Whoa. What tilly is claiming is that we have a "better than 50% chance" of getting it right. The degree to which it's "better" can be *mind-bogglingly miniscule* (we're talking continuous quantities here) so I don't think we're warranted in exporting any claims about the actual probabilities from what a program reports.
Philosophy can be made out of anything. Or less -- Jerry A. Fodor
In reply to RE: OK, understood, but still 1 *huge* flaw
by arturo
in thread Spooky math problem
by tilly
For: | Use: | ||
& | & | ||
< | < | ||
> | > | ||
[ | [ | ||
] | ] |