donnerdave·hace 6 meses·discussNo one commenting on the inaccuracy (or at least imprecision) of the Python output cited in the article??"A:T, B:T - chances - H 6.0% | T 94.0% | occurs 34.0% of the time"By the simplest of math for unrelated events, the chance of both A & B lying about the coin is 20% of 20%, or .2 * .2 = 0.04, or 4.0% ...The "Let's prove it" section contains the correct analysis, including that our chance of being correct is 80% with two friends.The code output for three players is similarly flawed, and the analysis slight misstates our chance of being correct as 90.0% (correctly: 89.6%).Or am I missing something about the intent or output of the Python simulation?
"A:T, B:T - chances - H 6.0% | T 94.0% | occurs 34.0% of the time"
By the simplest of math for unrelated events, the chance of both A & B lying about the coin is 20% of 20%, or .2 * .2 = 0.04, or 4.0% ...
The "Let's prove it" section contains the correct analysis, including that our chance of being correct is 80% with two friends.
The code output for three players is similarly flawed, and the analysis slight misstates our chance of being correct as 90.0% (correctly: 89.6%).
Or am I missing something about the intent or output of the Python simulation?