be.

 

Not quite what you meant, but then what you meant was seriously devoid of thought.

[petrushka.googol]

 

What a ludicrous claim! What if the misspelling actually had a different meaning, like writing "affect" when you mean "effect"?

 

My word (like John's) is "becasue". My left ring finger hits s after a quicker than my right index finger hits the u in between, so I'm in error almost every time I try to type "because". If I didn't correct it, people might get used to it, understand what I really wanted to type, but that will never make it correct.

.

 

People will be able to decipher it.

Edited January 30, 2016 by petrushka.googol

[Strange]

If someone regularly forgets to switch off the light he is not classified as insane.

 

What does that have to do with anything? Someone who occasionally forgets to switch off the light is not going to be considered insane either. (But someone who regularly posts incomprehensible nonsense and refuses to explain or discuss it, might have their sanity doubted.)

[andrewcellini]

.

 

People will be able to decipher it.

But, again, that doesn't make it correct which seems to be what you're claiming.

Edited January 30, 2016 by andrewcellini

[Strange]

People will be able to decipher it.

 

Which is irrelevant. They will be able to decipher it if you do it once or frequently.

 

Are you talking about the Law of Large Numbers? If not, what are you talking about? Can you please explain.

[Ophiolite]

Petrushka, you need to do one of two things:

 

1. Concede that a mistake is a mistake no matter how often it is made. In many cases making the mistake repeatedly raises the severity of the mistake. This is so blindingly obvious to the members posting here that your persistent refusal to understand and accept it makes it a classic example of a repeated mistake not becoming correct through repetition.

 

2. Give a very thorough yet concise explanation and justification for your argument. This needs to be complete, not your usual loose statements, sidetracks and irrelevancies.

 

Any other action and I shall be inclined to Report your post and recommend a suspension. That is not a threat, but a heads-up to help you make contributions that are of more value to the forum and yourself than your current efforts.

[petrushka.googol]

Petrushka, you need to do one of two things:

 

1. Concede that a mistake is a mistake no matter how often it is made. In many cases making the mistake repeatedly raises the severity of the mistake. This is so blindingly obvious to the members posting here that your persistent refusal to understand and accept it makes it a classic example of a repeated mistake not becoming correct through repetition.

 

2. Give a very thorough yet concise explanation and justification for your argument. This needs to be complete, not your usual loose statements, sidetracks and irrelevancies.

 

Any other action and I shall be inclined to Report your post and recommend a suspension. That is not a threat, but a heads-up to help you make contributions that are of more value to the forum and yourself than your current efforts.

.

 

I never intended to sound pedantic. My apologies are due.I am just curious about science.