Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: probability question about the dice game
Replies: 11   Last Post: Feb 18, 2013 10:43 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 David C. Ullrich Posts: 21,553 Registered: 12/6/04
Re: probability question about the dice game
Posted: Feb 18, 2013 10:43 AM

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 01:15:06 -0800 (PST), pepstein5@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, February 17, 2013 5:15:26 PM UTC, David C. Ullrich wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:30:41 -0800 (PST), pepstein5@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>

>> >On Saturday, February 16, 2013 3:00:44 PM UTC, David C. Ullrich wrote:
>>
>> >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 05:45:37 -0800 (PST), pepstein5@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >Staying with the theme of odds terminology, but moving away from the argument,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Giggle. Yes, now would be exactly the right time to "move away from
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> the argument".
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Guffaw.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >I don't find it that hilarious. Obviously, I've been shown to be wrong about what standard usage is.
>>
>>
>>
>> Until this last post it wasn't obvious that it was clear to _you_.
>>
>> And it may not have been clear to other readers.
>>
>>
>>
>> What quasi said. When you say "Ullrich is wrong" four or five times,
>>
>> then you find that I was right all along, you're supposed to
>>
>> acknowledge that fact.
>>
>>
>>
>> For two reasons: (i) to set the record straight for the benefit
>>
>> of readers who might otherwise think you were right all along,
>>
>> (ii) as a matter of common courtesy.
>>
>>
>>
>> For future reference, saying something like "this seems wrong to me",
>>
>> or "I don't think so", would be less embarassing in case it turned out
>>
>> you were wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also for future reference, you were insisting that what I was saying
>>
>> was not standard usage. I would never insist that someone else's
>>
>> usage was wrong without checking somewhere first! Just because
>>
>> I know saying X is correct it doesn't follow that saying Y is wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> Checking it out. For most of this thread I honestly didn't
>>
>> follow exactly what error you were claiming I was making.
>>
>> As soon as that became clear to me I looked it up. Why?
>>
>> Because I was aware that I _might_ be wrong!
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking it up was very very easy. You could have done the same.

>
>I basically agree with the above (about 99.9% agreement).

A third reason for acknowledging one's errors: For the sake

Everyone knows that everyone makes mistakes. If you see
someone who never acknowlefges his errors then you
don't know what to think when he asserts something:
The assertion could be something that even he no
longer believes is true. If someone admits he was
wrong from time to time then, somewhat paradoxically,
his assertions are more believable.

> Earlier, I started a thread about "surprise" in mathematics. I will now say something about another emotion -- "embarrassment". On the subject of my own emotions, I can give two scenarios. Scenario A: I say "I think A is wrong about..." and A is proved right. Scenario B: I say "A is wrong about..." and A is proved right I would actually find the degree of embarrassment in both scenarios to be equivalent. I would not experience more embarrassment in scenario B although I agree that scenario A is a preferable style of discourse.
>
>Paul Epstein

Date Subject Author
2/15/13 Paul
2/15/13 quasi
2/15/13 David Bernier
2/16/13 Paul
2/16/13 David C. Ullrich
2/16/13 Paul
2/16/13 quasi
2/16/13 David Bernier
2/17/13 David C. Ullrich
2/18/13 Paul
2/18/13 David C. Ullrich