Triforce!

[@kyleward1834]

All I really gleamed from this episode was that Pyrion seemingly wants to destroy the entire numerical system, ( one in which we have to thank a large number of scientific and engineering marvels that would have been impossible to develop without advance mathematics) simply because he personally doesn't understand how probability and percentages work haha. I love this podcast. Reminds me of various conversations I've had with friends in the pub on a lazy Sunday afternoon. Much love lads.

[@niclastname]

The Monty Hall problem only sounds complicated because of the way everyone explains it. Your probability isn't actually changing. You just have fewer wrong options available, and therefore the chance that you picked the wrong door the first time is higher than the chance that you picked the correct one. There was a 66% chance that you had the wrong door in the first round, and therefore you still have a 66% chance of having the wrong door, just one of the others is no longer an option. So it looks like on paper that it's more likely that you should switch, but nothing has actually changed. It's just that you had a 1/3 chance to have picked the correct one the first time, and now have a 1/3 chance that you have the correct one even though there are only 2 available options.

[@jordan3400]

You have 3 doors, each with 33% chance of being the right door. You pick door number one. Let’s call that choice x. So choice x has a 33% chance of being correct. Doors 2 and 3 have a 66% chance of being correct. Let’s call doors 2 and 3 choice Y. If you were offered at this point to choose choice X with 33% chance or choice Y with 66% choice, you’d obviously choose choice Y right? Choice Y will ALWAYS have at least one goat. They show you this goat. This does not change the 66% odds of choice Y. Nothing has changed, there was inevitably a goat behind one of the doors, we knew this - so they will always be able to show you a goat. The choice remains, x with 33% chance or Y with 66% chance. People get confused because the choice seems binary. It is not binary. You are choosing between having 1/3 or 2/3 chances. Unless you originally pick the goat, the choice to switch will always be the correct option. What are the odds you choose the correct door first? 33%. Hence switching is always 66% If you still don’t get it, imagine there are 10 doors and 9 incorrect ones. You pick a door, at 10% likelyhood of success. The chances of the right door being in the other 9 is 90%. Them showing you 8 incorrect doors doesn’t change those odds. It’s still 10% and 90%.

[@knitterknerd]

That's better than the explanation I had! My statistics professor explained it terribly, and we all walked out of that class thinking he was wrong. I've since learned about it and sort of wrapped my head around it, but this is far clearer than anything I'd heard before now.

[@ethos1592]

“For planes to have wings. They changed their minds.” That was way funnier to me than it should have been 😂

[@vrrrrrr-uwu]

23:37 the monty hall problem makes perfect sense when you consider that after your initial choice the host was forced to leave the door with the money behind it closed 2/3 of the time- because you pick wrong initially 2/3 of the time.

[@pariah434]

"Was Jesus a good carpenter" I will say, he built a bad cabinet. F I love you guys

[@fear_the_smile961]

I hope you get well soon sips

[@MickeySherbert]

He prob won’t

[@Eiko286]

My brain resists maths (tries to shutdown), but when I focus and solve a problem, the high I get is amazing.

[@JoePlaysPuzzleGames]

Flax is totally correct about 0.999 recurring. Rather than thinking of it as a problem with maths in general though, it's better to think of it as a problem with that particular way of representing numerical values. Remember, "10", the decimal number, isn't the value 10 - it's a representation of it, in the same way that 20/2 also represents it, and 0x0A also represents it, and 00001010 also represents it. You just can't represent "a third" nicely as a decimal number. But we *chose* to use decimal numbers, it's not inherent to maths. If we switch to another representation, we don't have the 0.999... ambiguity. The simple one is switching to decimal fractions, where 1/3 * 3 = 1. Alternatively, the same equation in base 3 would be 0.1 * 10 = 1. This probably won't make sense unless you understand base 3, but it's just to show that there is another representation where you can multiply a third by three and not end up with some weird recurring number.

[@rskeen500]

i like this: x = 0.999999… 10x = 9.999999… then do 10x - x (this bit works better on a whiteboard where you can line up the recurring parts and show column subtraction) 9x = 9 x = 1 so 0.999999… = 1

[@markhackett2302]

@@rskeen500 Except it doesn't work unless you have no clue about maths or infinitesimals or infinity. For example 10x is 9 to 1 more place than x is, because it is 9 plus what you denoted as x. Your problem with that proof is it doesn't work because you never reach infinity, and trying to treat that sort of infinity as "real maths" would give nonsense answers. Just do it to the first decimal of x: x=0.9 10x=9 But you are treating it like x=0.9 10x=9.9 Can you see your problem now? Hiding the problem behind an elipsis (used to demonstrate a "recurring") works as you are refusing to look. Look.

[@rskeen500]

No need to be so haughty. You’re right that I didn’t provide a mathematical proof and that it’s a simplification, but it’s an explanation that someone can follow with very basic algebraic skills and which might help them to understand. We’re trying to provide something that someone with limited mathematical understanding (e.g. Flax) can intuitively grasp, not one that requires understanding limits, completeness and infinity.

[@markhackett2302]

@@rskeen500 No, there was an absolute NEED to be what I was. YOU made a claim as if you knew what you were on about. That claim was WRONG. Because you were LYING to everyone about knowing things when you were entirely clueless about it. And now, because you feel upset and angry, you are now retconning it as "you are haughty" so as to avoid taking blame for what YOU did and making it MY fault YOU were wrong and arrogant.

[@knitterknerd]

@@markhackett2302 They're correct, though. There's enough understood about infinity that mathematicians can use it in a lot of situations. The numbers can "hide" behind the ellipsis because it's all the same. You can see the 9's before the ellipsis, and that's exactly what you'd see after it. It may require more mathematical knowledge than you have to prove that it works that way, but it's still correct.

[@seanehle8323]

Best way to think about 0.999.. is that it's just this thing. We can choose to define it however we like, but there's immense value in maintaining the consistency of mathematics. Turns out the only consistent way to define that object is to call is exactly equal to 1.

[@qwakie19]

A more practical way to understand why the monty hall problem is true is by thinking about 100 doors instead of 3. 999 goats, 1 pile of cash. You pick a door and the host opens 998 other doors with goats behind them. He then asks if you want to switch to the one door he didn't open or keep your original pick. You are essentially weighing the chance that you picked correctly the first time vs the chance you picked incorrectly

[@ohmyenglishteabags9638]

Pyrion can't do basic maths is crazy

[@ollieovis5436]

So happy to see the difference between Jersey and London .

[@q163.]

I'd like to hear them discuss the Langlands program. Most of their complaints are about maths pedagogy, which is objectively terrible in the UK. Maths is the most fundamental scientific discipline and very fun in practice.

[@Christian-Fig]

maths and learning should be fun and engaging. schools in the uk need to change

[@EvilLobsterKing]

What helped me understand the Monty Hall problem was making it 100 doors. If you select randomly from 100 doors. Your initial selection was 1/100, but if 98 of the other doors have been opened, is the goat more likely to be behind the one you picked initially, or the only other remaining one. People get tripped up by it because 1/3 and 1/2 are rather close together and hard to conceptualize.

[@charlesmanary2936]

my issue with it is not that the second decision becomes a 1/2 chance instead of a 1/3 chance. its that the agreed upon solution is to always switch your choice because the new door is the one with a 1/2, and *somehow* the original door is still only 1/3. would my decision to stay on my original door not also be based on the new numbers? if it isnt based on the 1/2 chance, how not? I've never found an explanation for that part of the problem

[@SentientPotat0]

​@@charlesmanary2936 the doors opened are never the bad one so the chance of the your door being the bad one goes up and so your 1/3 becomes a 1/2 but since you picked the door before they opened the others it remains 1/3 so swapping to the 50/50 door is better. At least thats how i understand it.

[@EvilLobsterKing]

@@charlesmanary2936 this is where the hundred doors come in. Your original choice was made with 1/100 odds. But the hosts know where the goat is. They didn't open 98 random doors. You are committing to a decision made with 1/100 odds, or making a new decision at 50/50 odds.

[@HibijibiCraft]

But its still a 50/50. It isnt a 1/100 any more. The odds of your choice have changed too. If you choose to keep your door - that is you choosing a 50% chance for a win. If you choose to change - that’s you choosing a 50% chance to win. Both are the same choice with same odds

[@EvilLobsterKing]

@@HibijibiCraft imagine 1 million doors. You select a random door out of 1000000 possible options. 999998 of those doors are opened and don't have the goat behind them. Is the goat more likely to be behind the door you picked randomly at 1/1000000 odds, or the only other closed door? Changing to the other door is making a new choice at 50/50 odds. Sticking with your original door is staying with a choice made at 1/1000000 odds.

[@thomasfloyd6714]

Lewis should buy a real shit hole fixer upper house with the intent of making fix it up videos but ultimately never do it and just live in terrible squalor

[@eDRoaCH]

The only nails Jesus ever touched he wasn't holding the hammer

[@hendas9763]

Must be wednesday today. Hard day to be second choice Flax

[@whoopti]

I would've thought Boba would want all the old stuff in yog towers and then she has a house full of alllll the yogs stuff like one of those goofy old people that has a museum about some niche thing.

[@joshyboy82]

In America, you can just scan the QR code without scratching. Buy, turn around and scan, and walk away. You have lost life.

[@gamebox131]

you can in the uk to but the people who are smart enough to know this are not the people who but scratch cards

[@MaMastoast]

I Imagine people buy those things for the small thrill of doing the scratching,

[@Christian-Fig]

@@MaMastoasti have bought 15 scratch in my life and i only do it for the game like the big bingo ones and christmas ones

[@mkoookm1]

The monty hall problem is super easy to prove experimentally though. Have someone else roll a d6%3 to put the goat behind one door then choose a door. The other person reveals a prize door and then you flip a coin to decide whether to switch or stay with your door. repeat like 100 times counting up how many times you win with each strategy and switching wins more time than not switching.

[@tristen9502]

23:53 Karl Pilkington

[@RmosDtC]

Isn't it the thing with alibaba, you have to buy in bulk, so not good if they suck, unless get sample first

[@henryjohnson-ville3834]

I'll leave this here: 12/2/24 to when I listened to this episode.

[@JamieAubrey]

They should have skewed the episode number

[@nickdziura7373]

Episode 302.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...

[@JamieAubrey]

32:50 Cordless wrench ? I thought wrenches ARE cordless to begin with

[@OrionTekken]

Tetchy one this week

[@DonnaThompson-h1v]

Thanks for sharing such valuable information! I have a quick question: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). What's the best way to send them to Binance?

[@leoslack6104]

Woo more triforce

[@zindi1138]

Always a gooder

[@Hoppa_Joel]

....thats numberwang

[@MexiPerplexi]

The issue I have with the Monty Hall problem is that it seems to operate on a few assumptions. If you select a door, and the host then removes a door that ISN'T yours, the other door has a 50/50 chance, but also so does yours. It's literally the same odds either way.

[@doublespoonco]

The host never opens the door with the car

[@markhackett2302]

Except the "extra information" is that it is GUARANTEED that the door taken away is NOT the winning door, so the remaining door is the result of information you didn't have before. Hence the Monty Haul problem that denotes you should change to the door NOT taken because IT has a better chance of being correct.

[@RogueZealot]

This is incorrect. The easiest way to understand it is to imagine 100 doors and 1 prize. You pick a door, then they close 98 other doors that don't have the prize. Now your door's odds of winning are STILL 1 in 100, but the other door is now 99 in 100. So obviously, you should switch. With 3 doors yours is 1 in 3, but switching makes it 2 in 3. It's simple really you just need to think about it from the right angle.

[@seanalexander582]

Physicists have a phrase to describe most of what mathematicians do (which doesn't have any application). - Abstract Nonsense

[@mandonz]

it is pronounced dun-ee-din. Dun is said like "done" ee is like the e in ear, din as in the word, or dinner.

[@SolarisWesson]

High level maths and the working is just mathematicians justifying their jobs

[@SircGamingUK]

Escape to the Chateau?

[@jordan3400]

You have 3 doors, each with 33% chance of being the right door. You pick door number one. Let’s call that choice x. So choice x has a 33% chance of being correct. Doors 2 and 3 have a 66% chance of being correct. Let’s call doors 2 and 3 choice Y. If you were offered at this point to choose choice X with 33% chance or choice Y with 66% choice, you’d obviously choose choice Y right? Choice Y will ALWAYS have at least one goat. They show you this goat. This does not change the 66% odds of choice Y. Nothing has changed, there was inevitably a goat behind one of the doors, we knew this - so they will always be able to show you a goat. The choice remains, x with 33% chance or Y with 66% chance. People get confused because the choice seems binary. It is not binary. You are choosing between having 1/3 or 2/3 chances. Unless you originally pick the goat, the choice to switch will always be the correct option. What are the odds you choose the correct door first? 33%. Hence switching is always 66% If you still don’t get it, imagine there are 10 doors and 9 incorrect ones. You pick a door, at 10% likelyhood of success. The chances of the right door being in the other 9 is 90%. Them showing you 8 incorrect doors doesn’t change those odds. It’s still 10% and 90%. That’s a long explanation but I tried two ways of explaining so if it’s still not clear, search it up on KZbin for a visual explanation.

[@RogueZealot]

Pyrion I'm sorry but your ignorance of basic math and unwillingness to educate yourself has really lessened my respect for you after this episode.

[@ctulhuone]

this was such an old man yelling episode lmao are you guys ok

[@SynthetikCreation]

I recently bought 4 RC cars from Alibaba as Christmas gifts and they were fantastic. I followed a lead that someone else gave as to which to buy which helped a lot as there are hundreds of versions of the same thing. I will purchase there again!

[@rich_in_paradise]

Beware, this episode is most just Flax reading out Ali Express listings non-stop

[@ZhangWei02]

International attorney here based in Seoul right now. The Triforce is usually my break from reality, but I'm glad to see Flax getting into China's criminal trade manipulation. Long story short, cheap shit from China is short term gratification, long term harm.

[@dodde216]

I usually agree with things pyrion says, but the stuff he said about the lottery odds made me cringe for sure

[@WindGunner]

I understand where Pyrion is coming from, The problem is that our brains are not made to understand statistics it is not how our brains work so it is hard to understand and seems to not make sense. But it does make actual sense it just appears as nonsense. And if you don't take a long time to understand it and convince yourself that your brain is biased and your first and even second reaction is wrong it becomes easier. But that is impractical for a non-math person and daily life

[@ChonkyMonkey1]

Pyrion not liking Numberphile who actually make good content in their area of expertise, while all Pyrion does is stream miserable games of Dota. Yeah, alright buddy.

[@zsdmrtzmrde]

Hey, pyrion is extremely good at playing terrible Dota thank you very nuch

[@HibijibiCraft]

He never said he doesnt like them. He just doesnt want 100 videos suggested in a row

[@caleb_dreams]

I have long had enmity with numbers, portions and measurements of any kind.

[@adamcummings20]

The .999999 thing is just bad notation

[@Alex99876]

Horrible intro by lewlew 😂

[@MayuFuji]

If your chance is 1 in 14 million with 1 ticket, and you buy another ticket, you now have a 2 in 14 million chance 😅 not 1 in 7 million.

[@Nexnav]

2/14 = 1/7

[@Luckragol]

things about everyday jesus can be found in gospels that did not fit in to "the bible" canon. look them up, they are easy to find. plus, be a sport and joke around mohammad for a change, you are leaving poor fellow all alone. go on, do a funny about allah next time. :)

[@tinki44]

Escape to rhe Chateau @pyrion