<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Great Moments in Pedantry: The odds of your&#160;existence</title>
	<atom:link href="http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html</link>
	<description>Brain candy for Happy Mutants</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 06:50:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: a11138776</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1269267</link>
		<dc:creator>a11138776</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1269267</guid>
		<description>I propose another - hopefully less controversial - subject:
The moon seems to be as big as the sun, because the distance to the earth has randomly the right size. The moon-earth distance is changing with time. So, what is the probability of this phenomenon to occure just during the short period of mankind?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I propose another &#8211; hopefully less controversial &#8211; subject:<br />
The moon seems to be as big as the sun, because the distance to the earth has randomly the right size. The moon-earth distance is changing with time. So, what is the probability of this phenomenon to occure just during the short period of mankind?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: a11138776</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1269264</link>
		<dc:creator>a11138776</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1269264</guid>
		<description>The question is: Who is &quot;I&quot;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The question is: Who is &#8220;I&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mallet Head</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1267092</link>
		<dc:creator>Mallet Head</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1267092</guid>
		<description>Thank You. Now the point of this exercise makes sense. If the entire universe were restarted then the chances of any one specific person existing as they do now, is near zero. Ok. Great. So what? It&#039;s a stupid thought exercise. 1) you do exist. 2) the universe isn&#039;t going to start over 3) even if it did you&#039;d never know you existed before. a) Don&#039;t know about you but I can barely remember last week, much less the time between universes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank You. Now the point of this exercise makes sense. If the entire universe were restarted then the chances of any one specific person existing as they do now, is near zero. Ok. Great. So what? It&#8217;s a stupid thought exercise. 1) you do exist. 2) the universe isn&#8217;t going to start over 3) even if it did you&#8217;d never know you existed before. a) Don&#8217;t know about you but I can barely remember last week, much less the time between universes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hymenopterid</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266913</link>
		<dc:creator>hymenopterid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266913</guid>
		<description>Indeed, the odds that my parents would marry a person who could actually stand to be with them are vanishingly small.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indeed, the odds that my parents would marry a person who could actually stand to be with them are vanishingly small.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Ridley</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266803</link>
		<dc:creator>John Ridley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266803</guid>
		<description>Complete tripe.  Throw this out, replace with anthropic principle (you&#039;re here to think about this BECAUSE you are here, end of story).

The odds of that rock being in that exact place on this planet given a random big bang are very very close to zero, but to talk about that is simply crap.  SOME universe exists, and we&#039;re standing in this one, so it&#039;s the only one we can talk about.  In any other universe, we wouldn&#039;t be here asking the question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Complete tripe.  Throw this out, replace with anthropic principle (you&#8217;re here to think about this BECAUSE you are here, end of story).</p>
<p>The odds of that rock being in that exact place on this planet given a random big bang are very very close to zero, but to talk about that is simply crap.  SOME universe exists, and we&#8217;re standing in this one, so it&#8217;s the only one we can talk about.  In any other universe, we wouldn&#8217;t be here asking the question.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jared Holt</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266752</link>
		<dc:creator>Jared Holt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266752</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s a link to the original:  http://visual.ly/what-are-odds</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s a link to the original:  http://visual.ly/what-are-odds</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Hart</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266724</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Hart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266724</guid>
		<description>&quot;[Y]our existence here, now, and on planet earth presupposes another supremely unlikely and utterly undeniable chain of events. Namely, that every one of your ancestors lived to reproductive age.&quot;

I think the odds that all of my ancestors were able to reproduce is pretty great... that&#039;s why they are my ancestors. The odds are certainly greater than the possibility that one of my ancestors spontaneously generated into existence.

It&#039;s certainly true to say that the odds of a single-celled organism&#039;s genetic material surviving for 4 billion years to become a multi-celled organism is great. But it doesn&#039;t work in reverse. That&#039;s like saying the odds that my wooden chair came from a tree is equal to the odds that any one tree will become my wooden chair.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;[Y]our existence here, now, and on planet earth presupposes another supremely unlikely and utterly undeniable chain of events. Namely, that every one of your ancestors lived to reproductive age.&#8221;</p>
<p>I think the odds that all of my ancestors were able to reproduce is pretty great&#8230; that&#8217;s why they are my ancestors. The odds are certainly greater than the possibility that one of my ancestors spontaneously generated into existence.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s certainly true to say that the odds of a single-celled organism&#8217;s genetic material surviving for 4 billion years to become a multi-celled organism is great. But it doesn&#8217;t work in reverse. That&#8217;s like saying the odds that my wooden chair came from a tree is equal to the odds that any one tree will become my wooden chair.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 7puck7</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266634</link>
		<dc:creator>7puck7</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266634</guid>
		<description>Not really, you were not born 7 Billion times... He&#039;s calculating the odds for ONE specific person, not the odds for one human being&#039;s birth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not really, you were not born 7 Billion times&#8230; He&#8217;s calculating the odds for ONE specific person, not the odds for one human being&#8217;s birth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yudi Setiawan</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266624</link>
		<dc:creator>Yudi Setiawan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266624</guid>
		<description>7 billions? I think you mixed up with number of living people in the world right now with number of people born.. it&#039;s way higher than that for the latter.. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>7 billions? I think you mixed up with number of living people in the world right now with number of people born.. it&#8217;s way higher than that for the latter.. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheMudshark</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266614</link>
		<dc:creator>TheMudshark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266614</guid>
		<description>Look at all you scientists, taking the magic out of things again, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. In fact, you´re all muthafuckas lyin´and gettin´me pissed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Look at all you scientists, taking the magic out of things again, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. In fact, you´re all muthafuckas lyin´and gettin´me pissed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 7puck7</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266611</link>
		<dc:creator>7puck7</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266611</guid>
		<description>Not really, you were not born 7 Billion times... He&#039;s calculating the odds for ONE specific person, not the odds for one human being&#039;s birth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not really, you were not born 7 Billion times&#8230; He&#8217;s calculating the odds for ONE specific person, not the odds for one human being&#8217;s birth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TaymonBeal</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266542</link>
		<dc:creator>TaymonBeal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266542</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;So remember when you&#039;re feeling very small and insecure...&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk" rel="nofollow">So remember when you&#8217;re feeling very small and insecure&#8230;</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266504</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266504</guid>
		<description>If you took a random person off the street, what would be the probability that their height was exactly X feet?  The answer is zero-- basic continuous probability question.  Nobody is &#039;exactly&#039; six feet, because height is not something that can be perfectly exactly measured (a counterexample to this would be a dice roll, which is discrete).

Now let&#039;s think about you.  You have a height, which is finite, of course.  Let&#039;s call it Y feet.  Now, what is the probability that a random person off the street would have height Y?  zero.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you took a random person off the street, what would be the probability that their height was exactly X feet?  The answer is zero&#8211; basic continuous probability question.  Nobody is &#8216;exactly&#8217; six feet, because height is not something that can be perfectly exactly measured (a counterexample to this would be a dice roll, which is discrete).</p>
<p>Now let&#8217;s think about you.  You have a height, which is finite, of course.  Let&#8217;s call it Y feet.  Now, what is the probability that a random person off the street would have height Y?  zero.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Antinous / Moderator</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266496</link>
		<dc:creator>Antinous / Moderator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266496</guid>
		<description>Oops.  Missed it in the pile.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops.  Missed it in the pile.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GlenBlank</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266462</link>
		<dc:creator>GlenBlank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 03:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266462</guid>
		<description>Also, when he says,
 
&lt;blockquote&gt;Probability of boy meeting girl: 1 in 20,000.
So far, so unlikely.
Now let’s say the chances of them actually talking to one another is one in 10.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
...all I can say is, he obviously never met my mother. :-)

The chances of her meeting a man she found attractive but then NOT talking to him were... well, maybe one in eleventy bazillion or so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, when he says,<br />
 </p>
<blockquote><p>Probability of boy meeting girl: 1 in 20,000.<br />
So far, so unlikely.<br />
Now let’s say the chances of them actually talking to one another is one in 10.</p></blockquote>
<p>&#8230;all I can say is, he obviously never met my mother. :-)</p>
<p>The chances of her meeting a man she found attractive but then NOT talking to him were&#8230; well, maybe one in eleventy bazillion or so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GlenBlank</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266454</link>
		<dc:creator>GlenBlank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 03:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266454</guid>
		<description>Did you not get my new email?  :-) (Short answer:  Yes, is fixed.  Bad cookie, no comment.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did you not get my new email?  :-) (Short answer:  Yes, is fixed.  Bad cookie, no comment.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LYNDON</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266348</link>
		<dc:creator>LYNDON</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266348</guid>
		<description>The problem we have is that all probabilities are conditional. What is the probability of me existing given present conditions? 1. Of the world as it was when my parents were born producing me (assuming some degree of randomness)? Quite small. Of a randomly selected possible universe having a me in it? You&#039;re gonna need a bigger infographic. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem we have is that all probabilities are conditional. What is the probability of me existing given present conditions? 1. Of the world as it was when my parents were born producing me (assuming some degree of randomness)? Quite small. Of a randomly selected possible universe having a me in it? You&#8217;re gonna need a bigger infographic. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew S</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266288</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 23:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266288</guid>
		<description>On top of all of this, we have to look at the determinist argument. Yes, a person&#039;s father could have met 200 million women, but due to social groups and such, it is very unlikely he would have met almost all of those people. If we look at the people he plausibly could have met, it&#039;s a lot closer to the number he actually met. But then, you have to define plausible, and you have to figure out how much detail you want to go into, because that&#039;s how probability works. Whoever made this didn&#039;t go into too much detail though, as evidenced by the 200 million women thing. In reality, any physicist or neuroscientist will tell you that causality is total, except perhaps for certain things in the realm of quantum mechanics (though the chances of those acting on the macroscopic or even on the microscopic are quite small). In reality, the anything happening is exactly delineated by what came before. Who your father ends up with totally depends on genetics and environment. As humans, we&#039;re resistant to that idea because we evolved to be resistant to it, but it&#039;s absolutely true. Neurons in the brain take an input and turn it into an output. There&#039;s no way to do something without a reason. Even if you were to punch yourself in the face right now, the reason would be to prove me wrong, which is determined by your personality, which is determined by (say it with me) genetics and environment. Yes, there are things we have no way of knowing based on our ability to gather information, and this necessitates probability, but it doesn&#039;t mean that probability is actually manifest in the world. From what we can determine, there could be incredible numbers of different paths, but if we could somehow look close enough, we would see that there is only one path anything could have ever taken.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On top of all of this, we have to look at the determinist argument. Yes, a person&#8217;s father could have met 200 million women, but due to social groups and such, it is very unlikely he would have met almost all of those people. If we look at the people he plausibly could have met, it&#8217;s a lot closer to the number he actually met. But then, you have to define plausible, and you have to figure out how much detail you want to go into, because that&#8217;s how probability works. Whoever made this didn&#8217;t go into too much detail though, as evidenced by the 200 million women thing. In reality, any physicist or neuroscientist will tell you that causality is total, except perhaps for certain things in the realm of quantum mechanics (though the chances of those acting on the macroscopic or even on the microscopic are quite small). In reality, the anything happening is exactly delineated by what came before. Who your father ends up with totally depends on genetics and environment. As humans, we&#8217;re resistant to that idea because we evolved to be resistant to it, but it&#8217;s absolutely true. Neurons in the brain take an input and turn it into an output. There&#8217;s no way to do something without a reason. Even if you were to punch yourself in the face right now, the reason would be to prove me wrong, which is determined by your personality, which is determined by (say it with me) genetics and environment. Yes, there are things we have no way of knowing based on our ability to gather information, and this necessitates probability, but it doesn&#8217;t mean that probability is actually manifest in the world. From what we can determine, there could be incredible numbers of different paths, but if we could somehow look close enough, we would see that there is only one path anything could have ever taken.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PaulDavisTheFirst</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266259</link>
		<dc:creator>PaulDavisTheFirst</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266259</guid>
		<description> not sure how i forgot that level of biology. I&#039;ve edited my previous posts to reflect my idiocy. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> not sure how i forgot that level of biology. I&#8217;ve edited my previous posts to reflect my idiocy. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Antinous / Moderator</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266257</link>
		<dc:creator>Antinous / Moderator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266257</guid>
		<description>Does this mean that your sign-in problem is fixed?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does this mean that your sign-in problem is fixed?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pip_R_Lagenta</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266250</link>
		<dc:creator>Pip_R_Lagenta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266250</guid>
		<description>This old creationist canard is embarrassingly stupid every time the creationists trot it out.  It is no less stupid when put to any other use.  The failure to understand the workings of &quot;odds&quot; or &quot;chance&quot; does not prove miracles nor magic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This old creationist canard is embarrassingly stupid every time the creationists trot it out.  It is no less stupid when put to any other use.  The failure to understand the workings of &#8220;odds&#8221; or &#8220;chance&#8221; does not prove miracles nor magic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hinten</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266247</link>
		<dc:creator>hinten</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266247</guid>
		<description>This presupposes that if the sperm right next to me would have won that it wouldn&#039;t have been me!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This presupposes that if the sperm right next to me would have won that it wouldn&#8217;t have been me!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GlenBlank</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266246</link>
		<dc:creator>GlenBlank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266246</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I believe that barring mutation, all X-carrying sperm are genetically identical and the same for all Y-carrying sperm.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
But your believing it doesn&#039;t make it true. :-)

Go look up &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Meiosis&lt;/a&gt;.    We&#039;ll wait.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I believe that barring mutation, all X-carrying sperm are genetically identical and the same for all Y-carrying sperm.</p></blockquote>
<p>But your believing it doesn&#8217;t make it true. :-)</p>
<p>Go look up <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis" rel="nofollow">Meiosis</a>.    We&#8217;ll wait.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SCAQTony</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266239</link>
		<dc:creator>SCAQTony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266239</guid>
		<description>I swear to God, this is why I play the lotto each week - The odds above make the lotto look like a coin toss!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I swear to God, this is why I play the lotto each week &#8211; The odds above make the lotto look like a coin toss!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: umbriel</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266229</link>
		<dc:creator>umbriel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266229</guid>
		<description>That assumption caught my eye right out of the gate as well -- clearly that &quot;number of prospects&quot; term varies enormously on a case by case basis. And you don&#039;t have to be a starry-eyed romantic to recognize that basic issues of attraction and compatibility aren&#039;t really &quot;random&quot;, and further hone down the successive parent numbers.

So I&#039;d guesstimate that, for my daughter, that first 1:40,000,000 probability would improve to about 1:50 or better.

The non-uniqueness of sex cells issue, discussed below, should pretty much negate that whole term, though post-conception variables would open up a whole &#039;nother can of worms. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That assumption caught my eye right out of the gate as well &#8212; clearly that &#8220;number of prospects&#8221; term varies enormously on a case by case basis. And you don&#8217;t have to be a starry-eyed romantic to recognize that basic issues of attraction and compatibility aren&#8217;t really &#8220;random&#8221;, and further hone down the successive parent numbers.</p>
<p>So I&#8217;d guesstimate that, for my daughter, that first 1:40,000,000 probability would improve to about 1:50 or better.</p>
<p>The non-uniqueness of sex cells issue, discussed below, should pretty much negate that whole term, though post-conception variables would open up a whole &#8216;nother can of worms. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laura</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266212</link>
		<dc:creator>Laura</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266212</guid>
		<description>Okay, time for a stats lesson.  First, &quot;odds&quot; implies a ratio.  It&#039;s the probability of something happening divided by the complementary probability (p/(1-p)).  I think the infographic meant to use the term &quot;probability.&quot;

Second, this highlights the difference between permutations and combinations.  A permutation is any specific set of event outcomes.  Flipping a coin four times and getting H, T, H, T is one permutation, getting H, H, T, T is another.  A set of permutations with a specific number of each event outcomes is a combination.  The permutations both listed are both examples of the combination two heads and two tails.

Let&#039;s say I flip a coin 500 times.  Getting any one predetermined sequence of heads and tails is phenomenally unlikely, so there is a low probability for that permutation.  Getting  250 heads and 250 tails, in any sequence, is much more likely - the probability of this combination is the sum of the probability of each combination where there are 250 heads and 250 tails.

The infographic  gives the probability of the permutation of the event outcome known as you.  The particular gametes that met (and all the necessary prior gametes meeting) and expressing themselves in a particular way is highly unlikely.  You are a permutation.  The probability of the combination of a person though - very likely.  Even the probability of the combination of a class of people like you is fairly likely, i.e. that you in particular might be unlikely, but the probability in this set of events of producing a tall man with brown hair who likes computers and Megadeth is much more likely.

Who was it that said &quot;Remember, you&#039;re unique - just like everyone else&quot;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, time for a stats lesson.  First, &#8220;odds&#8221; implies a ratio.  It&#8217;s the probability of something happening divided by the complementary probability (p/(1-p)).  I think the infographic meant to use the term &#8220;probability.&#8221;</p>
<p>Second, this highlights the difference between permutations and combinations.  A permutation is any specific set of event outcomes.  Flipping a coin four times and getting H, T, H, T is one permutation, getting H, H, T, T is another.  A set of permutations with a specific number of each event outcomes is a combination.  The permutations both listed are both examples of the combination two heads and two tails.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s say I flip a coin 500 times.  Getting any one predetermined sequence of heads and tails is phenomenally unlikely, so there is a low probability for that permutation.  Getting  250 heads and 250 tails, in any sequence, is much more likely &#8211; the probability of this combination is the sum of the probability of each combination where there are 250 heads and 250 tails.</p>
<p>The infographic  gives the probability of the permutation of the event outcome known as you.  The particular gametes that met (and all the necessary prior gametes meeting) and expressing themselves in a particular way is highly unlikely.  You are a permutation.  The probability of the combination of a person though &#8211; very likely.  Even the probability of the combination of a class of people like you is fairly likely, i.e. that you in particular might be unlikely, but the probability in this set of events of producing a tall man with brown hair who likes computers and Megadeth is much more likely.</p>
<p>Who was it that said &#8220;Remember, you&#8217;re unique &#8211; just like everyone else&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: umbriel</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266211</link>
		<dc:creator>umbriel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266211</guid>
		<description>But clearly such a die would be effectively spherical, and would therefore never stop rolling. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But clearly such a die would be effectively spherical, and would therefore never stop rolling. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sparrow</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266207</link>
		<dc:creator>Sparrow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266207</guid>
		<description>So what you&#039;re saying is that for me to be here, the rest of the world rolled a natural one on a 10^2685000 sided die.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So what you&#8217;re saying is that for me to be here, the rest of the world rolled a natural one on a 10^2685000 sided die.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daemonworks</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266183</link>
		<dc:creator>Daemonworks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266183</guid>
		<description>100%... or i wouldn&#039;t be reading this ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>100%&#8230; or i wouldn&#8217;t be reading this ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: flagler23</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great-moments-in-pedantry-the.html#comment-1266171</link>
		<dc:creator>flagler23</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boingboing.net/?p=128081#comment-1266171</guid>
		<description>But you see it makes no sense to speak of the odds of us existing.  That&#039;s because not only is the universe a one-off event, but if we didn&#039;t exist we wouldn&#039;t be around to question the odds.  That we do exist, as intelligent, self-reflecting beings, brings about that question, so that even if the odds were 1 (absolute) that the universe would produce us we would necessarily, by your logic, conclude that our existence is highly improbable-and be wrong.  If we could observe an experimental run of multiple universes and note which ones produced intelligent life and which ones did not we would be in a position to determine the odds of us existing.  But conceptually that is paradoxical because the universe we are observing the experiment from would itself be a one-off event and include ourselves and all the universes of the experiment in which intelligent life exists, so the odds would still be absolute that we exist.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But you see it makes no sense to speak of the odds of us existing.  That&#8217;s because not only is the universe a one-off event, but if we didn&#8217;t exist we wouldn&#8217;t be around to question the odds.  That we do exist, as intelligent, self-reflecting beings, brings about that question, so that even if the odds were 1 (absolute) that the universe would produce us we would necessarily, by your logic, conclude that our existence is highly improbable-and be wrong.  If we could observe an experimental run of multiple universes and note which ones produced intelligent life and which ones did not we would be in a position to determine the odds of us existing.  But conceptually that is paradoxical because the universe we are observing the experiment from would itself be a one-off event and include ourselves and all the universes of the experiment in which intelligent life exists, so the odds would still be absolute that we exist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
