|
|
|
| Authored by: cc0028 on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 07:05 PM EDT |
I don't think you were listening in the probability lectures. Your arithmetic
proves nothing about the probabilty of obtaining any money at all.
You may be
being mislead by the gambler's fallacy, which argues that the chances of, say, a
particular number coming up in the lottery are related to how many times it has
come up in the past.
In fact, all the 90%/1% estimates suggest is that Oracle
is very likely to get something in the lower range, but very unlikely to get
anything in the upper range. They say nothing about the probability of getting
a particular number in those ranges. In fact, since the ranges overlap, Oracle
could, from a mathematical point of view, obtain a victory in the upper range,
but only receive an award that is in the lower range.
Not very well explained.
Sorry about that, but it's late and I'm tired.
Cheers
PAE[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kilz on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 07:36 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 08:20 PM EDT |
| Except for BSF's SCO Case That Can Never Die, when their
contract was a single
payment per case, of course...I bet they
won't do that one again :) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
