Hi Steve " The chances of drawing a glass without any marked molecules is 1/1000, supporting ES's claim."
I don't think the maths works quite that way. Some glasses would have exactly 1000 molecules, some would have 1000 -/+ 1, or 2 .. -/+999. Presuming that the distribution is a "normal" distribution, there would be an exceedingly small probability of getting a glass with zero marked molecules. Furthermore since there is the equally remote probability that a single glass would contain all the marked molecules (just like we started out with), the distribution would be skewed away from a normal one.. This is just an off the cuff observation. I could brush up my prob-stats if reqd (and eat humble pie if wrong). On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > Nick - > > I read it through before seeing your retraction. As you may recognize by > now, your fallacy is probably not a consequence of your being an English > (Psychology?) Major but actually just not reading the statement of the > problem carefully enough. The 10^24 (molecules) vs the 10^21 glasses > (cups?) might be about right and your math is good (1000 molecules per > glass on average)... but the conclusion (1/1000 chance of drawing a glass > with a marked molecule) is reversed. The chances of drawing a glass > without any marked molecules is 1/1000, supporting ES's claim. > > I'd say you did good (right up to that premature send thingy) for an > English Major. > > I read ES's "What is Life" years ago and was deeply inspired by it's > directness and simplicity (and lack of jargon) and timeliness (1949?) well > before much was done to tie life to information theory. I look forward to > your continued "book reports". > > - Steve >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
