Jump to content

Bizarre! But look quick!


DonRocks

Recommended Posts

;)

(Since there's not actually any direct correlation between number of topics and number of replies, my question kind of sucked. But the response made me laugh.)

Well, here's the answer: given that, at some point in time, there will be 1,000 topics, what are the odds (at that moment in time) of there being a number of replies that's also divisible by 1,000?

I'd say 1 in 1,000.

This is all sort of like watching your car's odometer roll over past the 100,000 mark, and wondering what will happen. Or calling the time at 11:59:50 on New Year's Eve (is there still a TI4-2525 number you can call to get the time?)

No, wait a minute, that's mechanical/analog/print media; we're in the digital age now. But I'd still rather have a Gutenberg bible than an ENIAC. Then again, I'd rather have a Bernini sketch than a Topps 1952 Mantle (until it came time to sell it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here's the answer: given that, at some point in time, there will be 1,000 topics, what are the odds (at that moment in time) of there being a number of replies that's also divisible by 1,000?

I'd say 1 in 1,000.

This is all sort of like watching your car's odometer roll over past the 100,000 mark, and wondering what will happen. Or calling the time at 11:59:50 on New Year's Eve (is there still a TI4-2525 number you can call to get the time?)

No, wait a minute, that's mechanical/analog/print media; we're in the digital age now. But I'd still rather have a Gutenberg bible than an ENIAC. Then again, I'd rather have a Bernini sketch than a Topps 1952 Mantle (until it came time to sell it).

WYdown 3 8673 was me! I miss the old exchange system.

I think even 1 in 1,000 is only a good estimate, given that there really is no correlation mandated between topics and replies (some topics have zero replies, after all). But then, I loathe probability and statistics and try to ignore them whenever possible. ;)

The Gutenberg is gorgeous and historic, but don't dis ENIAC. What, you don't like punch cards? (The Bernini vs. a Mantle rookie card is a tough call -- but you'd do better if you had the 1951 card, too.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Gutenberg is gorgeous and historic, but don't dis ENIAC. What, you don't like punch cards? (The Bernini vs. a Mantle rookie card is a tough call -- but you'd do better if you had the 1951 card, too.)

Topps did not exist in 1951.

And I've USED punch cards, if that betrays my age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say it was Topps. (Bowman, in point of fact -- but I had to look that up. Point is, there are two Mantle rookie cards.)

And for some unknown reason, the Bowman is only worth a fraction (although the Mantle IS a high-number (only a true affiicionado (that's a euphemism for "geek") will understand what I'm saying here)).

Fine: T206 Wagner (I'd have to think about taking that over the Bernini, btw).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for some unknown reason, the Bowman is only worth a fraction (although the Mantle IS a high-number (only a true affiicionado (that's a euphemism for "geek") will understand what I'm saying here)).

Fine: T206 Wagner (I'd have to think about taking that over the Bernini, btw).

;)

Why not just bring Ty Cobb into it, eh? Oh, just take the Bernini.

You could pull the ultimate irony and kick this thread into News and Media and end the whole conversation. :P

(I suddenly want to watch Field of Dreams and The Natural.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The odds are, I believe, exactly "one in a million".

If you roll a die, the odds of rolling a two are 1 in 6. If you roll two dice, the odds of getting a pair of twos are 1 in 36 (6x6).

Here, we have a pair of thousand-sided dice. The odds of both of them coming up 1000 on the same roll are 1,000,000 (1000x1000) to 1.

I'm of course only addressing the fact that it was an even some-number 1000 of posts in an even some-number of 1000 of topics. So assuming the interesting thing is that both numbers ended in 000 - then the odds are 1,000,000 to one. The odds of specifically hitting 16000 are different of course, but not as interesting.

The odds of me wasting too much time on this is very nearly 1 to 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The odds are, I believe, exactly "one in a million".

And you know, come to think of it - does that make it extra cool? That the precise odds have been memorialized in hit songs by Jimmy Charles, Hannah Montana, Kiss, Al Green, Guns and Roses and in countless other cliche applications? It boggles the noggin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...