In ordinary casual probability talk, it does indeed matter.
If we want to be precise, then it depends on precise specifications of the mathematical model. That’s why a clearly specified model is needed when doing statistical analysis.
I did. What I don’t understand is how people can understand an example with odds of 1 in 100 million but cannot understand an example where the odds are 1 in 2.
What are the odds of an event that has already happened for which the outcome is unknown? According to your posts, the odds are 1:1. The event is past, the probability is 1, even when the outcome is not known. So what are the odds that John won the lottery once the lottery is over if you don’t know yet that John was the winner?
There’s that bad math again. It does automatically become 1 when it happens.
Indeed. Why can’t you understand the analogy I am using?
In my example, the outcome is known. Again, STOP CHANGING THE ANALOGY!!!
There are a lot of people here with advanced degrees that require advanced knowledge of prob and statistics and stochastic processes.
From the OP:
The simple fact is that the probability of an event that has already occurred is 1 in 1, because it happened.
No mention whether whether the outcome is known. Will you be modifying the OP?
Read it again . . .
I read it again. It still says the same thing.
The simple fact is that the probability of an event that has already occurred is 1 in 1, because it happened.
Because it happened. Not because it is known.
Do you agree that if the outcome is not known then it is not the case that the probability of an event that has already occurred is 1 in 1?
Read it again.
3 Likes
Just delurking to say I admire your patience.
1 Like
Why not just update the OP? It’s not that it happened that makes the probability 1.0, it’s that who won the lottery is known. Else the actual names of the last 5 winners is simply irrelevant. An event can occur without the outcome being known. A lottery can have a winner without the actual winner being known.
Why not just deal with the description as presented instead of trying to Mung up everything with a cloud of squid ink?
1 Like
But in (at least some) lotteries, you can request anonymity on puchasing a ticket. Does that affect the chance of winning? The draw is the event. Before the draw an individual chance of winning is one divided by the number of participants (assuming the draw is fair and always produces a single winning ticket) Subsequent to the event, the draw, one participant has a probability of one of having won and all other participants zero. whether I or anyone else know who the winner is doesn’t change the odds.This seems so trivial, I wonder if I’m missing something.
In the example I have given, is it true that the improbable is inevitable?
1 Like
He is using “winning” as a noun.
It was explained to you at TSZ.
Your example is intended to illustrate your argument. If it fails to do that then one of the two needs to change. Since you appear unwilling to change your example then I think it is your argument that needs to change.
In my example we know the winners of the lottery. Does that mean the probability of those specific people is 1 in 1 after we know they are the winners?
It is because of your knowledge of the outcome that you change the probability to 1. If you don’t know the outcome (John won the lottery) then you cannot assign a probability of 1 to the event “John won the lottery.”
So it is simply not the case that the mere occurrence of the event is sufficient to make the probability 1. And it’s not the passage of time that causes it, it’s the change in our knowledge.
1 Like