Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Feb 02, 2026 19:53

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 21:51 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Steve wrote:
That's what I like about (us) engineers; we can still find a way to get the right answer even when normal methods are beyond us :D

Most interesting natural phenomena are counter intuitive and on;y understandable by careful mathematical reasoning. The relationship between speed cameras and KSI figures springs to mind.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 21:55 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
trakgalvis wrote:
An alien measures my height in alien units, and I have no idea what these units are. In normal scientific decimal notation, what is the probability that my height starts with a 1, in these alien units?

Does the sub-unity notation 0.01 count? These start with 0 and there could be a lot of them....

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 07:30 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 15:33
Posts: 115
Steve wrote:
trakgalvis wrote:
An alien measures my height in alien units, and I have no idea what these units are. In normal scientific decimal notation, what is the probability that my height starts with a 1, in these alien units?

Does the sub-unity notation 0.01 count? These start with 0 and there could be a lot of them....


No, I am talking about the first none 0 digit.

The probability distribution needs to be invariant under a change of units, as we have no idea what the units are.

I think you will find the answer amazing, and it really can be important in more everyday applications, as I will explain later. I have won many bets using it, in the past.

_________________
http://kalvis.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 07:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 15:33
Posts: 115
dcbwhaley wrote:
Pete317 wrote:
I make it 1/9


So do I
In 0-9 there is 1: 1/10 = .1
In 10-99 there are 10: 10+1/100 = .11
In 100 -999 there are 100: 100+10+1/1000 = .111
In 1000-9999 there are 1000: 1000+100+10+1/10000 = .1111

Convergent on .1 recurring or 1/9


If you still believe this, take a look at tables of physical constants (but those that are truly natural, rather than defined to be nice). These should have the same distribution, but look at how many start with 1 --- many more than 1/9.

_________________
http://kalvis.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 08:02 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
trakgalvis wrote:
If you still believe this, take a look at tables of physical constants (but those that are truly natural, rather than defined to be nice). These should have the same distribution, but look at how many start with 1 --- many more than 1/9.


Yes. I am well aware of Newcomb's observation of that fact. But surely we have a total random distribution here, not a logarithmic one, so I am very dubious about applying Benford's law.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 09:00 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 15:33
Posts: 115
dcbwhaley wrote:
trakgalvis wrote:
If you still believe this, take a look at tables of physical constants (but those that are truly natural, rather than defined to be nice). These should have the same distribution, but look at how many start with 1 --- many more than 1/9.


Yes. I am well aware of Newcomb's observation of that fact. But surely we have a total random distribution here, not a logarithmic one, so I am very dubious about applying Benford's law.


In the current case, if there is an answer, the distribution must not change under a change of units, as I said we have no idea about the units used. Given that, there is only one answer to the question. And, yes it does give a logarithmic law for the probability distribution of the first digit.

So, if there is an answer, it is log(2)/log(10) = 0.30102999566398... .

_________________
http://kalvis.com/


Last edited by trakgalvis on Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:11, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 09:18 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
trakgalvis wrote:

In the current case, if there is an answer, the distribution needs to be independent of a change of units, as I said we have no idea about the units used. Given that, there is only one answer to the question. And, yes it does give a logarithmic law for the probability distribution of the first digit.


Of course it does. I My apologies. The answer is indeed log(2)

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:05 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 15:33
Posts: 115
I always think this sort of reasoning gives a good example of the mathematical approach to such problems.

And, also, how sometimes answers to simple questions can be unexpected.

I am glad we agree. ;)

_________________
http://kalvis.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:25 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 15:33
Posts: 115
So, for those of you who have not seen this before, if someone is guessing about some numerical quantity, which strangely often happens to people around me, turn it into a bet about the first digit, and bet on it being 1. I have really made money out of it.

_________________
http://kalvis.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 13:17 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Dammit, I thought of that just 5 minutes ago (I've just got up).

It made perfect sense that things more often begin with 1 than 9. Then I thought about how things are displayed on a log graph (something I've been teasing spindrift with recently); 1 to 1.99999999 takes the biggest chunk of the axis, of course. (I wasn't sure if that was correct, but I was going to give it a go).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 13:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 15:33
Posts: 115
Steve wrote:
Dammit, I thought of that just 5 minutes ago (I've just got up).

It made perfect sense that things more often begin with 1 than 9. Then I thought about how things are displayed on a log graph (something I've been teasing spindrift with recently); 1 to 1.99999999 takes the biggest chunk of the axis, of course. (I wasn't sure if that was correct, but I was going to give it a go).


It is a nice problem, and the answer is far from what most people expect. In this problem, we can prove the log scale is natural, in a sense.

_________________
http://kalvis.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 17:26 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
I like you trakgalvis, about 2.717 times more than I did yesterday :D

When I was a school kid I used a slide rule and my Physics teacher had the first electronic calculator from Sinclair. (Circa 72?).

I never owned one or ever got the chance to play with one but I remember it was weird to use, something about Polish notation :?

Back then I could find the square root of a number using long hand. Not now I can't... :(

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 18:41 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 15:33
Posts: 115
Big Tone wrote:
I like you trakgalvis, about 2.717 times more than I did yesterday :D

When I was a school kid I used a slide rule and my Physics teacher had the first electronic calculator from Sinclair. (Circa 72?).

I never owned one or ever got the chance to play with one but I remember it was weird to use, something about Polish notation :?

Back then I could find the square root of a number using long hand. Not now I can't... :(


I remember those days! :)

_________________
http://kalvis.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 18:55 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
Big Tone wrote:
.. about 2.717 times more than I did yesterday


Are you sure it's not 3.1417 times, just to make it a nice, round number? :D

Quote:
When I was a school kid I used a slide rule


We were banned from using slide rules in exams, as we could write crib notes in the channel underneath the slider

Quote:
something about Polish notation :?


Reverse-polish notation, or RP. Some of the early HP calculators used it

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 19:07 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
Pete317 wrote:
Reverse-polish notation, or RP. Some of the early HP calculators used it
That was it! Can you give an example Pete? It was something like if you wanted to do a simple calculation of 2x2 you had to enter something like x2x2 to get 4? I'm probably way off there, I think it was more strange than that even, but I remember it was something equally silly; not at all intuitive like today.

I saw one a few years ago in the museum at Gloucester, for the first time since i left school, brought back memories I can tell you... :cloud9:

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Last edited by Big Tone on Sun Aug 01, 2010 19:08, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 19:07 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Pete317 wrote:
Reverse-polish notation, or RP. Some of the early HP calculators used it

I designed and built a computer that worked in RPN. Used the FORTH language. Had the advantage of not needing an address field in the instruction word since all the operands were on the stack.

Interesting how many old engineers oppose speed cameras. BRAKE would say it was because we were old and unable to adjust to new ideas. i would say it is because we are engineers trained in evaluating new ideas.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 19:09 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Pete317 wrote:
Are you sure it's not 3.1417 times, just to make it a nice, round number? :D

That number almost makes me hungry - almost :wink:

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 19:32 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
Steve wrote:
Pete317 wrote:
Are you sure it's not 3.1417 times, just to make it a nice, round number? :D

That number almost makes me hungry - almost :wink:
Anyone for a slice of Pie? :D Just trying to prove I'm keeping up :P

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 20:04 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
dcbwhaley wrote:
Interesting how many old engineers oppose speed cameras. BRAKE would say it was because we were old and unable to adjust to new ideas. i would say it is because we are engineers trained in evaluating new ideas.


I would say that it's because we have well-developed BS detectors. :wink:

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 15:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 15:33
Posts: 115
Big Tone wrote:
Steve wrote:
Pete317 wrote:
Are you sure it's not 3.1417 times, just to make it a nice, round number? :D

That number almost makes me hungry - almost :wink:
Anyone for a slice of Pie? :D Just trying to prove I'm keeping up :P


Well, you should have noticed that it is not pi to the displayed number of figures! :)

_________________
http://kalvis.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.102s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]