|
These are the chances to go home with $600, but there is the option - of 100% - to take home $300!
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
You asked for the best option which would be option #2 statistically speaking - 55.6% to double your money. This can easily be shown with a sample set:
100 rolls, double or nothing @ 55.6% = $333.6
100 rolls, $300 @ 100% = $300
|
|
|
|
|
Double or nothing means you can not have $333.6... It is either $600 or $0!
So 55.6% of $600 is much worst than 100% of $300...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
That's to show general value per roll. Each value is 0 or 600 (double or nothing). (55.6 x 600)/100 = 333.6. Since it's all or nothing, you could also do (600 x .556). Both calculate the same thing - the average value per roll. The point is that the per-roll evaluation of $333.6 is greater than the $300 evaluation (300 x 1.0). This isn't to show the money you earn but to weight and compare the options.
If you'd like to include personality, monetary situation, and other per-person variables then even though you will statistically get more value out of the 55.6% option the guaranteed $300 may seem more appealing depending on the relative value of $300 to that individual.
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken...
There are 36 outcomes from rolling 2 standard dice, and only 8 of them are winners. -- 20 winning outcomes
There are 216 outcomes from rolling 3 standard dice, and only 7 of them are winners. -- 91 winning outcomes
What did I miss?
Edit: I was mistaken. I missed a whole bunch of winning outcomes.
modified 15-Mar-17 23:00pm.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: What did I miss?
That the outcome of each dice is independent, as there is no meaning of the order or on which dice you got the winner number...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I understand that, but I see where I went wrong -- I have since decided to graph it out...
modified 15-Mar-17 19:18pm.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: There are 36 outcomes from rolling 2 standard dice, and only 8 of them are winners.
How did you get 8 winning combinations? If the first die already wins (in twqo out of six cases), the second one is irrelevant in any case. These already are twelve winning combinations. And then those cases where the first die 'misses', but the second one wins are added.
Chance that the first one wins: 2/6.
Chance that the first one mises, bt the second one wins: 4/6 * 2/6 = 8/36 (probably what you thought)
Total chance 2/6 + 8/36 = 12/36 + 8 /36 = 20/36 = 0,56 (rounded).
PIEBALDconsult wrote: There are 216 outcomes from rolling 3 standard dice, and only 7 of them are winners.
Similar calculation:
Chance that the first one already wins: 1/6
Chance that the second one wins if the first fails: 5/6 * 1/6 = 5/36
Chance that the third one winds when the first two fail: 5/6 * 5/6 * 1/6 = 25/216
Adding it all up: 1/6 + 5/36 + 25/216 = (36 + 30 + 25) / 216 = 71/216 = 0,33 (rounded).
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I already found and corrected my error.
CDP1802 wrote: Chance that the first one mises, bt the second one wins: 4/6 * 2/6 = 8/36 (probably what you thought)
Nope.
CDP1802 wrote: Adding it all up: 1/6 + 5/36 + 25/216 = (36 + 30 + 25) / 216 = 71/216 = 0,33 (rounded).
Recheck your math.
modified 15-Mar-17 18:06pm.
|
|
|
|
|
The easier way to calculate this imo is to calculate what loses then subtract that from 1. This way the second example is simply 1 - (5/6)^3 = 0.4213... ~ 42.1%. Also in the last step of the second example, (36 + 30 + 25)/216 = 91/216 ~ 42.1% not 71/216 ~ 33% 
|
|
|
|
|
Oooops. It was late. 
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Where it's kinda like this?[^]
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't quit.
You're welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
As a matter of fact, yes!
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like that song, haven't heard in a while.
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: Now begins the actual grunge work of migrating a few dozen reports from .rdl format to .rdlc.
In the olden days of engineering (think Tesla and Edison) we would have apprentices to do that grunt work that would follow our brilliant engineering. 
Marc
Latest Article - Merkle Trees
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: we would have apprentices
...wolf howls...
I tried that several years ago...didn't work out for them. I'd rather screw it up myself as then there's no question who to blame.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
OK, So I run up VS2017 and get it to create a blank Xamarin Forms cross platform app from it's built in templates.
And "Build"
...
...
...
18 errors, 2 warnings.
"InitializeComponent" does not exist.
"Certificate expired"
"System" not found.
...
OK, lets see ... check out the .cs file, and there is calls InitialiseComponent - right click, "go to definition" - file opens, there it is.
Close the file again. And ... all the errors vanish.
Run it and it works.
So, you have to open a file to tell it where the stuff it just created is? O....Kay... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
The componentization of VS2017 is nice, especially since I work exclusively in native C++, However, I've been underwhelmed by the rest of the release. The CMake support is clunky, at best, and their C++17 support is lacking. I ran into a bug with the RC version that was so blatant, I wondered what else their non-testing let through (and Griff found at lease one!)
|
|
|
|
|
Just a shot in the dark: If you have more than one project in the solution, make sure inter-project dependencies are set correctly. If not, the solution may build erratically, giving errors at times and not at other times.
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
It's a cross-platform app: it has four projects in the template.
But it's a unmodified project from a built in template: it should compile clean with no errors or warnings if it was ever tested...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I created different project types and found that about 80% of the templates either
1. Same as was in 2015, so has problem finding the right reference before first compilation (referencing assembly that compiled for 4.5, but the project target is 4.6)
2. Missing references to support the code generated...
Microsoft was so eager to release the 'fast' version of 2015, that decided to build a new version around, but the process went a bit wrong...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure if it's anything like most MS releases of something new, you'll need to wait until the first update for it to be really usable. RTM means beta these days.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: you'll need to wait until the first update
The first update was released yesterday.
Release Date: March 14, 2017 (build 26628.09)
Issues fixed in this Release
These are the customer-reported issues addressed in build 26228.09:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
'take that you b*****d!'
