tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844827880580229020.post4540475531757300423..comments2015-12-18T06:03:42.615-08:00Comments on Director's cut: Don't get your hopes up yet, HiggsSKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03473150367386722079noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844827880580229020.post-20181124303851612792011-12-22T10:51:02.744-08:002011-12-22T10:51:02.744-08:00HeheheheheHeheheheherappocciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02892286988757355695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844827880580229020.post-79745003413793566222011-12-19T13:26:42.651-08:002011-12-19T13:26:42.651-08:00Then I should probably play the lottery instead of...Then I should probably play the lottery instead of trying to get sex, because that is not working.Bretta Applebaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04905757020882755310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844827880580229020.post-87499568539734665212011-12-19T13:05:13.087-08:002011-12-19T13:05:13.087-08:00Hi, Bretta,
The cumulative probability is increas...Hi, Bretta,<br /><br />The cumulative probability is increased, actually. If you play twice, you're twice as likely that at least one will win. Each individual trial has the same probability, but the total increases. <br /><br />If p is the probability of winning, then the probability that you win >=1 in 2 trials you have<br /><br />prob of getting 0 successes = p0 = (1-p)*(1-p)<br />prob of getting >=1 success = 1 - p0 = 1-(1-p)^2<br /><br />So for the case of p=0.5, you have<br /><br />p (>=1 success) = 0.75rappocciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02892286988757355695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844827880580229020.post-90372616536910903192011-12-18T10:54:20.992-08:002011-12-18T10:54:20.992-08:00If you play the lottery each day your chances don&...If you play the lottery each day your chances don't increase if you play each day: the chance of winning is not cumulative. It's not like the chance of getting laid the more you date. The probability of winning does not change just by playing the lottery more often. The chance of finding the object in a stack of identical objects is dependent on the ability to identify the factor that makes it what you're looking for, so it is observer-dependent, not dependent on the objects themselves.Bretta Applebaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04905757020882755310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844827880580229020.post-68400329189546745212011-12-15T05:41:05.311-08:002011-12-15T05:41:05.311-08:00There's a huge number of models that already e...There's a huge number of models that already exist to explain the masses without Higgs (technicolor, extra dimensions, etc). In fact the only reason why Higgs is still so popular is because most SUSY models have a Higgs-like thing floating around. In any case we'll find out next year!rappocciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02892286988757355695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844827880580229020.post-61084308862197857682011-12-13T11:08:05.036-08:002011-12-13T11:08:05.036-08:00We can conclude safely though that if they find it...We can conclude safely though that if they find it, Nobel Prize for Higgs.<br /><br />And if they don't, do you think that the search of an alternative explanation for mass will intensify?Shripathi Kamathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03473150367386722079noreply@blogger.com