rom: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
Nicholas Thompson [nickthomp...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 8:39 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Clarifying Induction Threads
Wait a minute, folks.
To put another point of perspective on this, all coins are of unknown
fairness.
-Arlo James Barnes
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http:
iday, March 30, 2012 3:07 PM
To: russ.abb...@gmail.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Clarifying Induction Threads
I agree. People who think that a fair coin is "due" to come up tails after a
string of heads are not so much anti-
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> The naive strategy for predicting coin tosses is anti-reductionist in John
> Kennison's terms. There is even a rationale. We "know" that in the long run
> (given a fair coin) the number of heads will be approximately the same as
> the number
But there are a lot more strings that will have a tail in it (infinite, or
infinite minus one if you like) than there are strings that are all heads,
randomly generated or otherwise. If randomly generated, we assume all
strings are equally likely, so the chance of never getting a tail gets it's
fai
.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russ
Abbott [russ.abb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 1:23 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Clarifying Induction Threads
The naive strategy for predicting coin tosses is anti-red
