I wrote: "For every time 1 occurs, there is another 10% chance the next number will also be 1"

Unsure how that can possibly be interpreted as being anything other than a matter of probability lol.

Correct.

And you're welcome. I hope it helped clearing up more than it caused further confusion

Exactly hence why it was important in the example you quoted to use the correct words so as not to imply a certainty that could never be there - a point of language, meaning and interpretation (and not maths or statistics) but an important point nevertheless to be accurate

What I still feel you fail to acknowledge, although not really important either, is that 99.9999999% is the same as 100.0% in this context ;)

Again, a matter of data sample size.

I acknowledge everything you say believe it or not but actually it is a matter of right and wrong

The probability of me surviving this day and living to see tomorrow is (hopefully) extremely high (whatever %age you want) - however for me to say that I will survive today to see tomorrow is clearly not correct as there is (unfortunately for me but maybe luckily for others ) no certainty of this happening.

Sometimes the words are as important as the maths in conveying the correct answer


Edited at 16:04 Sat 12/07/08 (BST)

Still not an applicable analogy for the problem at all I'm afraid.

Since we can't consider one million instances in your life from today until tomorrow. If we *could* however, the likelyhood for you living to see the next day would go toward 100.0%.

You are just adding additional confusion to people's understanding of this particular topic by trying to make a point about 99.9999999% not being 100.0.

In a large enough data sample, the predictability goes toward 100%

Almost there jan - you correctly used the words 'could' and 'likelyhood' - no matter how near you get to 100% you never reach it in the scenarios we have used hence why you cannot correctly use a definite statement the way you originally did way back in the first post that commenced the discussion. I reiterate its a minor point but its an important one in being accurate which i thought you would appreciate.

Again, if you stay inside the context of this topic, you need to realize there is no difference between 99.99999 and 100.0

The topic was whether or not pro vs. pro draws in early rounds are under-represented. I explained why that is not so, based on statistical probability. If you have any concept of statistics at all and really understand how statistics work, you would appreciate that the data sample size dictates the level of precision you can predict outcomes by.

This topic never even discussed the 100% end of the scale, but on the contrary, addressed WHY you correctly should observe very few pro vs. pro draws in round 1 of funkypool tournaments.

That is as totally irrelevant to my argument about how important it is to use the correct language for the purposes of accuracy and meaning as my argument was to the original thread question

Again, lets just agree to disagree. Seem we always have to argue, and contrary to what you just claimed, this is weering way off topic.

lol it must be a language thing - i never claimed anything of the sort - the exact opposite in fact

1) I'm not quite sure how we disagree since you never actually stated a contra point of view to mine in any of your posts but I guess you don't need to; and

2) I don't call it arguing just debating (or at least it would be if it wasn't for point 1)