QI just doesn't get probability

I'm a great fan of QI, but there are some subjects their question writers (and Stephen Fry) just don't get - one of which is probability.

I was watching an old edition on Dave last night (as you do when there's nothing else on) and this question came up (approximately: I'm relating it from memory):

If you toss a coin what is the chance of getting heads?

Someone answered 50:50 and off went that irritating klaxon. No, said Stephen Fry. When a human being tosses a coin, the face that is up when you toss it has a slightly better chance of winning. If the head's up, it's 51:49.

Yes, but it their aim to be clever, they have totally missed the point. They didn't ask If you toss a coin in the heads up position what is the chance of getting heads? Because of the way they asked the question there's a 50% chance you started heads up and a 50% chance you started tails up. So there's a 50% chance of it being 51:49 and a 50% chance of it being 49:51. End result? 50:50, just like the penalized person said.*

I know this sounds petty, but the whole game relies on the petty application of frequently misunderstood knowledge, which means they really ought to do better on such a basic point.

* Technically it's not quite 50:50 because of the different aerodynamic properties of the two faces, but it's close enough for these purposes.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog