Eightcrackers
Well-known member
Do you think that an event can happen with probability three?Or, Wolfram had stopped the advancement of mathematics, to support Evolution.
If so, nobody on this forum should ever engage with you again.
Do you think that an event can happen with probability three?Or, Wolfram had stopped the advancement of mathematics, to support Evolution.
You are endorsing intellectual, educational and academic laziness in science, thus, you are making humans stupid when you post and write this:You didn't discover "the topic of intelligence". It existed before you were alive.
I'm not a genius, and don't pretend otherwise.
Intelligence: the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason
Non-intelligence: the inability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason
I used a dictionary.
No. I have no experiments, because definitions don't require them. No definition has ever required experimental data before it can be formed.
A person of average intelligence will recognize that talking about numerical limits for something that cannot be quantified is gibberish.
You are wrong, yes. It's not arrogant to point that out.
AgreedDo you think that an event can happen with probability three?
If so, nobody on this forum should ever engage with you again.
He won't answer you.Do you think that an event can happen with probability three?
If so, nobody on this forum should ever engage with you again.
What event are you talking about?Do you think that an event can happen with probability three?
If so, nobody on this forum should ever engage with you again.
You invented nothing and you aren't a genius.What event are you talking about?
There are many events inside the universe, even in human interactions, there are trillions and trillions of events!
Once again, I am not denying that there is no Natural Probability. In fact, I am supporter and endorser of Natural Probability, with a maximum limit of 1. Whoever invented that maximum limit of 1 is a genius. When we compare natural event, with natural result, we use the Natural Probability. I got it.
But how will you make a Probability Calculation for an intelligent or intentional event?
For example, two educated engineers would like to build bicycles. How will you tell or know the level of their efficiency or intelligence when they build the same type/kind of bicycle? What is the probability that Engineer A is more intelligent or more efficient than Engineer B?
Can you still use the Natural Probability, when you are asking or measuring for Intelligence Probability?
No, because a probability greater than one makes no sense!Or, Wolfram had stopped the advancement of mathematics, to support Evolution.
Of course, since Natural Probability is 1! But Intelligence Probability is not 1! Oh my.. Am I talking to a Kindergarten?No, because a probability greater than one makes no sense!
You are talking from a kindergarten. And regressing. So far you have established that you know nothing about evolution, biology, physics, psychology or mathematics. You don't know how to explain Ideas, how to test them or how to challenge the ideas of others. You don't know how to take constructive criticism or feedback. You do know how to make juvenile insults, but that's the only thing we have seen you do with any facility.Of course, since Natural Probability is 1! But Intelligence Probability is not 1! Oh my.. Am I talking to a Kindergarten?
Of course, since Natural Probability is 1! But Intelligence Probability is not 1! Oh my.. Am I talking to a Kindergarten?
If I did not do my homeworks, I will never discover the topic of intelligence. That is why, I am challenging you, in every aspect of science that I think I am better than you, than others. You see that I revealed my real identity, my face in YouTube, my real name in my science books? Because I am not only serious but I am right!You are talking from a kindergarten. And regressing. So far you have established that you know nothing about evolution, biology, physics, psychology or mathematics. You don't know how to explain Ideas, how to test them or how to challenge the ideas of others. You don't know how to take constructive criticism or feedback. You do know how to make juvenile insults, but that's the only thing we have seen you do with any facility.
That is why, you are just like the cavemen, who did not want mathematics to advance. That is one of worst impacts of following bad theory of Evolution, dragging both science and mathematics to CAVEMEN'S time! Oh my...No you're not talking to a kinder garden, you're talking to adults who actually understand probability.
The idea of a probability greater than one is laughable - it demonstrates that you don't understand the first thing about mathematics.
Being a shameless exhibitionist is not a valid scientific qualification. You have shown no aptitude for any STEM discipline at all. I have serious doubts about your capacity as an engineer, since you seem not to understand mathematics. Or physics. We are not talking about me, but you. I have not claimed to overturn the currently accepted and very successful, well-evidenced pre-eminent theories in both biology and physics via a YouTube video and a rejected paper. That would be you. You are making extraordinarily strong claims, the basis of which is extraordinarily weak.If I did not do my homeworks, I will never discover the topic of intelligence. That is why, I am challenging you, in every aspect of science that I think I am better than you, than others. You see that I revealed my real identity, my face in YouTube, my real name in my science books? Because I am not only serious but I am right!
You, on the other hand, you are hiding in a pen-name or log-in-name, since you are afraid of criticisms for your errors. Reveal your real identity and let us fight intellectually, and see who is who. SHAME ON you or me, if you or me is wrong in science. You see how serious I am in science?
I do not care about all my critics since they have no clue on the topic of intelligence. Defeat me intellectually, scientifically and academically on this topic, and you will defeat me all.
REMEMBER THIS: I am the best critic in science for I knew the topic well and I can support them.
That is why, you are just like the cavemen, who did not want mathematics to advance. That is one of worst impacts of following bad theory of Evolution, dragging both science and mathematics to CAVEMEN'S time! Oh my...
The OP seems to think that he has invented a "new kind" of probability.It's not about the advancement of mathematics, it's about what makes sense. Let me try and explain it to you.
Let's consider a fair coin, when tossed it will either land on heads or tails. Let us say that we toss the coin 100 times, 49 times it lands with heads showing, and 51 times it lands on tails.
To calculate the probabilities we need to divide the number of results by the total number of events:
Probability of landing on heads = 49/100 = 0.49
Probability of landing on tails = 51/100 = 0.51
In order to create a probability greater than one the number of results would need to be greater than the number of events. You can't get more results than events so a probability greater than one is impossible.
Do you understand? Or is this basic level of maths too hard for you?
The OP seems to think that he has invented a "new kind" of probability.
There is no point carrying on; I have him in Ignore.
You must be very happy since Mathematics has a new branch and it is called the Intelligence Probability, but, you are just like a cavemen who do not want science and math to progress! Lol!The OP seems to think that he has invented a "new kind" of probability.
There is no point carrying on; I have him in Ignore.
You must be very happy since Mathematics has a new branch and it is called the Intelligence Probability, but, you are just like a cavemen who do not want science and math to progress! Lol!
Do you mean the universe has only one event, and that is the tossing of coins only, showing Head and Tails? That is why the Natural Probability is correct because you are applying it in just one event only, and there are no other events? Is that what you are trying to tell me?It's not about the advancement of mathematics, it's about what makes sense. Let me try and explain it to you.
Let's consider a fair coin, when tossed it will either land on heads or tails. Let us say that we toss the coin 100 times, 49 times it lands with heads showing, and 51 times it lands on tails.
To calculate the probabilities we need to divide the number of results by the total number of events:
Probability of landing on heads = 49/100 = 0.49
Probability of landing on tails = 51/100 = 0.51
In order to create a probability greater than one the number of results would need to be greater than the number of events. You can't get more results than events so a probability greater than one is impossible.
Do you understand? Or is this basic level of maths too hard for you?
No, he is trying to simplify matters for you. "Natural"probability can calculate more complex situations as well, such as with two events, the probability of either or, neither or both coins being heads. The total probabilities for every eventuality still add up to one however, since the probability of each occurrence is just a percentage of times it will happen. It cannot happen more often than the opportunities afforded. Nothing happens 150% of the time.Do you mean the universe has only one event, and that is the tossing of coins only, showing Head and Tails? That is why the Natural Probability is correct because you are applying it in just one event only, and there are no other events? Is that what you are trying to tell me?