## Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

 Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account. As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends. Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games. If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top. If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen. Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse

# Huruey

Member Since 01 Sep 2012
Offline Last Active Sep 05 2012 05:59 PM

### In Topic: Russian roulette

05 September 2012 - 06:07 AM

Spoiler for The way I read it

Not if it's one of these: http://www.trackofth...t/aal-344_2.jpg

### In Topic: Which treatment

05 September 2012 - 05:34 AM

A) Medicine B
B) Medicine B
C) Medicine B

Medicine A has a success rate of 20% for men, 67% for women, and 43% if the gender is unknown.
Medicine B has a success rate of 24% for men, 75% for women, and 49% if the gender is unknown.

### In Topic: Russian roulette

03 September 2012 - 02:09 AM

### In Topic: Subjective Probability

03 September 2012 - 01:54 AM

There seems to be a bit of a problem with the question. You have stated the properties of the random number generator, for example, that it is unbiased. However, if we were to make an objective interpretation, using an objectivist interpretation, I don't think we can say that the generator is unbiased if the experiment (i.e. seeing what number it produces) has never been done before, thus the only sensible interpretation would be a subjectivist one.

Note that once the generator has output the 7, the experiment has not yet completed for Chris, so he cannot yet make an objective assessment.

To say "there is no such thing as repetition from a truly objective standpoint" is not true if we allow for abstraction, and we communicate for the most part in abstractions. You could, for example, say that there is objectively a repetition of things which are blue. The only time you cannot have repetition is if you define something enumeratively (i.e. an exhaustive extensional definition) to have only one instance. Confusion might arise if we are inconsistent with the scope in which we ascribe objectivity. Ultimately, whenever somebody states that something is objective, this is necessarily a subjective assessment with many contingencies. However, this does not mean that we cannot talk about something being objective, because we can narrow the scope by assuming various axioms, such as that we have commonality in our language.

### In Topic: Subjective Probability

02 September 2012 - 11:23 PM

I don't really see that there is much of a difference between the subjectivist and objectivist views. We can state the problem you've provided in frequentialist terms and stil conclude that Chris was correct to say 1/10.

Given an infinite number of trials in which the only information which is guaranteed to stay the same is that which Chris is given, the relative frequency of x=5 would be 1/10.