>> Naah. The *fractional* deviation from 50/50 keeps going down as 1/sqrt(n).
You'll have to explain further because it keeps going down. And at 4 digits its
already well below 50% And at 16 digits its already below 20%. If you're
generous and say at 16 steps half the people will experience 'roughly' 50% ones
or zeros, already 50% will have one or the other dominating.
That seems to me to be a far cry from what Tegmark describes.
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:43:09 -0800
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/2/2014 11:36 PM, chris peck wrote:
>> If you repeated the cloning experiment
from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number
each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence of
zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros
occurring about 50% of the time.
There's something strikes me as very strange about this idea.
Tegmark's method is just a means of writing down binary
sequences.
Being strict, already with binary sequences just 4 digits long,
only 37.5% of those contain half zeros. This drops the longer
the sequences get. So, with sequences 6 digits long, only 31.25%
contain half zeros. With sequences 8 digits long only 27% and
with 16 digits only about 19%.
If his experiment continued for a year, (365 digits) many people
would find that either room 1 or room 0 was dominating strongly.
For these people a change in room would seem very odd, a glitch
in the matrix that wouldn't be of any great concern vis a vis
prediction once 'normality' kicked back in the following night.
For others, a change in room would occur at regular intervals
and would seem very predictable. There would be the guy who
changed room every night. There would be all the guys whose room
changed every night except for the one time when it stayed the
same. A little glitch is all.
In truth, the longer you continued the game and the more people
got involved the less chance a person would have of finding room
assignment random at all. There would be increasingly few people
willing to bet 50/50 on a particular room assignment.
Naah. The *fractional* deviation from 50/50 keeps going down as
1/sqrt(n).
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
