Jem of the Shire 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2006 what the hell is going on in this thread, my brain is not very big guys, it can't handle all this science/maths talk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pabloh20 1 Report post Posted October 3, 2006 what the hell is going on in this thread, my brain is not very big guys, it can't handle all this science/maths talk Sorry!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Max Mosley 2 Report post Posted October 3, 2006 the probability of of probability not being equal to one, is not one, as probability can never be one. True, that follows from your assertion that probability is never one. But if you think about it, the same assertion implies that the probability of a probability being not equal to one, is in fact, one! Hence the contradiction. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goferrarigo 0 Report post Posted October 4, 2006 True, that follows from your assertion that probability is never one. But if you think about it, the same assertion implies that the probability of a probability being not equal to one, is in fact, one! Hence the contradiction. you are right. but theorectically a machine can run at 100% and probability can be equal to one. Practically maybe not but theorectially it is defonally possible Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ctrl300 0 Report post Posted October 4, 2006 Whether there are third drivers or not, I don't think Narain will make it onto the track. Unless I have over-estimated the team's finances - and of course there have been numerous indications that they are dire, not the least of which was the Indian's introduction to the team - I suspect that Frank will hire a legitimate third driver and that Narain will again fill a largely promotional role as he does now. Williams still looking for reserve driver By Jonathan Noble Tuesday, October 3rd 2006, 09:24 GMT Williams have admitted that they are still on the look out for a reserve driver for next season. Although the team recently extended their testing deal with Narain Karthikeyan, team boss Frank Williams has said that it is unlikely the Indian driver will be their reserve man in 2007. Williams said that the team were considering their options about what to do in the event that Nico Rosberg or Alexander Wurz were unable to race. "We are thinking about that presently," said Williams. It is possible that the team could reach an agreement with future engine supplier Toyota to have someone from their young driver development programme. www.autosport.com In reference to mathematical probability, an impossible event has probability of 0 and a certain event has a probability of 1, but proability 0 events are not always impossible, nor probability 1 events always certain. That's the way mathematical probability works.In your example of dying, the probability of that, within the current confines of medical science, is 1. There is no escaping that fact. If, however, somebody in the future invented a medicine that would let you live forever, then the proability might change, but you would still have to balance that fact with the realisation that the longer you live, the more likely you are to have an accident that would result in your death anyway. However, in the hear & now, the probability is still 1. The probability that Narain never will become F1 WDC is 1. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goferrarigo 0 Report post Posted October 4, 2006 The probability that Narain never will become F1 WDC is 1. Agreed. Maybe some practical cases of probibility equal to one does exist like the one above Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bajo39 0 Report post Posted October 4, 2006 Williams still looking for reserve driver By Jonathan Noble Tuesday, October 3rd 2006, 09:24 GMT Williams have admitted that they are still on the look out for a reserve driver for next season. Although the team recently extended their testing deal with Narain Karthikeyan, team boss Frank Williams has said that it is unlikely the Indian driver will be their reserve man in 2007. Williams said that the team were considering their options about what to do in the event that Nico Rosberg or Alexander Wurz were unable to race. "We are thinking about that presently," said Williams. It is possible that the team could reach an agreement with future engine supplier Toyota to have someone from their young driver development programme. There we are, my suspicions prove correct once again! Excellent post Ctrl300. Mock, what say you in light of this new information? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mock 0 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 There we are, my suspicions prove correct once again! Excellent post Ctrl300. Mock, what say you in light of this new information? I never expected him to be the reserve driver in the light of the Williams press announcement confirming him to continue testing next year. In any case, Frank Williams is smart, he has several big sponsors from NK, why shouldn't he get a few more by appointing one more 'reserve' driver ?? logical given the rumoured cash crunch Williams is going through. We all know that NK is testing for Williams because he has no seat elsewhere, so the likelihood of NK leaving Williams because he is not the reserve driver is minimal, so it's a win win situation for FW. The probability that Narain never will become F1 WDC is 1. Was that a joke ? ? sure hope so otherwise you just failed a maths exam In reference to mathematical probability, an impossible event has probability of 0 and a certain event has a probability of 1, but proability 0 events are not always impossible, nor probability 1 events always certain. That's the way mathematical probability works.In your example of dying, the probability of that, within the current confines of medical science, is 1. There is no escaping that fact. If, however, somebody in the future invented a medicine that would let you live forever, then the proability might change, but you would still have to balance that fact with the realisation that the longer you live, the more likely you are to have an accident that would result in your death anyway. However, in the hear & now, the probability is still 1. You are wrong - you cannot impose such conditions. Can you for certain prove the non existence for a means to indefinitely prolong life in the 'current confines of medical science' ?. It cannot be proved, hence even today, the probability of the explained event cannot be 1. Probability can NEVER EVER be one Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jem of the Shire 0 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 The probability that Narain never will become F1 WDC is 1. Thats not true. You cant read the future Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mock 0 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 There we are, my suspicions prove correct once again! Excellent post Ctrl300. Mock, what say you in light of this new information? I can say this, I would like to shoot FW's press agent, as well as Spyker MF1's for all the confusion they endlessly create with their driver line ups. They never confirm till the very last moment. Take this for example http://www.totalf1.com/view-article.php?newsid=178591 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Williams spokesman has clarified confusion about test driver Narain Karthikeyan's continuing role for 2007. After reports in India said the 29-year-old would race next year if either Alex Wurz or Nico Rosberg cannot, Williams' communication manager Liam Clogger explained that Karthikeyan is not 'guaranteed' the reserve role at grands prix. ''Narain could be that driver, equally, it might be someone else,'' he said, amid speculation that the Grove based team is keen to appoint a second test driver for 2007. Clogger continued: ''We may appoint a second test driver, but this driver is no more likely (than Karthikeyan) to have 'reserve' status.'' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pabloh20 1 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 You are wrong - you cannot impose such conditions. Can you for certain prove the non existence for a means to indefinitely prolong life in the 'current confines of medical science' ?. It cannot be proved, hence even today, the probability of the explained event cannot be 1. Probability can NEVER EVER be one I studied maths & stats, admittedly a long time ago, and never came across the statement that probability could not equal 1. I have also done some checking since then to make sure I wasn't going completely mad & I still cannot find any evidence whatsoever that agrees with you. Please don't get me wrong, I am not 'rubbishing' your statement as it were, just that it was completely new theory to me & I still haven't found anything that would suggest such a condition exists. If you have any info on it, can you point me in the right direction? Cheers. I am not imposing conditions, by the way, I am just reporting it as it is. I don't need to prove the non-existence of 'something' that can prolong life indefinitely because by the same token it's impossible to prove the existence of such a means either. Even if something was discovered it would still have so many questions - will it work on everyone, how do we know it extends your life indefinitely maybe it only does it for a 1000yrs, if you live for longer is the chance of having a fatal accident higher, etc, etc. So I stand by my statement that today the mathematical probability of death is still 1. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mock 0 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 I studied maths & stats, admittedly a long time ago, and never came across the statement that probability could not equal 1. I have also done some checking since then to make sure I wasn't going completely mad & I still cannot find any evidence whatsoever that agrees with you. Please don't get me wrong, I am not 'rubbishing' your statement as it were, just that it was completely new theory to me & I still haven't found anything that would suggest such a condition exists. If you have any info on it, can you point me in the right direction? Cheers. A few things to mention I admit I may have probably made a misstatement somewhere in my ignorance, but the basic rule still applies that a probability of 1 presupposes that an event is certain, that it will happen. Unfortunately there is mathematically no way to prove the certainty of an event happening as 100%, one can only assume such. Your logic of probability being one presupposes the event will happen (or zero in the case of it certainly not happening) 1. I am no whiz in Mathematics or Statistics, so I cannot provide any theorems to support this 2. What I do know is that the a probability of 1 is possible when an event is certain to happen - unfortunately, it is not possible to have a mathematical certainty in this case 3. Thust, the idea of probability being one can be only assumed under the condition (albeit an artificial one) that the event is certain to happen. I'm confused now too. There is an interesting debate between Lewis and Reichenbach on this, but most of it is greek to me Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pabloh20 1 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 A few things to mentionI admit I may have probably made a misstatement somewhere in my ignorance, but the basic rule still applies that a probability of 1 presupposes that an event is certain, that it will happen. Unfortunately there is mathematically no way to prove the certainty of an event happening as 100%, one can only assume such. Your logic of probability being one presupposes the event will happen (or zero in the case of it certainly not happening) 1. I am no whiz in Mathematics or Statistics, so I cannot provide any theorems to support this 2. What I do know is that the a probability of 1 is possible when an event is certain to happen - unfortunately, it is not possible to have a mathematical certainty in this case 3. Thust, the idea of probability being one can be only assumed under the condition (albeit an artificial one) that the event is certain to happen. I'm confused now too. There is an interesting debate between Lewis and Reichenbach on this, but most of it is greek to me Presumably the greeks are the ones to blame for all this maths & probability anyway !! I know where you're coming from and originally I was just playing devil's advocate, then I started to doubt myself! I think your 3rd point is the closest to it - mathematical probability of 1 doesn't have to be 100% certain, if that makes sense. Just because the probability is 1 doesn't make it certain to happen and just because the probability is 0 doesn't make it impossible to happen - it sounds wrong, but it's just the way it works. Presumably, as you say, it's a sort of assumption, because maths & scientists tend to do things like that so that their theories will fit!! Now I am going for a lie down because my brain hurts!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Max Mosley 2 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 No don't stop. We're just getting started! Whats the probability of a bachelor being unmarried? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pabloh20 1 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 No don't stop. We're just getting started! Whats the probability of a bachelor being unmarried? Who's the bachelor ?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Max Mosley 2 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 My friend Bob! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pabloh20 1 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 My friend Bob! 0.85 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devilsinskirts 0 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 No don't stop. We're just getting started! Whats the probability of a bachelor being unmarried? A man can remain a bachelor following an annulment of his marriage. So the probability (in general) will be slightly less than 1. But I'd need to check through some sort of statistics on annulments and unmarried men before coming to a definitive figure. In the case of your friend Bob, assuming that he has never had an annulment, the probability would be 1. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Max Mosley 2 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 0.85 A man can remain a bachelor following an annulment of his marriage.So the probability (in general) will be slightly less than 1. But I'd need to check through some sort of statistics on annulments and unmarried men before coming to a definitive figure. In the case of your friend Bob, assuming that he has never had an annulment, the probability would be 1. Cheers. If you have an annulment are you unmarried? If so surely the probability of a bachelor being unmarried is one? Perhaps there is a difference between "not presently married" and "unmarried". Trust a girl to know this! Btw Bob hates me always using him as an example of a sad lonely bachelor. Would you like to marry him? Either way here's another question: assuming probability can never be one, what's the probability of a probability being not equal to one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pabloh20 1 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 Either way here's another question: assuming probability can never be one, what's the probability of a probability being not equal to one? Stop now, otherwise you'll end up like Bob!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Max Mosley 2 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 Bob rocks. Anyway I've carefully considered the probability of me ending up like Bob and I think its an acceptable risk. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bajo39 0 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 I can say this, I would like to shoot FW's press agent, as well as Spyker MF1's for all the confusion they endlessly create with their driver line ups. They never confirm till the very last moment. Take this for examplehttp://www.totalf1.com/view-article.php?newsid=178591 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Williams spokesman has clarified confusion about test driver Narain Karthikeyan's continuing role for 2007. After reports in India said the 29-year-old would race next year if either Alex Wurz or Nico Rosberg cannot, Williams' communication manager Liam Clogger explained that Karthikeyan is not 'guaranteed' the reserve role at grands prix. ''Narain could be that driver, equally, it might be someone else,'' he said, amid speculation that the Grove based team is keen to appoint a second test driver for 2007. Clogger continued: ''We may appoint a second test driver, but this driver is no more likely (than Karthikeyan) to have 'reserve' status.'' Don't worry about what you read in press statement, just use your head. Karthikeyan is a rubbish driver who only exists as a Williams team member to satisfy the sponsorship arrangement that his sponsors have with the team. With this truth in mind, you would never be led astray by confusing and contradictory press statements. Cheers. If you have an annulment are you unmarried? If so surely the probability of a bachelor being unmarried is one? Perhaps there is a difference between "not presently married" and "unmarried". Trust a girl to know this! Btw Bob hates me always using him as an example of a sad lonely bachelor. Would you like to marry him? Either way here's another question: assuming probability can never be one, what's the probability of a probability being not equal to one? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stopkidding 0 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 Don't worry about what you read in press statement, just use your head. Karthikeyan is a rubbish driver who only exists as a Williams team member to satisfy the sponsorship arrangement that his sponsors have with the team. With this truth in mind, you would never be led astray by confusing and contradictory press statements. 1 Just about as Rubbish as the rest of the backmarkers like Sato, Albers, Yamamoto, Monteiro and the likes. I am still waiting for your "expert opinion" on how Karthikeyan is not qualified to be an F1 driver. If you look at his Junior accomplishments, you will see that he as achieved about as much as the rest of the back markers drivers. Prove your point Bajo. Merely stating your opinion doesn't make it a fact. There is no truth by repetition Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bajo39 0 Report post Posted October 5, 2006 Just about as Rubbish as the rest of the backmarkers like Sato, Albers, Yamamoto, Monteiro and the likes. I am still waiting for your "expert opinion" on how Karthikeyan is not qualified to be an F1 driver. If you look at his Junior accomplishments, you will see that he as achieved about as much as the rest of the back markers drivers. Prove your point Bajo. Merely stating your opinion doesn't make it a fact. There is no truth by repetition *cough* I actually did prove my point. Of the list you provided (which is different from the list you now present), I explained that Monteiro was the second-least qualified among them and long-time members of the forum know the extensive comparison I did that ultimately showed how even the hapless Portugese was better qualified than Karthikeyan. As to whether the Indian is less qualified than Yamamoto - who cares? They are both desperately underqualified for F1 and only around because of their nationalities... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
