●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byTroyusrex ( 2446430 ) writes:
The two events, nicknamed Bert and Ernie, have a 99% chance of originating outside our galaxy
I beg to differ. They either have a 100% chance of originating outside our galaxy or a 0% chance. We may be 99% sure it originated outside the galaxy but that doesn't impact whether they actually did or not. (and don't give me any of the quantum observer effects jargon. These waves functions would have collapsed long ago).
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Troyusrex: I'm familiar with this use of probability, so allow me to clarify:
There's no need for quantum anything. Probability is simply how one quantifies uncertainty. Here's an example: suppose I flip a coin and you do not see it. I might see it come up heads, and so I would assign a 100% probability that it came up heads. You would assign a probability of 50% to each possible outcome. Who's right? We both are: we're both describing our personal states of awareness about what happened, and they are different.
In this case, the scientists who conducted the experiment are 99% sure that they originated outside our galaxy, presumably because they were able to reject most in-galaxy source explanations. But they cannot be 100% sure.
If you want to learn more, read about Bayesian probability theory.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymartas ( 1439879 ) writes:
If you want to learn more, read about Bayesian probability theory.
Not to get into a Bayesian vs. frequentist debate here, but note that this is not the only interpretation of probability out there. The frequentist interpretation is, in spirit, a statement "in hindsight". Troyusrex's point is that it's meaningless to talk about probabilities of things that are fixed quantities; the frequentist interpretation gets around that by making statements about quantities that have yet to be determined. So one only speaks of probabilities before an experiment has been performed and
●threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes.
-- Mickey Mouse
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...