Talk:Law of truly large numbers

Untitled

Do not the "given events" need to be random (statistically independent) in order for the example described in the article to be useful to the understanding of the "law"? I.e. for the principle of "co-incidence has no memory" to apply? 195.252.46.127 (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

For the layperson, the statement:

"A given event might be 0.1% likely to happen in one occurrence. However, for this never to happen in, say, a sample of 1000, would require a probability of 0.999 to the power of 1000. This in fact comes out as a chance of 36.8%. "

requires a huge leap of faith. 36.8% just doesn't make intuitive sense, coming from 0.1 and 1000... and where does the 0.999 come into it?

Could this be explained? Either by reference or by including the necessary calculation?

I am aware that the calculation resulting in the 36.8% is clearly there, and I know where the mysterious 0.999 came from - just not sure that anyone with no mathematical background would. And, since I imagine that this article is aimed at the non-mathematical, I feel that additional explanation would be beneficial. Haruth (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Borel-Cantelli Lemma or Infinite Monkey Theorem

This article seems to be more of a lay description of the Borel-Cantelli lemma. A similar article is that of "Infinite Monkey Theorem," which is much more accurate and descriptive of the mechanics driving the idea. In addition, some of the other articles to which the reader is directed (law of large/small numbers, for example) are misplaced and have nothing to do with the Borel-Cantelli lemma, so they should probably be removed.

Overall, though, if the idea is to be given attribution, it should probably be to attributed to Borel or Cantelli, along with the acknowledgement of Stigler's law of eponymy. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.240.1 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just delete the article. Its contents would add nothing to the Infinite Monkey Theorem article. Aastrup (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep, the law is more formal and sounds more seriously (is more abstract - no arguing about relation to factual monkeys) then Infinite Monkey Theorem yet is still (and its proof) understandable for laymen, and has separate place in many sci papers and books. Qsr03 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"The law seeks to debunk one element of supposed supernatural phenomenology."

"The law seeks to debunk one element of supposed supernatural phenomenology."

What does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.18.161 (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Law of truly large numbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712091914/http://stat.stanford.edu/~cgates/PERSI/papers/mosteller89.pdf to http://stat.stanford.edu/~cgates/PERSI/papers/mosteller89.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)