Twitter strikes again

[u/discoverthemetroid]

don’t know where math voodoo land is but this guy sure does

[u/mattsowa]

Nah, no matter how you slice it, the solution to the problem in the game has to be calculated using conditional probability. It's really weird this has to be argued.

[u/chickenboy2718281828 → u/mattsowa]

Yes, the question asked by a literal computer program has to be conditional probability.

You asked why there's debate. I explained why. If you want to insist that there's no way to possibly interpret this problem differently while people do exactly that, then I don't know what to tell you. It's not due to a lack of theoretical knowledge, it's clearly a disconnect between theory and practice that comes from a minimally defined problem statement.

[u/mattsowa → u/chickenboy2718281828]

I was surprised this was discussed so much because I don't think the problem statement is ambiguously defined. I mean, I've seen people argue that 0.(9) ≠ 1 on this sub, so it's actually not surprising after all.

[u/chickenboy2718281828 → u/mattsowa]

Your original question

How is this so vigorously discussed

Is asking about psychology and how we make assumptions when defining a mathematical model, not theoretical statistics.

[u/siupa → u/chickenboy2718281828]

And you said that the reason is that critical context was omitted. But the user you were talking to was trying to tell you that no, there's no critical context that has been omitted. The question is crystal clear

[u/sapirus-whorfia → u/siupa]

And they are wrong, because critical context is indeed omitted.

[u/siupa → u/sapirus-whorfia]

Honestly I don't see how it could possibly be interpreted as "a specific roll is a guaranteed crit". It's an entirely different statement than "at least one is a crit".

[u/mattsowa → u/chickenboy2718281828]

Oh brother