I think I got you. Also, I figured out how to make actual lists to group people together, SO if anyone is looking and wondering, on my page, in my lists is a list called KWpeeps, and it's kwpeeps. I don't remember everyone's ID's, so if you follow me from here, dm me so I know to add you to the list...

Hi There, all you people who missed me, and throwback to the eighties moon and bird to those who didn't. I went away, I won't be back except for things like this: I left, but still hook up platonically in other media with some folk, and some of them with me. If you missed me, or think I missed you [...

I've probably said before something like "I'd be a pure mystical/spiritual crap is crap/illusion/delusion except for a few things..." Personal, direct, happened to me ones, for instance: A couple of inexplicable [for now] but totally replicable/teachable from martial arts. As a teen I had ...

Merged. (Vraith was having issues. :) ) --A Everyone has issues...but thanks for fixing this part of my current one. Hell, I fucking WISH all my issues [and everyones] could be solved by typing "AV! HELP! EVERYTHING IS KERFLUCKITY!" and clicking "submit" button Anyway...these th...

Vraith, you may have a godlike and near instant understanding of all aspects of maths... ...but when it comes to perfectly clear and easily understood explanation (given the freely acknowledged limited ability of the enquirer), at least in this example WF has from my POV run absolute rings round yo...

Vraith, I agree with TF in saying that you seem to be missing the point. WF's sentence, "There is no set of circumstances where the chance of getting 2X is non-zero and the chance of getting X/2 is non-zero for the same value of X," PRECISELY sums up the solution to this problem. And what...

Doing that then *must* preclude any other contradictory view/model as inevitably being inaccurate and faulty. And that's clearly enough to satisfy you... And surely having the "wrong" explained as well as the "right" is bound to be more useful and educational? On the first...not...

Hats off to you WF... that is beautifully, succinctly and elegantly put. Much respect. I don't want to argue that WF is wrong, nor that the explanation isn't succinct. Just that there is a supplement, the same thing I've returned to. It's this: even IF you make the mistaken assumption WF is talking...

Avatar wrote:Mystics...can't trust 'em.

--A

And doesn't that, assuming it's correct, make it a little weird how often mystics are the heroes in fiction...[and not just in SF/F].

I've never thought that sounded particularly chaotic...rather the opposite in fact. :D --A You're not the only one...it's bugged even the people who matter such that a growing number of papers and texts are weeding out/disentangling entropy from order/disorder. [[randomly ran across that tidbit som...

TF: reasonably close/similar thought I woke up with, and seems to get at the same point similar way, but less words: Original setup exact. Before choosing, does anyone think the odds of picking the x or 2x are anything but equal? [[I don't think anyone's argued that]]. Now you choose one. Does anyo...

By having the temerity to disagree with the mod of this forum? By embarrassing you in pointing out your errors? You can disagree with me all you want. And I'm not embarassed by errors...well, except when I say "hey, steve, how ya doin?" and the person is actually dave. Other than that, I ...

Maybe the simplest way is just to say this... The original asked "is it better to switch" and someone [H?] wrote out the probability calculation, and decided based on an apparent "return on investment" difference to switch. BUT---that probaility ALSO applies to the envelope you ...

Hashi, I *think* by implication you just got compared to a flat-earther, who needs his state of mind correcting... WF, that is a succinct way of putting things, but I don't think it's any less confusing... and trust me, I am (or at least was) your poster child for confusion here. On the first...tha...

If the math is easy, then show us your math. I already did. At least twice. The chances are 50/50 on your first pick, and they remain 50/50 no matter how many times you switch, from none to infinity. Period. No, they aren't psychological in the same way as a chemical imbalance or brain damage. I ne...

PS I use CAPS above solely in an attempt to increase clarity for any reader as bamboozled as I certainly was. Heh...that doesn't bother me at all, though I know some people are bothered by such. It's bad form, of course, in most writing to use caps/italics/underlines/bold/etc. etc. etc. with rare e...

Vraith, speak for yourself - the maths isn't easy. Well, okay it is, but it's counterintuitive... maybe not for everyone, but I'd bet for the majority. The bald, inalienable and extremely persuasively misleading fact is that you absolutely know that the envelope opposite you holds either half or do...

V is wrong, for instance. It is a mathematical problem, The math is easy, and not paradoxical...pick one, and do what you want, the odds are the same. Which I said, and was correct about. [even if your guy goes into formal explanation]. It SEEMS hard, the "strategy" seems complicated/para...

Heh...the real problem with the original problem is that there is no paradox, it isn't a math problem. The math doesn't change at all...it's 50/50 before you choose, it's 50/50 when you choose one, it's 50/50 if you switch, or if you don't. The apparent paradox/strategy is a psychology/values probl...

Well, this could be cool--- A way to deal with many [not all obviously] of the problems people worry about with Genetic Mods, but RNA instead of DNA. It doesn't change them, just makes them work better/correctly. [sorta] Could cure a bunch of illnesses by HAH! KILLING THE MESSENGER!! [not exactly t...