Search results

1. Last February was getting "Electrical consumers switched off" warning on first start after a cold night (which indicated low battery charge). Car was on Merc maintenenace contract and eventually persuaded the service agent (Merce dealer) to supply new battery. So battery is ~6 months old...

You didn't - so I withdraw that part of my response. The hovercraft analogy is (imo) inapt because a hovercraft is never in contact with the ground. The runner on a treadmill analogy is (imo) inapt because a runner is using an entirely different traction force to achieve motion. I apologise...

Because, with sufficient thrust to keep the car/aircraft moving fowards relative to the belt, the rotational speed of the wheels will necessarily be faster than the speed of the belt and the belt will keep trying to catch up and so the wheels will continue accelerating. And so on in a closed...

Hovercraft on conveyor belts and runners on treadmills are distinctly inapt analogies for the original problem, which in any event was not the point of this thread. Stick with the toy car on the supermarket conveyor belt. It makes it really easy to work out what's happening.

Correction. That thread had degenerated and was closed. This is a new one. I'm not arguing against the consensus (if it was a consensus) of the original thread but looking to lengthen the debate on the detail of what's happening to the wheel speed. A related but not identical issue. Do you...

I was very interested in the recent (now locked) thread on the 777 incident that re-opened the debate on the jet plane on conveyor belt problem. Congratulations to a number of posters who gave very clear explanations and illustrations of the correct answer - being, of course, that the aircraft...

Sorry to thow a spanner in the works but... Switch 1 on for 1 min then off Switch 2 on Switch 3 off Go downstairs If lamp off but warm - switch 1 If lamp on - switch 2 If lamp off - switch 3 However, if switch 1 is a 2-way switch and lamp was on initially, then: Switch 1 on...

If you mean legal action, the question you have to ask and answer is - what's your loss? In law - contract law - you can only claim compensation for loss or damage actually suffered as a result of breach of contract. There is, alomost certainly, a breach of contract but, as you have not...

The contentious issue was restated. What's the problem? That's what I've been saying consistently over the last few pages. I have not simply asserted it, I've laid out the mathematical theory and provided illustrations. The same principle does apply and I have explained it several...

Agreed. I am saying that the probability that you had picked the £250k box is still 1 in 20. If the £250k box has actually been eliminated there is obviously zero chance of choosing it from the reduced group. The probability that you had picked the £250k box first time is still 1 in 20...

It's all in the previous posts. The assertion is that the probability of the contestant's box holding the prize, which is 1 in 20 at the time it is chosen, reduces as boxes from the other group of 19 are eliminated. That is wrong. It still has a 1 in 20 chance and the balance of probability...

Reinstated.

Look - I'm not sure whether you lot are trolling or simply do not yet get it. I'll assume the latter, withdraw my last remark and try again. I'll say this again in case it was missed the first two or three times - in the OP, I agree the 50:50 analysis is correct IF but only IF: (i) there...

I assure you I am not Softus and have no idea who s/he is. Anyway, you're probably right - as they say, "you can't fix stupid".

Jackpot andtrazor - you really must read and try to comprehend. I'll say this again and please read it slowly. The probability for an event where each item in the population has an equal chance is fixed at the time the event occurs. In the DOND case and the examples I gave, the event occurs...

Yes - as I said it IS a 50:50 chance IF you insist that ONLY the £1 box and no other losing box can be the 'other' box of the final two.

Yes - I've considered it and would be willing to retract if just ONE person can produce a cogent argument to demonstrate that the switch strategy does not work. Nobody has done so. Give it a try. I'll repeat the hypothesis. If I ALWAYS switch then the ONLY time I lose is IF my first choice...

Sorry - I made a silly mistake on the illustration. The probability of the ONE remaing B box holding £10 is 75%. I repeat, the probability event occurs when we split the boxes between A and B. The initial probability is fixed until a new event occurs. Until then, the A box holds the 25%...