Activity for Chgg Clouâ€
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #289012 |
@#36356 Please see my edit, and reopen this question? Please suggest how to make my question on topic? (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289046 |
Cross posted at https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4740685 (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #288081 |
Thanks. As you wrote "I may be misreading your post, but it seems like there is some confusion between these two things:", I edited my post. Does my edit clarify? Does my edit change your answer? (more) |
— | 12 months ago |
| Comment | Post #288080 |
Thanks for your answer. $\color{magenta}{1.}$ I can't answer your first question, because I'm too dumbfounded by "P(you win the lottery exactly zero times | you won the lottery once)". Isn't this logically impossible??? Given that you won the lottery once, it's impossible that you win the lottery zer... (more) |
— | 12 months ago |
| Comment | Post #288022 |
So you don't see anything fallacious or flawed in Lotterycodex's gambit? (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #288007 |
Crosspost https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4669016 (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287991 |
Crosspost https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4666444 (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287999 |
**3. _"Two tickets have 75% chance of winning, and 5 tickets 96.9% chance."_ How did you compute these rational numbers? 4. _"You can look this up yourself."_ I can? How? My table shows the odds for merely each play. It doesn't show odds for 10 plays of Lotto 649, 5 plays of DAILY GRAND, or 2 plays o... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287999 |
Thanks. I reworded my question 2. I didn't know I asked a question different from the one in my mind. I have 4 follow up questions please. **1. Please elaborate the following sentences? Please prove them mathematically? _"For small numbers of tickets and small chances of winning per ticket (like all ... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287973 |
I don't need to define "d", because DanielWainfleet did so in his answer on StackExchange. (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287960 |
Thanks. I edited my post to add the lottery cost. Can you update your answer please? "-1 because that really should have been obvious." Aren't you punishing posters who have dyscalculia, and are unskilled at math? (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #285447 |
thanks for your reply. I corrected my post. I don't want 0 as the answer. As an investor, I covet exposure to AT LEAST 1 water ETF. Feel free to edit my post. I afraid that if I generalize or broaden my question into a pure math problem, I won't understand it! (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285436 |
[Cross posted](https://redd.it/rsxhhw) on r/mathematics, that has gotten 16 comments so far. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285005 |
I have the same question as https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2667399, but I'm seeking a better explanation than cakes and pieces of cake. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284997 |
"CD is not a dumping ground for your rejected, low-effort questions." This is unmannerly. And you're assuming without evidence I'm that inquirer on Stack Exchange, that can unjustifiably close excellent questions. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283372 |
@#54204g Yes! Great picture! Looking forward to your answer. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282055 |
@MonicaCellio Does my edit clarify? (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282038 |
"Then married > smokers, but now married smokers / married people is 10%, and all smokers / all people is 20% (check this yourself)." Can you please show the steps? Married smokers/married people = 10%/50% = 20%, but you wrote "10%"? "all smokers / all people" = (10% + 30%)/all people. But what numbe... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282038 |
Hi! Thanks for your replies! "I wonder if you meant to write married smokers < all smokers," No I didn't. The author's sentence is "To say that marital status and smoking status are negatively correlated, for example, is simply to say that **married people [emphasis mine]** are less likely than the *... (more) |
— | almost 3 years ago |