Music Banter - Mindful Science!

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)

- - Mindful Science! (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/92723-mindful-science.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 2131214)

By my argument 10-19 is more likely than 9.

But 10,000-19,999 is ten thousand numbers and since we're talking about a finite set of numbers that’s not randomly generated and ten thousand is more than all the numbers that start with 2-9 that came before it that’s why it’s more likely to start with one. And it keeps happening at 100,000 and 1,000,000 and 100,000,000 and so on. I’m pretty sure this will get circular and if you bother you’ll say yeah but the other numbers continue as well. What makes it intuitive that these numbers are more likely to start with one is that you have to go through one to get to two.

I know this is counterintuitive to many people who unlike me actually understand numbers and math but it seems to me on this one too much knowledge just clutters up the human noggin. I probably have a Dunning–Kruger going but with the data having my back my confidence is sky high.

I get what you mean, but as you point out the fact that you compare 10 to 9, and not to 90, hinges on the fact that you go forward through number in increasing size and I don't see why that's valid

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marie Monday (Post 2131258)

I get what you mean, but as you point out the fact that you compare 10 to 9, and not to 90, hinges on the fact that you go forward through number in increasing size and I don't see why that's valid

No sarcasm here on this answer but it’s valid because that’s how things are counted.

But measuring isn't counting

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marie Monday (Post 2131350)

But measuring isn't counting

What if his but is bigger than yours?

Don't you dare talk **** about my butt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marie Monday (Post 2131350)

But measuring isn't counting

I thought of addressing that. Measuring is determining the number of units of measurement so although you don’t have to count to get there the number you arrive at can be counted to so the same rule applies.

Butt that exact idea of getting there along a sequence of increasing magnitude is invalid when you talk about measuring
You don't necessarily arrive at a measured value from below

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marie Monday (Post 2131370)

Butt that exact idea of getting there along a sequence of increasing magnitude is invalid when you talk about measuring
You don't necessarily arrive at a measured value from below

Negative or positive numbers or whatever you can still count your way there. The process of measuring is different but the number is still a number.

Of course, but that isn't relevant. You can count the amount of sheep in a meadow, but you can't say that it's more likely that there are 5 sheep instead of 6 because 5 comes before 6