It's 33% right?
- Home
- Board: /r9k/ - ROBOT9001
- Reading: It's 33% right?
It's 33% right?
yes 1/3rd chance
It's 25% of 33%, so 16.66% chance both are crits.
>>29314211
25 percent i think, then again i am clinically retarded
>>29314211
2 hits.
1 is definitely crit. this is already decided.
1 hit remaining.
50% chance it is crit.
>50%
>>29314263
lol some dummy always takes the bait
>>29314211
twice.
At least one is a crit.
so its 50 percent that the second one is.
50 percent chance their both hits, as the first one is guaranteed.
>>29314278
is this seriously a meme? it's a weak-ass meme.
>>29314278
Show up with an answer or get out kiddo
Depends on the implementation.
>>29314303
>>29314263
>>29314288
learn to conditional probability
It's 0. It can only be 0.
>50% of shots are crits
>at least one of every two shots is a crit.
>therefore every two shots is pre-determined one crit one non-crit
It's 50%
If one of the hits is a crit, we can ignore it - it's literally always a fucking crit so we don't have to work that out. All that matters is the 1 hit that's left, which is a 50/50. It's 50%.
There's only 4 possible permutations. 00 01 10 11
25% no crit
50% 1 crit
25% 2 crit
However... with the wording of the question 50% is the correct answer.
A)First shot is a crit, second shot is a hit
B)First shot is a hit, second shot is a crit
C)Both shots are crits.
3 possible scenarios with 1 favorable outcome which is C, therefor P(C) = 1/3 = 33%
>>29314418
learn to english language
this is not conditional
since one is decided, the other one is not contingent.
it would be conditional if it was worded like this:
"you get to hit an enemy twice. The chances of a crit are 50%. If one of the hits is a crit, what are the chances that the other one is also?"
the "if" is what makes it conditional, dipshit. Otherwise, it's just a reading comprehension problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go3xtDdsNQM
Original Sample Space
Crit, Crit
Crit, Not
Not, Crit
Not, Not
New Sample Space
Crit, Crit
Crit, Not
Not, Crit
So it's 1/3
C = crit, N = non-crit
Four possible combinations with equal probability
>NN, CN, NC, CC
1/4 or 25% chance for each, like flipping a coin twice
Solution must contain at least one crit so we eliminate NN
Remaining solutions are still equally likely
>CN, NC, CC
1/3 or 33% probability each
>>29314457
One shot is always guaranteed to be a crit, there are only 3 possible scenarios, the no crit scenario on both shots is none existant. see >>29314476
we have 4 possible outcomes at first:
crit + crit
crit + no crit
no crit + crit
no crit + no crit
we know the last scenario is false bc at least one must crit. this leaves us with 3 chances. 1 out of 3 of those is double crit. so that is 1/3rd chance or 33% chance to crit. thanks for your time plebs.
>>29314303
my answer fag
>>29314518
>fail to provide answer before it is actually explained 3 times
>say exactly what was said on those 3 times and call it ur answer
kek, ok "pleb"
>>29314555
well i was the first post in this thread. and i wasn't keeping up with it. you win? dumbass
>>29314485
>since one is decided
Neither one is decided.
>reading comprehension problem
>>29314211
Can't be determined from the information provided. If the two hits are independent (which is not mentioned in the pic), then the probability is indeed 1/3.
>>29314485
If one crit is guaranteed than this answer is correct
>>29314432
In your situation there are two equally likely possibilities
crit-crit, crit-no crit
that's a crit rate of 75%, not 50%. The problem says the crit rate is 50% and doesn't say it's conditionally 50%, it says it's just 50%. So either you're wrong and it's 1/3 or you're wrong and it's 0, but it's definitely not 1/2.
>>29314597
>at least one of the hits is a crit
They should have worded it as a first hit guaranteed crit.
>>29314612
>If one crit is guaranteed than this answer is correct
No it's not, you can guarantee a crit by giving the final hit a guaranteed crit if the previous roll failed, in which case it is indeed conditional.
>crit rate
OP doesn't mention the crit rate at all.
>>29314652
>They should have changed the wording to make my solution right
I pity anyone you ever write code for.
>>29314597
>at least one is a crit
one possibility has collapsed. any instance of 2 50% shots where one 50% shot is already over and has been decided leaves one remaining 50% shot.
>>29314675
>Implying someone who can't do middleschool problability is going to be coding for anyone
>>29314658
if you guarantee a crit on the second shot your probability is 25% (crit - crit, crit - no crit, no crit - crit x2) Still not 50%
>op doesn't mention crit rate at all
>"Assuming a 50% crit chance"
>op doesn't mention crit rate at all
any motherfucker still here that thinks this isn't 1/3 just kys
There are four outcomes with equally likely probabilities
crit and then crit
crit and then no crit
no crit and then crit
no crit and then no crit
out of all of these equally likely outcomes, the first 3 feature one or more crits. Those are the only ones that need to be focused on.
And the question is asking that out of these three outcomes, how many are both crits
One out of the three are both crits. 1/3
All that's important about the crit rate is that all the above mentioned outcomes are equally likely. We are not in the middle of a trial and asking what the next hit probability is. The question has nothing to do with conditional probability or anything like that. You are making it more complicated than it needs to be.
>>29314597
You are actually retarded
Simple explanation for dummies on why it's not 50%.
>The first hit is a crit. What are the odds the second one is a crit?
Answer: 50%.
Now, notice how this is not what the original problem is asking. Read it again until you understand the difference.
>>29314597
You are really fucking stupid buddy
stop putting up ambiguously worded problems to fish for replies.
Both interpretations are equally correct.
>>29315261
>Now, notice how this is not what the original problem is asking.
it is tho.
>>29315006
>crit and then crit
>crit and then no crit
>no crit and then crit
>no crit and then no crit
the third and the second are one and the same
>>29315363
This is what your financial overlords want you to think.
The question is worded perfectly. The odds are 33%. Free yourself from stupidity.
>>29315383
It is not. Are you being willfully obtuse? The original problem states that the first OR second hit is a crit.
Perhaps I'm reading the problem wrong, but it says at least one of the hits is a crit, right? If one of the hits is always a crit, wouldn't that just make it a 50% chance of both being a crit, since the two possible options are
[crit]+[not crit]
or
[crit]+[crit]?
>>29315440
It say the number of crits is greater than or equal to 1.
That means that HIT / NO HIT must be the same as NO HIT / HIT
>>29315440
it doesn't explicitly state that. it says "at least one." That's open to interpretation. It doesn't make it clear whether or not we know which one it is.
>>29314211
>50% crit chance
wow thats fuckin OP someone pls nerf
>>29315424
No.
The probability of both hitting only depends on the one that does not hit, because you know that one of the two hits.
And the probability of the uncertain one is 50%.
>>29314211
>assuming a 50% crit chance what are the chance it's going to be crit
lol 50%
Just so people know. There is no right or wrong answer. The problem is worded incorrectly rendering it unsolvable. Every single time someone posts some shit math problem or probability thing, it's always worded in a fucked up way. The true answer is that the problem is unsolvable--doesn't matter if there is a right or wrong answer.
>>29315567
That's the fucking point you mouthbreathing retard.
OP problem: hit 1 or hit 2 is a crit. We dunno which.
It's 100% clear and perfectly defined. All you morons who complain it's ambiguous are too stupid to live and should kys. This is middle school level.
>>29314211
Its 50% you fucking retards
one hit is already a crit, so 50%
>>29315567
There's still only a 50% chance holy fuck it's a trick question because it literally tells you the answer
>>29314237
>>29314236
>>29314211
>>29314251
Faggots can't into goat door math.
>>29314288
This
>>29315530
It has been explained multiple times already. Read the thread for why it's 33%.
it doesnt matter if the crit is first or last because he didnt say so.
so the first or second hit is either a crit or not a crit.
>>29315922
and theres a 50% chance of either one. kys >>29315914
>>29315852
If you're going to insult everyone's lack of math skill, you better make sure your own answer is correct first in order to avoid looking like a retard.
>>29315914
Its 50% tho. Like if you can't grasp that you should seek medical help because you might be mentally deficient
>>29314211 It can't be nocrit-nocrit, so it's crit-nocrit, crit-crit, or nocrit-crit, and 1/3 of those equally likely options is both crits so yes
It's a meme to claim that the answer is 33% while calling 50%fags retards even though it's the obvious answer. Stop falling for the bait boys you only frustrate yourself.
>>29315948
if one hit is guaranteed crit it would make sense to make it the first one unless its every consecutive attack is a crit that has a multiplier but that would be op af
>>29315933
>4 possible situations of equal probability at first
>problem narrows it down to 3 situations of equal probability
>1 of those 3 fulfills the actual criteria
>1 out of 3 is the answer
Can't really make it more clear than that. I'd love to hear you try to explain why the above is wrong.
>>29315960
crit and no crit, no crit and crit is the same shit the order doesnt matter dipshit holy cow
first one being 1/2 chance of crit, second one also 1/2 chance of crit it is 1/2 x 1/2 so 1/4.
%25
>>29315948
Show your math. We'll show you why you are wrong.
>>29315977
because the order in which the guaranteed crit occurs is redundant, idiot.
>>29315961
> the actual mathematical solution to the answer is a meme
>>29315982
Someone didn't pay attention in high school math.
>>29316008
You can't meme me into an argument. Have fun pretending to be retarded.
>>29315977
you dont specify your need for the order of the hits, leaving it open to interpretation as such crit + no crit and no crit + crit are the same.
you trolled yourself dont ask me for an explanation dumb ass
>>29314211
4 possibilities.
CC
CN
NC
NN
You know you crit atleast once; given this information NN is not an option.
CC
CN
NC
These are your possible combinations.
CC is what you want, which is a 1/3 chance.
>>29316016
nou
original commento
>>29315999
That's not how probabilities work. The idiot here is you.
>hurr it looks the same to me so I'll just change the situation
That's like saying that 2+2+1 is 3 because the second 2 is redundant so I'll just take it out.
>>29316023
mmm that a spicy meme anon-kun
>>29316028
Read up on combinations and permutations. You can't just throw out things at random because you don't understand them.
>>29316045
its not how probability works but its how you get the answer to the dumb fuck question you posted. get it?
Is it like tf2 and there are miniclits?
>>29316069
i can do whatever i like anon. theres absolutely nothing you can do about it.
>>29316028
You fail to explain how those are the same. And how you can just take out something out of the equation at random. You can't cheat math.
>>29316089
There is nothing I can do about you being a mental midget, true. Would have been nice to be able to educate you on math, but if you want to remain ignorant, well, your choice.
>>29316097
>>29316090
guaranteed crit you fucking imbeciles
like i said, youre only trolling yourselves
How can anyone think it's a 50/50 chance?
Think of it this way:
1) you roll and get a crit. In this single instance it was a 50/50 chance
2) here you roll again. You either do or don't get a crit. It is no longer a 50/50 chance.
Obviously a super basic way to think about it but it can help you wrap your head around it in a different way.
>>29316126
because one hit is guaranteed youre only asking the odds of the non guaranteed hit is and the answer is given to you fuck off
>>29316132
order doesnt matter youre all cheeky trolls, smarter than all of us, teach me how to math learned individuals 420 blaze it
>>29316109
You failed to explain again. That's not how math works. Throwing words around won't make it right even if you use "idiot".
Once again, the "situation scenario" which has been presented many times is correct. If you disagree, then point out the error in it.
>>29316097
youre not fooling anyone. you know what you're doing and it certainly doesn't fall under the category of trying to help. you're like a glass jar full of shit, hard to look at.
>>29316132
Oh I get it your just trolling me. Obvious from your other posts. No one could actually be this retarded, r-right?
>>29316141
The order matters a lot, actually.
If you know that one or both will be a crit, if that first hit isn't a crit then the second will be for sure.
Otherwise it's a straight 50/50
>>29314211
If 1 out of 2 hits is a guaranteed crit, we can remove this hit from equation. Now we have 1 hit that will or will not crit with a chance of 50%. The answer is 50%.
>>29316187
>we can remove this hit
No. You can't.
Roll 50/50 chance.
Probability 1 (50%) Get no-crit, next hit is crit.
Probability 2 (50%) Get crit. Now if the first hit was not guaranteed there is a one hundred percent chance that this one is a crit. If the first hit was guaranteed there is a 50/50 chance of this one being a crit. So the question is, what are the odds of the first hit being the guaranteed one? If it's fifty-fifty odds, then you've got 50% odds of N,C, 25% odds of C,C, and 25% odds of C,?. Since the ? is another 50/50, that subdivides the last 25% into two 12.5% possibilities, one of which is C,C, which gives us (25+12.5) a 37.5% chance of C,C, assuming that the guaranteed hit is a 50/50 chance.
>>29316341
I love it how people come up with more and more complicated statements and end up with a wrong answer, when the simple way to do it is correct.
>>29316396
Hey, I'm not one of the 50%ers. I'd unsarcastically love to hear why my answer's wrong.
Its clearly 50% stop this meme
>>29316423
The 2 probabilities you list at the very beginning are not 50-50 anymore because of the "at least one is a crit" condition.
A coin has two sides, heads and tails.
You flip the coin twice, one of the coin flips is guaranteed to come up heads. What is the probability both results are heads?
50%
>>29316515
>guaranteed to come up heads
How? Is it a trick coin? Or are you saying this after-the fact when it's already been tossed?
Case 1: First roll is a guaranteed crit. Second roll is 50/50. It misses.
Case 2: First roll is a guaranteed crit. Second roll is 50/50. It crits.
Case 3: First roll is 50/50. It lands as a crit. Second roll is 50/50. It misses.
Case 4: First roll is 50/50. It lands as a crit. Second roll is guaranteed crit, it crits.
Case 5: First roll is 50/50. It misses. Second roll is guaranteed crit.
Thinking about it in terms of permutations, the subset of possible solutions is divided into
{ (crit, miss), (miss, crit), (crit,crit) }. If all of these combinations had an equal chance of occurring, the solution would be 1/3. However that is not the case, as demonstrated above by looking at the cases procedurally.
(crit,crit) occurs 2/5 of the time, (miss,crit) occurs 1/5 of the time, and (crit,miss) occurs 2/5 of the time.
So the answer is 2/5, or 37.5%. The problem is a weighted permutation.
>>29316634
There aren't 5 possible cases. Your starting point is wrong. Where do you get your "guaranteed crit" from? No such thing.
>>29316634
>Atleast one of the hits is a crit
There can never be a guaranteed crit on the first roll, and if the first crits there can not be a guaranteed crit on the second
>>29316634
>2/5 = 37.5%
Had me there for a second.
>>29316685
There is guaranteed crits, just not in the way he says. If the first hit doesn't crit the second is guaranteed to within the premise of the question
Can never tell in these threads who is an actual retard and who is trolling.
>At least one of the hits is a crit
So there's a 50% chance of another crit hitting, the answer tells you this
>>29314211
Possibilities:
__
_C
C_
CC
All equally likely. As at least one must be crit...
C_
_C
CC
Are the only possibilities. Thus, 33%. OP is right.
>>29317339
Funny how this simple explanation appears at least 5 times and somehow people still ignore it.
>>29317339
the order doesn't matter
It's rather C or _
It is a 25% chance. Come on guys, this is simple binomial probability.
probability of crit on any given hit: 1/2
prob. of no crit: 1/2
the probability of any given outcome is
nCr*F^(n-r)*S^r
where n is the total number of hits (2),
r is the number of successes (crits, which is 2)
F is the probability of failure and
S is the probability of success
from the question we get:
2C2*(1/2)^(2-2)*(1/2)^2
2C2=1, and (1/2)^(2-2)=1, and (1/2)^2=1/4
therefore the probability of 2 crits is 1/4 or 25%
it's fucking simple
>>29317369
Funny how people the simple counter argument to that explanation came up at least 5 times and somehow people still ignore it.
>>29315985
this. fucking hell, is everyone retarded? It's 25%.
>>29317512
>>29314211
The probability is 100% because I have a high luck attribute due to equipment and weapon enchantments.
>>29317430
>order doesn't matter
Write down the correct probabilities of each scenario. They must add up to 100%.
>>29317512
Wrong. The odd of neither being critical is 0%. You need to readjust probabilities to reflect that.
>>29317543
Show me one example that proves it wrong. You can't. The "order doesn't matter" posters are retards who don't understand simple math.
WRITE. IT. DOWN. If you can't, you are wrong.
>>29317636
The only correct undisputable answer in this thread.
>>29317642
mate, i learnt binomial probability in extension maths earlier in the year. it's simple shit, and this is a simple question to which the answer is 25%. The odd of neither being a critical is 25%. Don't speak of things you do not know for sure, because i can assure you you are wrong.
Is it possible for the enemy to be revived?
>>29317755
Read the problem again. The probability of neither being crit is 0% because the problem fucking tells you so. That leaves only 3 out of the original 4 possibilities.
>>29317790
ah fuck, i didn't read it properly. You're right. In this case i would say a 50% chance then. Because it is already determined that one will definitely be a crit, so the only thing that can change is the 2nd hit, which is a 50/50 chance.
>>29317819
Nope, still wrong. The problem doesn't say the first hit was a crit.
>>29317819
the only thing you learned this year was fucking dicks apparently, gave the answer to this question 4 hours ago and it's been posted 10 times already, if you can't really understand it and keep saying its 50/50 just quit whatever the fuck u are doing and go work at mcdonalds seriously.
>>29317862
Yes it does. Read it again dumbfuck.
>>29314211
This is the funniest thing I've seen on here in days, people are seriously riled up.
By the way the answer is 33% you fucking retards
Multiple people in this thread have provided undeniable logic in that eliminating NN there leaves only the other three outcomes
Think of the goat -door problem, that worked in the same order of logic. If you can apply that to this, you'll understand why 33% right, not 50%
>>29317819
The first hit isn't guaranteed to crit, it could be the 2nd.
>>29317862
>>29317882
the order doesn't matter
>>29317932
Ofc it does.
hit-crit and crit-hit are two different outcomes
>>29317932
Then show your math and how it adds up to 50% or whatever you think is the right answer.
>>29314211
Solve it empirically
>>29317932
Order does matter in this question.
if the first hit isn't a crit the second one HAS to be and if the first hit does crit there is a 50% chance the second one will as well
>>29317954
Banned? What was it?
>>29317980
So 20% chance
>>29314709
>>29314288
Ayy some robots understand logic. It's weird how some people don't understand what "at least one is a crit" means
>>29314485
The probability space is
{(not crit, not crit), (crit, not crit), (not crit, crit), (crit, crit)}
As we see, if we know at least one is crit, there remain 3 possible options. One of those options is double crit, so it's 1/3.
>>29318038
Funny how someone who claims others don't understand logic is the one who doesn't understand the logic himself.
>>29318048
It's been posted over and over again. Some people are just immune to logic. I can't think of a simpler way to explain it.
>>29318198
He's right though. The question is what the probability of two crits are when one is guaranteed, which is 50%.
It's either:
1hit, 1 crit
OR
1crit, 1crit.
Two options, therefore 50/50.
>>29318237
Explain it with brute force.
http://codepad.org/DynYj7nI
>>29318255
It has been explained close to 10 times now why it's 33%. Show your calculations if you disagree.
>>29318255
3 options. You missed one.
>>29318255
If you're going the "order doesn't matter" route and combine two scenarios into one "1 hit, 1 crit" you need to remember its probability is not 50% but 66%.
>>29318297
>>29318310
Category A is defined as each hit returning a different value. Category B is each hit returning the same value.
1hit
1 crit
Falls under category A.
1crit
1hit
Falls under category A.
1 crit
1 crit
Falls under category B.
The question is whether or not both hits are critical, not the order of said crits.
>>29318327
show maths pls
>>29318378
You described 3 possible scenarios, each equally likely. Each has a 33% chance. Scenarios A therefore add up to 66% and scenario B is 33%.
>>29318378
>murder rape is the same as rape murder
>>29318437
>>29318492
It's not the order that matters though. If it were about the probability of the first hit being a critical strike you would be correct.
>>29318520
Order ALWAYS matters. It's only at the later stage when looking at your exact problem that you can combine the scenarios with different orders.
>>29318378
Show how you can add up those 3 possibilities so that scenario B's probability is 50%? Maths. So it adds up. All scenarios must have a total probability of 100%.
>>29318520
That doesn't mean you can arbitrarily throw out scenarios without adjusting the probabilities.
>>29318572
>>29318586
Evidently not. In this scenario, one hit, one crit and one crit, one hit equals the same shit.
>>29318674
Never fucking mind. I get it now.
Jesus.
It's a 50/50 chance if one is guaranteed, you tardettes.
The order never mattered, as the question is asking the probability of BOTH being a critical hit if ONE is guaranteed.
You're playing yourselves or trolling if you don't understand.
Solution: suicide
>>29318745
Just when I thought the thread was dying, another retard comes in with the wrong answer shouting. Never ceases to be funny.
>>29318823
(.5*.5)/(.25+.25) =.5 because p(a|b)=p(a &b)/p(b). Given a and b are Independent. If not its a bullshit question
It's 25% you fucking fags
>>29318948
Here we see a classic example of plugging numbers into a formula without understanding it. That formula doesn't reflect the situation described by the problem.
>>29319171
Someone tell why this isn't correct, this is the first answer I came to
It's 50, dingus.
if it was 2 unknown flips it would be 25% because .5*.5=.25, but we already know one of them is definitely heads no matter what. that makes to .5*1.0=.5
>>29319171
That's not how you draw a probability tree. You first do all the possible outcomes. Then apply conditions and restrictions. Alternatively, make sure your already restricted outcome weights are correct. Yours aren't. You are incorrectly assigning 50% to the bottom one and 25% to the top ones. All three are 33%.
>>29314211
At least one of the hits is a crit means its a guarantee of one being a crit, so we can ignore one and merely focus on the unknown hit. There's a 50% chance of the second one of being a crit so the chance is 50%
>>29319583
That would be right if we were told the first is a crit. But that's not the case. We don't know if the first is a crit or not.
>>29319642
What? On the first strike it's 50%/50%, then on the second strike it's 100% if the first was a regular, or again 50%/50% if the first was a crit.
Shut the fuck up if you don't know what you're talking about.
THERES ALWAYS A 50% CHANCE OF A HIT BEING A CRIT
IF THERES ONLY ONE HIT IN QUESTION ITS 50%
>>29319694
Funny how the more clueless someone is, the louder he shouts at everyone and calls them idiots. You don't know shit about probability. Anyway, let me try to explain why you are wrong. It's because you are changing the problem mid-run and not answering the original question.
Your probability tree illustrates "after your first hit, you know you are going to have at least one crit no matter what." If it was not a crit, you are now on the fly rigging it because you have a 100% chance of it being a crit before even hitting. You're cheating. The probability of a crit is always 50%, and now you have created a situation where that rule is violated.
The problem tells you what the situation is after the two hits have been done. It is telling you that one outcome is possible, and you have to adjust for it.
>>29316040
yeah but the guaranteed crit can be called C1 and the random crit C2, resulting in
C1N
NC1
C1C2
C2C1
Which is 50%
>>29319721
This problem has two hits. You have to analyze it in the context of both hits together and their probabilities.
>>29319821
>guaranteed crit
There is no such thing. The probability of a crit is always 50%.
>>29319823
We already know the outcome of one of them though. It's probability is 100% crit.
>>29319840
Reread the problem
>>29319840
>At least one is a crit
>>29319494
Because much like
>>29318823
You didn't understand the question
You guys do know that these threads are full of trolls, right? don't go blue in the face arguing this out with people here, that's a free ticket on the ruse cruise.
>>29319657
That literally doesn't matter.
We KNOW one is a crit, and the question is asking for the probability of the OTHER hit to be a crit
>>29319894
You realize that people are legitimately uneducated here, right? Most are dropouts.
>>29319859
>>29319871
The probability of a crit is always 50%. You are changing it by making a magical sky wizard appear and changing the probabilities in the middle of the battle.
>You got no crit? Okay! Your next is a guaranteed hit!
The problem tells us that after both hits are done, one of the possible outcomes is eliminated.
>>29319809
The problem isn't phrased in the past tense. The question wasn't "what was the chance of ..."
Especially since we're talking about cross, i.e. a mechanic in a fucking computer game, the implication is that if you strike twice, one will always be a crit, sort of like a shitty form of pRNG.
>>29319809
Read the question, dumbass.
If the first wasn't a crit, the second will be.
One of them is a crit.
This is too hard for you, huh?
>>>/out/ underageb&
>>29319910
>magical sky wizard
kys
We're talking about a fucking computer system. The question is about crits, not coin flips.
>>29319908
The less educated someone is, the louder they shout and insult everyone else. I'm actually a math grad student but stay out of these things because I don't want to catch stupid.
It's 50% you fucking idiots
There's a 50% chance there's a crit, EVERY TIME.
It doesn't matter what your last hit was
>>29319911
crits*
Fucking autocorrect
>>29319910
>The probability of a crit is always 50%. You are changing it by making a magical sky wizard appear and changing the probabilities in the middle of the battle.
No, the problem itself tells us that one of the hits goes on to crit. No additional wizard needed.
>>29319939
That's the simplest way of putting it, yes.
/thread
>>29319938
So then what's the answer so that you can get everyone to shut up
>>29319910
There are four outcomes
C/C
C/N
N/C
N/N
No crits at all is elminated which leaves
C/C
C/N
N/C
At least one is a crit which means that we eliminate one of the variables on the outcomes as its not relevant to chance at this point, which leaves two unique outcomes for the unknown hit
C
N
That's 50%
>le I use obscure grammer and circular logic argument xD
stop this, this makes me feel stupid, not as in "just ignorant about maths" but as in "really fucking stupid because its so simple"
if one if a crit, then there is a 50% chance both are crit since the next or prev one will be either a crit or a normal hit
>>29319911
In which case we would have 3 equal possible outcomes and the answer is 33%.
>>29319920
That's not what your probability tree is picturing.
>>29319938
Maybe if you got your head or if your ass (or learnt precise reading) you'd realise that we're not talking about your textbook math problems.
>>29318237
I'm a math major and my professor literally went over this type of problem.
>>29319995
We're only finding the probability of one hit, which is 50%, as stated in the OP.
Continuing to reply just shows how dumb you are.
>>29319995
>would have 3 equal possible outcomes
which ones?
crticial-normal hit is the same as normal-critical
>n-no its not
yes it is unless the damage multiplier is higher when health goes below a certain value, in which case, fuck your shitty RPG
>>29319995
I give up, go on being a dumbass and believing in your 33%.
>>29319968
Do you seriously believe it that even if Stephen Hawking posted a timestamped answer it would help? The correct answer has been posted. But those who are wrong are so fanatical about it no explanation will change their minds.
>>29314211
It doesn't say that one of them is a guaranteed crit. It just says that one of them and doesn't mention if it will always be a crit. It just says that one of them is a crit. Whether this means it had a 50% chance of being a crit or not is therefore up for debate. Since it is, people will solve the problem from their own interpretations of the text rather than from what's objectively there. And here we are.
>>29319998
>math students can't use their education to solve this problem because it's not in their textbooks
>highschool dropouts know the correct answer
Any first year math student will have had plenty of practice with problems like this. And much more complex ones.
>>29319998
Nigger this is a logic question and maths majors at the end of their education eventually are working on pure logic problems.
>>29314518
>>29316040
You fucking retards
no crit + crit is exactly the same as crit + no crit
The order which they happen is irrelevant.
So it's 50%
>>29316045
That's not how probability works.
You would be right if the problem required that the first hit, or second hit has to be a critical. But it's not specified, therefor irrelevant.
>>29320021
Show your math. How will you combine the two "they're the same" ? I am curious if you are going to post a formula like:
33% + HURR = 50%
C = Crit, N = Normal hit.
How much of the shaded area does CC take up?
Thats your answer.
(Hint: 33%)
You flip a coin two times. At least one of the flips is heads. What is the probability that both of the flips are heads?
>>29320078
Show your calculations. Show everyone how you apply "they are the same so it's irrelevant".
To me it seems like you are just arbitrarily removing something you shouldn't.
>>29320081
NC and CN are redundant as they're the same answer.
>>29320119
They're not. If you get N first time, and C second time, then that's a different even than C first time, N second time.
>>29320100
One is guaranteed so you do not include it in probability, it has a 100% chance. The second has a probability of 50%, which is the answer.
>>29320095
Do you suffer from actual brain damage? That's not the same question.
How can you even know that one will be guaranteed heads ahead of time in the real world?
But OP's question does not play in the real world, it plays in a fucking game, where the future can be controlled by a computer. So if you miss the first one (which you have a 50% chance of doing it), the computer will guaranteed grant you a crit on the second.
This is not the case when you flip coins.
>>29320100
>you shouldn't.
according to what?
>>29320079
>"they're the same"
let say a critical hit deals 50% damage and a normal hit deals 25%
they both deal 75% in total
unless for some reason your defense points go down when you go below 60% health or something, in which case that game is shit
>>29320134
>different even
different event
>>29320081
>at least one hit is a crit
the nn state doesn't exist here
>>29320140
>his game deals only in percentual damage
no, your game is shit
>>29314211
>50% crit
>at least one is a crit
epic.
>>29320119
No they're not.
There are 4 possible outcomes.
The first crit, second normal
The first crit, second crit
The first normal, second crit
The second normal, second crit
This is really basic first year probability at university, if you want I can link you to a textbook that explains it.
>>29320148
Exactly, the NN state doesn't exist, so the CC takes up 33% of the remaining space.
>>29320135
>guaranteed
There's that word again. There is no such thing. The chance of getting a crit is 50%. You can't change that.
>>29320134
That's not relevant to the question. What's relevant is the other one being a crit or not a crit, which is a 50% chance. There's always a 50% chance.
>>29320149
i rarely play RPGs I assume they worked that way
>>29320157
Er first normal second normal**
>>29320160
Reread the question
>>29320157
Not relevant. The only relevance is whether or not the non-guaranteed critical is a crit or not, which is a 50% chance.
>>29320140
Do you understand "show your math" ? You still haven't.
>>29320157
oh sorry, i misread that graph because i'm terminally retarded
you're exactly right
>>29320174
The chance of a crit is 50%. It can't be spelled out more clearly.
>>29319721
No. OP very clearly said that one hit would be a crit. Assuming the first hit is that crit, it will be 50/50, if not then it's guaranteed.
>>29320157
Not him but I would like the link, please. Because I have no doubt you're misapplying what you believe to know.
>The second normal, second crit
What?
>>29320165
Too many percent hp attacks gets pretty lame, they should be implemented sparingly as they remove the benefit from +hp items.
>>29320081
For further reading if anyone is still confused
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/86797/whats-the-probability-of-2-head-given-at-least-1-head
>>29320100
In case order is irrelevant:
Option 1 - one is a crit, the other isn't.
Option 2 - one is a crit, the other is too.
In case order is relevant:
Option 1 - first is crit, second one isn't
Option 2 - first is crit, second one is too.
Option 3 - first doesn't crit, second one does.
In other words, the probability of having them both crit is 50%.
The probability of missing the second one is 33%.
The probability of the first one being a crit is 66%.
We were asked for the probability of having two critical hits, regardless of order which they occur.
One even has a 1.00 chance of occurring, the other has a 0.5 probability.
1.00 * 0.5 = 0.5, which is 50%.
>>29320174
>Not relevant
Explain how that graph does not exactly describe the possible outcomes and their probabilities?
>>29320053
Next time you decide to huff glue and shitpost, do us a favor and kill yourself my man
>>29320162
You don't get to make the rules here.
The probability space is defined as:
{ (C,C), (N,N), (C,N), (N,C) }
Now given that ONE OF THEM is crit, then we know that we can't get (N,N), so three possible outcomes left.
But I'm sure you know better than my professor who published a fuckton of research papers in probability theory.
>>29320202
I love it when uneducated high schoolers are adamantly going against uni educated people in the subject.
>>29314211
Is it pseudo-RNG?
>>29320196
At least one is a crit. Reread again
>>29320198
>>29320215
If at least one is a crit then its guaranteed in the probability that we'll have 1 as a crit. Reread the question
>>29320219
>Appealing to authority
wew lad
We're only concerning ourselves with one coin right now, which has a 50% chance of being a crit. The answer is 50%.
>>29320202
If you're actually serious in wanting to understand why the answer is 1/3, try going through the first chapter in this book
http://siva.bgk.uni-obuda.hu/jegyzetek/Matematika/Fejezetek_a_matematikabol/Erasmus/Probability/SpringerTextsinStatistics.pdf
It's a very good guide to probability. FWIW I've done 2 years of statistics at university, I can guarantee the answer is 33%.
If you'd like another explanation as to why see the link I posted previously
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/86797/whats-the-probability-of-2-head-given-at-least-1-head
>>29320160
It is 50% conditionally, the condition being that one of two will be a sure thing.
The OP said this, I'm just repeating it.
>>29320174
you're dealing with events that can only manifest themselves in real time, one has to happen before the other and therefore they are dependent on each other, which means the order they take place is significant. therefore, nc and cn are two distinct events
when you roll a dice, rolling a 6 is always a 1/6 probability no matter what, but rolling two consecutive sixes has only a 1/36 chance for this exact reason. it's the combined probability of two independent events which is P(A) * P(B)
all yalls niggas is arguing over helping OP with his pokemon skills, lmao
>>29320232
I love it when you just enlisted to uni and think this makes you smarter than everyone on the internet.
Here's the thing, little fag, I have a degree in CS.
>hurr durr gobble gobble whatwstsijfg s
I don't care, kys fucking autist. If "I think I have more credentials than you" is the basis of your argument you should actually fucking kill yourself.
>>29320204
That's an entirely different situation though.
It discusses 3 coin tosses, where the first had been made, and the following two are completely random.
>>29320250
just realized i messed up my terminology in the first portion, they're probabilistically independent but the system is dependent
whoever named the terms in probability theory deserves to get shot
>>29320265
>computer """science""" babby thinks his degree is worth shit in the world of mathematics
TOP FUCKING LAUGHTER COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH RIGHT NOW, FAMILY
>>29320265
Are you a %50-er? Because then you are objectively wrong.
Also most CS majors on my faculty are fucking retarded anyway, they don't even do math beyond calculus and linear algebra.
>>29320210
Are you actually retarded?
The odds are 50/50 on hit one, and either 100% or 0% on the second depending on the outcome of the first.
Your numbers don't even add up to fucking 100 and would be wrong even if they did.
>>29320219
I hope someone proofread his research then, if a retard like you came outta his class.
We are finding whether or not the second hit that is not a guaranteed critical is a critical, for which the probability is stated for that in the OP.
Lrn 2 read, fucktard.
>>29320271
>It discusses 3 coin tosses, where the first had been made
No, there are two throws, we are given one is head, what is the probability the both are. Read the question again.
>>29320210
You have incorrect figures for your "order is not relevant" scenario. The probability of one hit one crit is 67%, not 33%.
Think about it this way: how the hell would order have any effect on crit+crit? How are you even determining that "order is irrelevant" in the first place? You're actually implying that the outcomes can be changed by your decisions.
>I care about order? It's 33.
>I changed my mind. Now I care about order. OMG the outcome probability magically changed!
>>29320204
>>29320244
I read the stackoverflow and it made sense to me while reading, but assuming we're talking about predicting the future in a game (the guy in the stack overflow also assumes that you just simply know that one will be heads from the get-go), what is this guy >>29319171 doing wrong?
>>29320271
If you'd like to see it phrased in it's most common form (including the way taught to me at university in my first year), see the following
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2731/very-simple-conditional-probability-question
>>29320279
>If "I think I have more credentials than you" is the basis of your argument you should actually fucking kill yourself.
>>29320290
Tell me, what the fuck is beyond Calculus that isn't needed for niche theoretical fields?
there are three possibilities all equally weighted so 1/3
>>29314211
1.0 * 0.5 = .5
The order of the crits doesn't matter. You have two probabilities. 100% and 50%. 100 * 50 = 50%
>one of which is guarunteed to crit
that leaves us with the other one, with 50% to crit
so it's 50/50?
someone correct me if i am incorrect, because it clearly states one is guarunteed to crit, while the other is 50%..
>>29320265
He's not appealing to authority, merely making a point. He actually posted math, pure facts, not women's studies. And all you can do is say hurr durr you entitled cunt the facts are wrong, my beliefs are right!
>>29320329
a lot of complexity theory in computer science (which is often practiced for large scale, high-load systems) is modeled using aspects developed in number theory and group theory
>>29320314
His probability tree weights are wrong. He is changing the problem after the first hit, where he makes a crit have a probability of 100% instead of 50%.
>>29320240
It's essentially just one roll.
Or it can be thought of as one roll of 50/50 and either 0 or 100% on the second roll determined by the first result.
>>29320301
no u
The question is about the odds of getting 2 heads, by flipping 2 coins, AFTER getting a 1 head start.
In other words, they ask for the probability of getting head a single time out of 2, without order relevance.
>>29320308
>How are you even determining that "order is irrelevant" in the first place?
Because they didn't ask what the odds are for having the first or second one be a crit. They asked for the odds of having both of them crit.
If you were to take all options into consideration, then it would look like this:
first is c(guaranteed), second is normal
first is normal, second is c(guaranteed)
first is c(guaranteed), second is c
first is c, second is c(guaranteed)
In which case, it's a 50% regardless.
>>29320373
But why is that wrong? If the first is not a crit, then the second must?
>>29320409
This is where you're WRONG WRONG WRONG.
You assume that both the first one C is guaranteed AND that the second C is guaranteed. Both are different events, since the experiment is happening in real time.
>>29320373
As you are only finding the outcome of a single roll, you get 50%, as stated in OP.
KYS
>>29320308
>>I care about order? It's 33.
>>I changed my mind. Now I care about order. OMG the outcome probability magically changed!
Asking for the possibility of having a specific hit be a critical, and asking for the possibility of a general outcome is a completely different question.
I hope you're trolling desu
>>29320436
All 4 are different events.
That's how you calculate probability.
>yfw all the %50-ers don't even know what a moment-generating function is
>yfw these are the same people that call YOU retarded
I just wrote a c++ program and I am getting 25%. Tell me what I would be missing here:
>First it randoms true or false (50%) on "hit1"
>If hit1 is NOT a crit, then hit2 MUST be a crit (i.e don't add to the counter because both were not a crit)
>if hit1 IS a crit, then crit2 has a 50% chance of being crit
>If both hit1 and hit2 are true, then increment a counter
>Getting 25% as the result
>>29320523
Well that's what I'm saying, so the probability for C,C is 1/3.
Three possible scenarios.
>NO NO (not possible, at least 1 is a crit)
>YES NO
>NO YES
>YES YES
33%, right?
>>29320537
Nevermind, I see what I did wrong.
It's 50% you guys.
>>29320557
This is correct. The rest of the thread is retarded.
>>29320556
There are 4 possible outcomes though, which can be narrowed down to 2.
We're looking for 2/4 or 1/2.
guaranteed crit and chance crit are two different entities.
>>29320557
>>29320579
It's not.
Because there are two types of YES
There is a guaranteed YES and a chance YES.
Four possible scenarios:
YES(g) YES(c)
YES(c) YES(g)
NO YES(g)
YES(g) NO
Out of which we are looking for two YESs, regardless of what kind they are.
How to calculate outcome probabilities of events:
>list all possible outcomes
>figure out probability of each one - must add to 100%
>apply restrictions/new conditions if needed - must still add to 100%
>sum up probabilities of all outcomes that match what you are looking for
>>29320556
No, it clearly comes up twice.
We only know at LEAST one of the TWO rolls are a crit. Each roll has a chance to be that known one :^)
>>29320581
>narrowed down to 2
That's what you are doing wrong. You have to narrow it down to 3 to be correct. If it were "the second hit is a crit" then you could narrow it down to 2. But you can only eliminate 1 of 4.
>>29320605
There is only one type of yes.
>>29320668
Not at all.
A YES that has a 100% chance of occurring is not the same as a YES with a 50% chance of occurring.
They are dependent of one another.
>>29320714
YES is an outcome. There is only one type of yes. Two types outcome in total per hit, YES or NO.
>>29320537
You're not solving the problem described in OP.
>>29320714
An independent event is one that does not affect the probability of the other occurring.
The fact that you get a guaranteed crit does not affect the crit probability.
Therefore they are independent events.
>>29320804
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzkc-qNVoOk
>>29320822
But if you don't get a crit on your first hit, then that dictates the second one to be a crit.
Therefor they are dependent.
>>29320537
lmao if your parents every payed for your education they should get a refund
>>29320837
Crit rate is 50%. The two events are independent. It's stated as fundamental part of the problem.
>>29320891
Only one crit has a 50% of occurring, the other one has a 100%. They are different entities.
Read the question again.
If you didn't crit on your first hit, the second one has to be a crit.
>>29314476
Order is irrelevant, therefore A=B, C is correct, but that means 50% because you don't need to differntiate between A and B.
The problem here, aside from reading comprehension, is that too many of you are forgetting that there is a difference between cases in which the order is relevant and those where it isnt.
Same with lottery, bingo, etc. If you put the balls back into the machine, you can draw a 7 and then maybe draw 7 again. This is not possible if you don't put the balls back into the machine. Every detail changes the formula you need to use.
In OPs post those who said one crit is guranteed so 50% are right.
The other anon explained it pretty well by rephrasing it to show when 33% is correct (by placing an "if" in it instead of guaranteeing the first hit)
>>29320928
>>29320957
You're changing the OP problem. The crit rate is 50%. You are treating the crit rate as dependent on the first hit outcome. That's not the right way to do it. You need to treat the crit rate as independent because it is. By definition. The "1 crit guaranteed" means you merely eliminate 1 possible outcome from the probability tree.
>>29320957
Here you go again. First, explain why you think order is irrelevant. Second, explain why it would change the outcome.
Third, and most importantly, show your math.
Show me your stats
>>29321050
How are the independent if missing the first crit dictates your second one the be a crit?
>>29321076
>First, explain why you think order is irrelevant.
Not him, but the answer to that is; this is how you solve probability.
You're answering a completely different question if you take order into consideration.
Order is only relevant if you were asked about it.
>>29314211
>counting both orders of the crits
No robot, you are the autist.
>>29314288
>>29320957
This
AT LEAST ONE is a crit. It doesn't need to be the first one.
>>29321076
>First, explain why you think order is irrelevant.
This board is for people over the age of 18. As you haven't gone through high school, I can only assume you are underage. Please leave.
>people are actually retarded enough to say it's 50% after being shown through math and 5th grade reading compression that they're wrong
hello?
>>29321106
>missing the first one dictates
No. It doesn't. You are changing the problem. The crit rate of the second is not affected by the first. If it were, you would be changing the problem. It does not say that the crit rate changes for the second hit.
I don't know how to make it more plain than that. The problem defines crit rate at 50%. And you want to change that.
>>29321172
>5th grade reading compression
That picture suits your posts perfectly. You can't do math, or articulate coherent thoughts.
>>29321172
(You)I love
>>29321172
This thread is showing the Drunning-Kruger effect in action. The more people are dumb and uneducated, the more vocal they are about being convinced they are right. Seriously, look at all these high school dropouts thinking they know about this subject more than math majors.
>>29320837
Oh my god, how could I have been so dumb. You are completely right. For some reason I'm not getting 50% in this analysis though, can you tell me where I'm going wrong?
In order to get two crits, you would need to presuppose that the first hit is a crit; otherwise, you cannot end up with two crits. You cannot do a probability space analysis on it because the events are not independent, because, as this anon has said, not getting a crit the first time will affect the odds of getting a crit the second time. This, by definition, makes them dependent.
Because they are dependent, you can use the conditional probability equation, which is that the P(A given B) = P(A and B) / P(A), where the P function simply defines the probability of the event.
Here we are looking at the event where A is that the second hit is a crit, and B is that the first hit is a crit. Therefore, we are analyzing the situation where we get a crit on the second hit given that the first hit was a crit.
We can rebalance this equation so that we get P(A|B) * P(A) = P(A and B), which is more fruitful because we're trying to determine the probability that we get when both the first hit is a crit and the second hit is a crit (which is P(A and B)). The second crit chance given that we got a crit on the first hit is 50%, so that's P(A|B).
The crit chance on the second hit is 100% if the first hit was not a crit (50% chance), therefore the chance of this outcome in general is 100% * 50% = 50%. The crit chance on the second hit is 50% if the first hit was a crit (50% chance), therefore the chance of this outcome in general is 50% * 50% = 25%. Because there are the only two outcomes where the second hit is a crit, P(A) is the sum of these, which is 75%.
Going back to the original assertion, P(A) * P(A|B) = P(A and B). P(A and B) is the answer to the problem, P(A) = 75%, P(A|B) = 50%. 75% * 50% = 37.5% = P(A and B). This means that the answer to OP's post is 37.5%.
>tfw you fucked up somewhere
>>29321219
You're looking way too much into it.
>>29321207
>being this much of a mongoloid
>unintentionally
kys, it will be better in the long run trust me.
>>29321219
Your Wrong
Just Stop.
>>29321219
1. you land a crit, a guaranteed crit occurs
2. a guaranteed crit occurs, you land a crit
3. you missed, a guaranteed crit occurs
4. a guaranteed crit occurs, you land a crit
Those are the only 4 possibles outcomes of this scenario.
Out of which we are fine with either 1 and 2.
2/4 is 1/2.
That is all.
Common Sense answer: 50%
Autistic, deriving way too much information answer: 33%
>>29321219
Wall of text doesn't make you right. The simple, correct answer has been posted many times.
>>29321322
>4. a guaranteed crit occurs, you miss
fixd
>>29321306
care to explain instead of being an animeposting autist, friend
>>29321323
Failed high school math answer: 50%
Correct answer, not up to debate or semantics, because it is fact: 33%
>>29314211
50% you tard
>>29321322
When will you stop with this guaranteed crit shit? You are making it up. The crit rate is an independent 50%.
>>29321341
>fact
Failed philosophy 101 answer.
Reality is fluid, and your static abstractions can never be 100% objective fact in reality but only in your mind.
>>29321375
Math is facts, not opinion. This is a math problem that is unambiguous and has one correct answer.
>>29321322
>I'm actually a Mongoloid
The answer is 50%.
Give me one good reason why we should differentiate between:
crit + normal
normal + crit
>>29321330
>>29321396
Assuming that this is the same anon, can you please explain to me why >>29321219 doesn't end up at either 33% or 50%? I'm genuinely curious why this doesn't work, since, as you said, math is an objective field where two inquiries attempting to answer the same question should generate the same answer.
>>29321396
Where do numbers exist in reality? You have any evidence?
Face it, they are only abstractions formulated in the human mind in order to attempt to understand a reality which is fluid and will never completely represent it.
>>29321219
Jesus christ your maths is hurting yourself
Let's just be simple
One is definitely a crit
So the only solutions are 1,0. 0,1. or 1,1. 33%. It's only confusing if you put massive amounts of thought into it.
>>29321176
I am having trouble understanding how the one crit can just be assumed when the 50% don't change. Can we assume something that we then doubt within our equation? Solving this in another language is harder than I thought. Didn't expect it to make a difference for my brain. Lel
>>29321457
>I think it's 50% and i'm too retarded to learn basic middle school problabilities so I will resort to embracing my extra chromossome
>>29321503
Aaalright, now I got it. I'm >>29321507.
The order doesn't matter. It's 50%.
>>29321503
This implies that each state you've listed has the same probability of occurring though, and they don't. I want an objective reason why what I've stated doesn't work, this whole "just do it blahblah way" thing isn't how a true mathematician would approach a problem.
>>29321522
>I think its 33% and think that ignoring the repeating .33333333333 illustrating the impossibility of math to describe reality, makes me right.
>>29321565
Why don't they have the same probability of occurring?
>>29321549
It's funny because now that I got it I see where I fucked up. Somehow I needed to see it the way the other anon put it because I was really used to the German words accompanying these logical problems and reading it in another language somehow made my brain reset on this issue. Weird but at least I got it in the end. Thanks
>>29321322
That's actually a really interesting way of looking at it. I'm not gonna call you retarded like most people would here. As the question doesn't state specifically, it's entirely possible to assume that one of the hits is a definite crit, thus creating four possibilities, rather than assuming that when one hit misses the other MUST be a crit, thus creating three possibilities. In conclusion, my research has deducted that unless the question is made clearer it is safe to assume that both 50% and 33% are possible answers to the problem.
>>29321431
What does that have to do with the problem? Show your math.
>>29321213
Except for the part where it really is a 50% chance. Though I suppose that was your point.
I reeeally want the 33 and 25% people to be trolls, not legit college grads. Because the prospect terrifies me.
>>29321567
Would you rather I use 1/3? Or are you gonna say that's just 33%? Wouldn't surprise desu.
>>29321625
There is no way to interpret the problem so the answer would be 50%. Each hit has a 50% crit rate. That cannot be changed. All these wrong answers come from people changing the crit rate from an independent 50% to something dependent on the previous hit.
>>29321633
There are two possible outcomes.
One crit, one normal.
2 Crits.
Therefore 50%
>>29321648
What's your education then? Maybe you didn't notice that all the higher educated posters posted links, graphs and explanations why it's 33%. The 50% people only have screaming and insults.
>>29320314
He's not accounting for the guaranteed crit outcome on one roll, possibly related to him being fucking retarded.
>>29321625
>it's entirely possible to assume that one of the hits is a definite crit, thus creating four possibilities, rather than assuming that when one hit misses the other MUST be a crit
It's the exact same thing though. I only worded it slightly differently. There is a 100% chance that one hit is a crit, and we have no control over it. If we miss the first one, that dictates the second one to hit.
The two crits are entirely different events mathematically.
>>29314211
yes
the only possibilities are crit crit, crit hit, and hit crit, and all of them are just as likely as any of the other ones. 1 out of 3 total outcomes equals approx 33%
anyone who says otherwise is retarded
>>29321672
But the odds are not 50% for each outcome...
>>29314211
>Assuming 50% crit chance
>What is the crit chance?
Assuming OP is a faggot, what is the chance of OP being a faggot?
is there an actual name for this problem? i can almost guarantee there is a wikipedia page and a paper that can silence the tards who think it's50%
>>29314488
Kys my man
We know at least one of the outcomes, of which we don't know the placement. That outcome is a critical.
You forgot a crit, crit
It's 1/2Is this some elaborate trolling? Why must they only apply their logic to half of the outcomes?
>>29321717
Yes they are.
Assuming that the other hit is a crit. Which it is.
>>29321703
You have to understand that the "100% chance one is a crit" is actually not correct. It's not the starting point. It's adjusting the probabilities with new information.
>>29321625
That post is wrong, and it's obvious to see why he's wrong, I'm not going do it though.
After all, anyone still arguing in this thread at this point is either:
A) A retard, arguing that it's 50%
C) Laughing at people stuck in A)
can you guess in which category you fit in?
protip: there's only one correct answerit's not 50%
>>29321696
I'm not lowering myself to an appeal from authority, nice try.
I will, again, explain this for you:
One is a guaranteed crit. So only the other roll is a factor at all. 50% was given as the probability, there's your answer.
>>29321728
If I remember correctly it's still not universally agreed upon which answer is correct.It is 50 tho
>>29321696
It says in the question what the crit chance is you silly cunt.
>>29321741
Show your math. How did you arrive at the conclusion that the odds of "one hit, one crit" is 50%. Remember the odds of a single crit are an independent 50%.
>>29314211
The fact that you have a 100% chance of critting once doesn't matter. If you don't crit on the first hit, (there is a 50% chance of this happening), it's done.
Therefore, you have a 50% chance of your guaranteed crit occurring on the first hit. You then have a 50% chance of getting a second crit (this one is not guaranteed, since you have already critted once). So what does this mean? 25%?
>>29321731
>You forgot a crit, crit
No, he didn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
It's like all of you saying 1/2 are actually retarded.
>>29321323
common sense answer? Maybe if you have a low IQ
>>29321787
This isn't a monty hall problem. Read your source, shithead
>>29321778
>independent
They are not independent.
If you don't land a crit on your first hit, the second one is guaranteed to be a crit. 100%
Unless I'm reading the question wrong.
The question needs to be phrased correctly, as it depends on whether or not the order is relevant. If it isn't phrased correctly, this thread and all the others before it is what you get.
>>29321787
This is not the fucking monty hall problem you inbred goosecock
50% IS OBJECTIVELY CORRECT SUCK MY TITS
>>29321615
We're given the fact that one of the hits must be a crit. This affects the probability of the crit hit chance if the first hit is not a crit, because we must always have at least one crit. Let's analyze the states as a series of givens based on the first state.
First, we have the most obvious state, which is that the first hit is a crit, we'll call it A. We know that P(A) is 50%, as that is the critical hit chance given in the problem.
Now let's look at the state of the second hit being a crit, which we'll call B. This will always occur after the first hit, and because of the structure of the problem, the probabilities change depending on the first hit. If we did not crit the first time, then it is not possible for the second hit to not crit, which means that the probability of the second hit being a crit when the first hit is not a crit is 100%, or P(B|~A) = 100%, which represents your (0,1) state.
The other condition is when the first hit was a crit. Then, because we've satisfied the condition of needing at least one crit, the probability of the second hit being a crit is now 50%. This is P(B|A), or your (1,0) and (1,1) states.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ATTENTION ALL ARCANINES
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The answer is 1/2, a whoever says otherwise has never taken a single probability class
t. an enginigger
HAVE A GOOD DAY, THREAD OVER
>>29321819
fuck you nigger i am bill nye your wrong !
t. smart guy with a degree
kill yourself
>>29321819
Lol, I am a double-engineer, and the answer is 33%
Also, stephen hawking is my dad, so, I, like, know everything, k?
>>29321817
>>29321807
I don't understand how this isn't the monty hall problem.
You have three possible outcomes.
crit crit
nocrit crit
crit nocrit
So the probability is 1/3.
No, you don't just say "well you just assume there are two possibilities since two of those outcomes are basically the same thing even though the question explicitly states they aren't huuuuuurrr duuuuuurrr!".
>>29321219
P(A) is 66%. You are given that one hit is a crit. So either (0, 1) (1, 0) or (1, 1). Two thirds of those possibilities have P(A) true.
Or, like everyone else is saying, you can directly look at how many have both P(A) and P(B) true (one third) and skip all of that roundabout shit.
>>29321884
THAT'S NOT EVEN TRUE, THOUGH
RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>29321884
That is wrong for both this and the monty hall problem.
You have fucked up at every turn you could fuck up, nice going fuccboi.
>>29314211
150%
1 hit guaranteed crit = 100% chance
other hit 50% crit = 50% chance
>>29321884
>>29321900
Please refer to the following posts to understand where I'm getting confused here. You're both still presupposing that the probability of all of the states is equal.
>>29321565
>>29321818
>>29321884
if you take into account
crit noncrit
and
noncrit crit
then you also have to take into account the other
crit crit
In which case you are left with 2/4, which is 50%.
Stop complicating shit faggots. There is either 2 crits or 1 crit.
50% master race
>>29321810
WTF does order have to do with this? Hint: it doesn't. Not jack shit.
>>29317339
If you classify _C and C_ as different things, then CgC and CCg (Cg = guaranteed crit) are different things too. Which makes it 50/50.
>>29321808
The question says that crit rate is 50%. That is for each of the two hits. It doesn't matter what the other is.
Nowhere does it say, or even give you permission, to assume that the outcome of the first hit is going to change the outcome of the second.
>>29321943
honest question
are you actually stupid enough to believe crit / crit exists has two possible outcomes??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>>29321930
i think you're on to some something
>>29314211
Crit no crit
crit crit
no crit crit
one in 3, unless of course it is one in 5
>>29322001
I'll take "I have never take a course in probability theory" for $500, Alex.
I'm a maths graduate.
The problem is flawed due to the guaranteed hit. Confusing the situation as there are no garuantees.
But really:
If the events are independent (which two hits as stipulated by question)
G : guaranteed hit
C : optional hit
0 : miss
G0
GC
OG
CG
50%
>>29314211
>First swing with your mighty sword
There is 50% chance of getting crit
if you get one then there is another 50% chance
So 25 % for 2 crits
And 25 % for first crit and second noncrit
If you don't get one then the second is crit for sure
There are 3 possibilities CN, CC each 25 % and NC 50%
>>29322001
THE HERO WE DESERVE.
THIS YOU 33% GAYLORDS
>>29322023
If you consider
nocrit crit
and
crit nocrit
as different outcomes, then yeah.
>>29322019
If you don't crit on your first hit, it's not possible to not crit on your second hit.
>>29322044
>I'm a maths graduate.
Oh really. Which school gave you a degree without even a basic understanding of probability theory?
>>29322069
>If you don't crit on your first hit, it's not possible to not crit on your second hit.
But oh, it is. You simply have new information, after both hits have been made, that this in fact did not happen.
>>29321940
Ok, you agree by symmetry that with only "50% per hit" that all of (0, 0), (0, 1), (1, 0), (1, 1) are equally probable, yes?
Let X be the boolean variable "one is a crit". Then X^{-1}(true) = { (0, 1), (1, 0), (1, 1) }. Similarly if Y is "both are crit" then Y^{-1}(true) = { (1, 1) }, and their intersection is also { (1, 1) }. In other words P(X) = 3/4 and P(Y) = 1/4 and P(X and Y) = 1/4.
Now P(Y|X) = P(X and Y)/P(X) by Bayes' theorem, or 1/4 divided by 3/4, or 1/3.
>>29322044
>still not realizing that guanteed crit is the same as a crit, except it happens with 100% of the time, either in the first or second strike
I don't know how much more simple I can make this for you to understand.
>THERE WILL BE A CRIT
>NO CRIT / NO CRIT is not an outcome
so follows that we have
>CRIT / NO CRIT
>NO CRIT / CRIT
>CRIT / CRIT
Anyone still believing it's actually 50% and not 1/3 is either never going to understand this problem and should go off themselfs or is convinced that the people who say 1/3rd are trolling because they're so stupid they can't comprehend Uganda 5th grade tier math problem
>>29322044
>maths grad
So what do you think of >>29322097 ?
>>29314211
>1 HIT 1 CRIT
>1 CRIT 1 CRIT
>1 CRIT 1 CRIT
>1 CRIT 1 HIT
>well shit missed 1 CRIT
>1 CRIT shit i fucked up,missed
>2/6
>1/3
Fuck you OP
>>29321752
No. You're fucking dumb. I'm not saying either answer is right, but I'm saying if you opened your tiny fucking mentally ill mind up just a TINY bit, you would realise that there are DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES and ways of approaching the problem, that are intentionally caused BY THE QUESTION ITSELF (which is why people make these fucking threads and probably why there are so many replies). The truth is you can't really answer it because the question doesn't give enough information as to whether there is order involved. If order is involved, it is either 1,1 or 1,0 or 0,1. Meaning 33%. If it isn't involved, it's either 1,1 or 1,0. Meaning 50%. You're either just really rude and stubborn or a troll if you can't accept that, and I kind of doubt it's the latter, because like what would someone get out of trolling something like this? But I've been surprised before, so who knows...
>>29322044
show me your degree you lying twat
you didnt graduate ass
I remember doing something like this in Statistics in high school, but this was the unit that I was weakest in.
Pretty sure it's either 50% or 33.3%.
>>29322164
he doesn't think shit because if he can't understand basic reasoning by this point he's obviously not a math grad and he obviously won't understand shit of what that guy wrote.
>>29322097
Finally a decent answer. I think what's messing me up here is the game logic, since we don't know if it's programmed to give at least one crit in this situation (and assuming we can only attack twice for some reason, maybe in a turn-based game or something) or if the fact that there's at least one crit is just limiting the probability space of the problem, where each time there's a 1/2 chance and there is no given critical hits.
Would your line of reasoning change if we instead made the assumption that the game guaranteed that at least one hit would be a crit?
>>29320957
>order is irrelevant
>probability
bro
>>29322141
You're the dumbass who believes the placement of the crit matters. :^)
How do you know the placement of the crit we know about in the crit/crit scenario?
The OP never mentioned the placement of it.
A non-child would have to include both crit/crit scenarios if they are including both hit/crit scenarios.
>>29322184
How can there possibly not be order involved? What would "the possibility of an individual hit being critical is 50%" even mean if the hits are not independently-defined?
>>29322141
If
>GCRIT + CRIT
is the same as
>CRIT + GCRIT
then why is
>GCRIT + NO CRIT
not the same as
>NO CRIT + GCRIT
?
(GCRIT = Guarateed Crit)
>>29322207
>>29322214
Lol his Boolean example doesn't work due to the gauranteed hit.
(0,0) is an impossible option in his initial assumption
>>29321431
Is it more likely to roll an 11 or 12 on 2d6?
Kill yourself retard
>>29322184
>Too retarded to understand by the way the problem is presented that order is in fact involved.
>Too much of an autist to admit he's wrong and his brain can't interpret the problem, because all this is is basic reading comprehension solving it is 5th grade math
>Try's to blame the way the problem is formulated when it's actually crystal clear instead of admiting he was wrong and continues to make a fool of himself to everyone here who realized the correct answer was 1/3 5 hours ago.
Sounds about right yes
>>29322076
Warwick my g
People saying 33% are dumb. It's 50%, it doesn't matter what order the crits come in because it doesn't specify. If its (No crit-Crit) or (Crit-no crit) they both are considered the same outcome because there was only one crit and order doesnt matter. It is 50% because one crit is given so it has a 100% chance of happening so the only matter of variability is whether or not the random hit will crit and the chance of this is 50%
>>29322230
>Would your line of reasoning change if we instead made the assumption that the game guaranteed that at least one hit would be a crit?
If the game made this guarantee then I wouldn't be able to interpret "50% crit chance". But taking it literally as "each individually have a 50% probability, given no other information" here is how I'd work it out:
The probability of the first is 1/2. Then the probability of the second is (1/2)A + (1/2)B, where A and B are the probabilities of the second being crit, given that the first {is, is not} crit, respectively. This must add up to 1/2, as per "both have probabibilty 1/2".
If one must be crit, then B = 1, so to get the total to be 1/2, A = 0.
In other words there are exactly two possible outcomes: (1, 0) and (0, 1), and the probability that the other is critical is zero.
>>29322241
>:^)
>How do you know the placement of the crit we know about in the crit/crit scenario?
>A non-child would have to include both crit/crit scenarios if they are including both hit/crit scenarios.
You are actually stupid, the favorable outcome is the outcome where you get 2x crit, the order in which they come is irrelevant, what you are saying makes no sense and reveals how clueless you are on the subject.
inb4
>If you claim crit / crit has no placement then obviously crit / miss has no placement aswell
You're fucking stupid
There are three boxes
One box has a coin in it
First you select an unopened box, and then a third party removes one of the remaining two boxes, the box removed is always one of the two empty ones.
Is it wise to stick with your original choice or to swap to the other remaining box in order to get the coin?
>>29322069
If you consider nocrit as the first outcome, then nocrit crit is stated because a crit is necessary. If crit is the first outcome then it's cirt nocrit or crit crit. There is no unique identity for a crit crit with the crits being on different sides, as this defeats the entire purpose of taking 'order' into account.
>>29322346
>I don't know what probability is
the post
ORDER MATTERS
NC/C
C/NC
ARE DIFFERENT EVENTS THAT ARE BOTH AS EQUALLY LIKELY TO OCCUR AS EACH OTHER AS C/C
KILL YOURSELF DIPSHIT
>>29321884
>You have three possible outcomes
two brother, there's either crit or not, it's literally 50/50
>>29322403
A guaranteed crit is not the same as a random crit.
NC/C
C/NC
GC/C
C/GC
50% chance of 2 crits
>>29322426
It's two hits, not one.
WTF is up with all these "guaranteed crit" posters? Is it just one samefag? Nowhere in the problem does it state there is such a thing or even imply it.
>there is no such thing as guaranteed crit
Anyone who uses that term is automatically disqualified from the discussion as he clearly has no understanding of basic probability.
>>29322441
Yes they are nigger.
They are exactly the same thing
You're a fucking moron nigger.
>>29322141
>>CRIT / NO CRIT
>>NO CRIT / CRIT
>>CRIT / CRIT
that's... that's still 50/50 each time
>>29322497
were you born retarded or were you dropped on your head as a child
>>29322348
This is where I would have to disagree personally. I'm a programmer myself (probably why I'm such a braindead retard) but I'm thinking of it in terms of the programming here. I'll write the pseudocode out so you can kind of understand where I might be disagreeing.
Assume that random() is a pseudorandom generator that's [0,1).
>firstCrit = false
>secondCrit = false
>firstCritChance = random()
>firstCrit = firstCritChance < 0.5
>if(firstCrit == true)
>>secondCritChance = random()
>>secondCrit = secondCritChance < 0.5
>else
>>secondCrit = true
This is my take on the algorithm, and here the (1,1) state is definitely possible. However, there's only a 25% chance of getting the (1,1) state since both crits are independent (since the game doesn't modify them manually to satisfy the condition).
Does this make sense or do I just sound like a blithering idiot?
>>29322441
>engineer
>math grad
>can't into conditional problabilitys.
>thinks GC is different then C
sure thing buddy
>mfw going back and forth between 50% and 33%, and arguing with myself
who /devilish/ here?
>>29322371
Found the illiterate.
Summer break must be fun, huh, kiddo?
:^)
>>29322511
Obviously he was both
>>29322374
Swap. This is monty hall, actually.
>>29322403
But the op just says what are the chance that there are two crits, so regardless of order those two events are still one crit. The only thing that is left up to chance is whether or not the one hit that is not given will become a crit and it says in the question that the chance of a crit is 50%.
>>29322512
This makes sense as an algorithm, but the probability of the second being critical is 75%.
>>29322522
You can't even solve a fucking 5th grade problem because you obviously have some sort of handicap. At this point I just feel sorry for your parents.
>>29322511
do you not understand the question?
one hit is a definite crit, so the next one will be a crit or not, one hit is already decided, there aren't three scenarios
>>29322247
easy
>one of the hits is a crit
we already have a crit
now there's a 50% chance to get another crit
think of it this way, we flip two coins at the same time
we only count heads/heads and heads/tails as possible answers, regardless of what time they hit the table at. There is a 50% chance of getting either outcome.
>>29322538
I don't know if you are retarded or trolling but let me explain basic probability to you
If you have a 6 shot revolver with one bullet chambered is the probability of firing 1/2 because it can either shoot or it can't or it 1/6 because it will fire on one chamber and not on the other 5?
I bet you got that one right. You know why it's not one half? Because proboblilty does not deal with outcome, it deals with events. There are 6 events. 5 have the same result. In this case with the crits, there are 3 possible events, 2 having the same results. Get it nigger?
>>29322454
but one is a definite critical hit already, its only one hit undecided
>>29322230
To add to >>29322348 let's try to get a final answer of 50% as others are saying, and work backward to get an interpretation of "50% chance of crit".
First, there are two distinct hits, so we can call one "the first" and the other "the second". People who disagree are disagreeing that the hits are distinct, but then you can't assign a meaningful probability to an individual hit (there are no individual hits). So I think this is just confused. If the problem stated "you achieve the power of 0, 1 or 2 critical hits" without indicating that this is composed of individual hits, this could be sensible, I suppose, but there's no natural probability distribution on these, and a single 50% number can't specify one.
So we have two hits and order matters. Say the probability of the first is p1. Then the probability of the second is p2 = (p1)(p11) + (1 - p1)(p10). Here p11 is the probability of the second hit given p1 while p10 is the probability given not p1.
We have three possible outcomes, (1, 0) (0, 1) (1, 1) which have probabilities (p1)(1 - p2), (1 - p1)(p2) and (p1)(p2) respectively. To get the 50posters' result, we want (p1)(p2) = 1/2, so p2 = 1/(2p1). So substitute:
1/(2p1) = (p1)(p11) + (1 - p1)(p10), or
1/2
= (p1)^2(p11) + (p1)(1 - p1)(p10)
= (p1)^2(p11) + (p1)(p10) - (p1)^2(p10)
= (p1)^2(p11 - p10) + (p1)(p10)
This is as far as we can go without using the "50% chance of crit" information. We have 3 variables constrained by one equation. In another post we'll work through some possibilities for interpreting "50% chance of crit".
>>29322570
no hit is decided. You're retarded. :"at least one of the hits is a crit" only rules out nc/nc nc/c is still perfectly viable
>>29322547
Are you talking about just the event where the second is critical, or that the second is critical given that the first was critical?
>>29322280
>You actually believe this
>Incapable of understanding different perspectives
>You don't realise that you are completely fucking wrong for ASSUMING something is a definite when it isn't explicitly stated
wow, I hope you don't interact with people in reality.
>>29322576
So what does "50% chance of a crit" mean? It means "50% chance that the other hit is a crit"? Then yes, by definition you are right, but it's a bit weird to take a question with 2 hits in it and then interpret half of it as applying only to one hit, and only after the other hit is specified.
>>29322636
Just the second being critical. The probability is indeed 50% given that the first is critical, but see >>29322652 for why I think that's reading too many restrictions on the question's phrasing.
Leaving this thread.
>People saying 50% are just shitposters or trully waterheads who will never grasp basic problability due to chromossomes.
Your government should trace you IPs and fetch you to put in front of a firing squad, because at this point your brain might aswell be dead and removing your genes from the pool would problably bring an increase in IQ during the next generation math exams.
>>29322650
math is not about "different perspectives" you simpleton
>>29322628
>nc/c is still perfectly viable
so 50% chance of either?
>>29322719
Normally the events are
>nc/nc
>nc/c
>c/nc
>c/c
The question rules out nc/nc
You seem to think it also rules out nc/c
That's wrong.
>>29314211
Since the chance of a crit is equally likely as a non-crit, if you hit twice, 4 scenarios are possible and equally likely:
Crit/Crit, Crit/NoCrit, NoCrit/Crit, NoCrit/NoCrit
The probability of one hit being a crit is then 3/4. The probability of both beinga crit is 1/4. The probability of both being a crit given one was a crit is (1/4)/(3/4) = 1/3.
QED
>>29322605
Draw out the probability tree.
It's 50%.
One of the hits is guaranteed to be a crit, so we don't need to consider that. Therefore the answer is contingent only upon the other hit (notice I said "other," not "second" because the order is irrelevant per the language of the question). Since the probability of the other hit being a crit is 50%, the overall probability of a double crit is 50%.
>>29322752
>"probability tree"
>on a two option outcome
>>29322770
4 options. Read the problem again.
You guys are dumb cunts its 1/2. its a high school level conditional probability question. No wonder most you guys are too dumb to get laid
>>29322745
Another way to think of it, all scenarios are equally likely. If you already know one of them is a crit, that rules out the N/N scenario. So there are three possible events,
C/C, C/N, N/C
The probability of C/C is then 1/3.
>>29322766
this.
the wording of the question apparently is some kind of autism trigger
>>29322766
>so we don't need to consider that
Does it never bother you that you didn't graduate from high school?
4 scenarios:
1 0
0 1
1 1 x
1 1 x
2/4 = 50%
>>29322788
c/n and n/c is the same man
>>29322788
C/N = N/C in this situation, dumbass. The order does not matter.
Indeed , the only options are:
DOUBLE CRIT
ONLY ONE CRIT
THE ORDER DOES NOT MATTER
THUS 50%
GET REKT
>>29322782
its only one that's undecided, one is definitely a critical, the next is either going to be critical or not, I think you need to reread it m8
>>29322512
No, it is merely efficient. Programming needs to be as simple as possible, maths need to be descriptive and thorough.
For a program it's a different outcome if you get 2 crits instead of 2 crits (as there may be modifiers that need other input from this later on). It is calculated without regard for what the player would see in the end. They will not know wether they saw crit1 and then crit2 or crit2 and then crit1. All they see is crit and crit. The code you wrote is just stating that there are 4 outcomes but it doesn't evaluate wether these outcomes are the same to combine them for the evaluation.
Let's say you're playing some game and crits are just random. Then your code is alright and just saves the cpu the effort of doing further calc to differentiate this for no reason. If you play an mmo tho, where you can modify and actually see your crit rate, you would need to teach the program how to decide wether the outcomes are the same or different depending on other variables for powers that rely on the last attack having been a crit or complicated stuff like that.
long story short:
Your program actually has 4 outcomes (25%) but it doesnt yet "know" two of those are the exact same in the end. For the player that means 33% in the end, though, as they won't be able to differentiate these cases.
All of this assuming the version in which order matters is what we are talking about and not regarding OPs trick question itself which can't be answered correctly because of the lack of info
>>29322652
Depending on the interpretation of the question, "50% chance of a crit" means just that. Simultaneously, only crit crit and crit nocrit is accounted for, so it's a 50% chance of double crit. The answer is in the question. But if you interpret it as order being a factor, that crit/nocrit and nocrit/crit become separate entities, leaving 3 possibilites, so it's a 33% chance of a double crit. By the way, I don't claim to suggest either are correct. I'm just aware that either are correct dependant on interpretation.
>>29322783
I just realized i did it wrong I should kill myself
>>29322681
The way I'm seeing it now, the answer just can't be 1/2 no matter what. If you assume equal probabilities for each state, then it's 1/3 obviously, but even if you don't, then you run into exactly my issue here with the givens and whatnot. You've hit my point of confusion exactly.
The given that you stated isn't the answer obviously, because it restricts the probability set to only the cases where the first hit is a crit, which does not define the whole set.
So using the P(A|B) * P(A) = P(A and B) equation again (where A is that the second hit is a crit and B is the first hit is a crit), we know P(A|B), which is 1/2. We know P(A), which is 3/4. By definition, P(A and B) is the answer to the problem here (which considers the entire probability space) which turns out to be 3/8.
>>29322818
>>29322821
Then explain to me how you get 1/3 + 1/3 = 1/2 ? If C/N and N/C are the same, then their joint probability is 2/3 . C/C is still 1/3 regardless.
>>29322821
see>>29322601
then gas yourself
>>29322613
So, we landed at "1/2 = (p1)^2(p11 - p10) + (p1)(p10)" and want to add "50% chance of crit" in a way that holds true.
First let's try assuming that the second hit has chance 50% independently of the first. Then p11 = p10 = 1/2, so we have "1/2 = (p1)(1/2)" or p1 = 1. This corresponds to those saying "the first hit has probability one, so "one hit is critical" applied only to the first hit and "50% chance" applied only to the second". Fair enough, but this seems like a stretch of the question's language.
Alternately we could try saying that p1 = 1/2, the first hit has a 50% chance of being critical, and we get "1/2 = (1/2)^2(p11 - p10) + (1/2)(p10)" or "1 = 1/2(p11 + p10)". As p11 and p10 must be <= 1 to be probabilities, they are both forced to one. So same story as above with the first and second hits reversed.
Alternately we could ignore the 50% number and try to say that p1 = p2. (So "50% chance of crit" is interpreted to mean that there's a 50% chance that the one crit was the first vs the other.) Then we go back to my first post where I said (p1)(p2) = 1/2 and we see that both must have probability sqrt(1/2) or 0.707. Again, this seems plausible but a stretch.
Those are my ideas. Anyone have any others?
>>29322718
Absolutely EVERYTHING IN THE FUCKING WORLD is about perspective. Unless you mean math in the sense of 2+2. Which is FOUR. But if you mean math in the sense of a question INTENTIONALLY WORDED TO CAUSE DISAGREEMENT with AMBIGUITY then it's totally perspective. YOU ABSOLUTE. FUCKING. BAKA.
>>29322881
>INTENTIONALLY WORDED TO CAUSE DISAGREEMENT with AMBIGUITY
OP's problem is crystal clear and not debatable.
>>29322828
There is only one correct interpretation.
>Two hits
>nc/nc is not a viable event
>nc and c are equally likely
>what is the probability of c/c
This is the question
the answer is 33%.
always.
>>29322827
That's a very interesting point about the MMOs, I don't really play any of them so I didn't really think about it. Out of curiosity, what factors typically would affect your critical hit chance in an MMO and how would that affect the algorithm I posted? If you could post some pseudocode as well, I'd appreciate it.
>>29322881
The question is entirely clear, there is no ambiguity whatsoever, it's not designed to be ambiguous, it's designed to have an incorrect answer that seems correct intuitively.
>>29322857
where are you pulling 1/3 from? there's two hits, and one hit is a definite critical.
so there's only one undecided hit left, which will either be critical or not, 50/50.
Answer is 25%. The ambiguity of the statements means that we have to assume that the hits happened sequentially, and that the first hit has to have a 50% chance of happening.
I can see where the 50%ers are coming from, but they are adding in context which the question doesn't state. "You hit and enemy twice" means that in this given moment of gameplay you hit and enemy a first time and then a second time, not any special schrodinger's cat kind of attack where both hits happen and you are uncertain of which one is a crit. "At least one of the hits is a crit" doesn't mean that the first hit is a crit. And then you have the 50% crit chance which means the first hit has a 50% chance of critting.
>>29322970
NC, CN, and CC all have the same probability, 1/3. Even you had that. But then you said NC and CN are the same, and therefore add up to 1/2.
>>29322973
>The ambiguity of the statements
What is ambiguous about them?
the "sure crit" will happen, but we dont know in which place. It has a 50% to be in the first place and 50% in the second. For each of these two possibilities, there is a 50% probability that the other hit is a crit. if you draw a tree and count do the math it is obvious that it is 50%
a=first place and hit: 0.5*0.5=0.25
b=first place and miss: 05*05=0.25
c=second place and hit: 05*05=0.25
d=second place and miss: 0.5*05=0.25
a+c = 0.25+0.25=0.5=50%
y'all need to go back to school
>>29322879
I thought of another. What if the probability of (1, 0) and (0, 1) are both 1/2 "the probability of one crit is 50%" but the others are undefined?
This gives (p1)(1 - p2) = 1/2 and (1 - p1)(p2) = 1/2. These actually imply each other, so let's take only the first one. The 50posters say (p1)(p2) = 1/2 or p1 = 1/(2p2), so substituting gives (1 - p2)/(p2) = 1, or p2 = 1/2. Doing the same with the second equation gives p1 = 1/2. But uh oh ... we already showed earlier that this is impossible. If either of p1 or p2 are 1/2, the other needs to be 1.
We could add "the probability of (1, 1) is also 1/2" but this actually just makes things worse.
>>29322988
>you said NC and CN are the same, and therefore add up to 1/2.
they are though, the order doesn't matter
>>29323020
>y'all need to go back to school
Says the poster who fails basic math.
>>29323020
You're retarded mate.
>>29323020
see the post and pic related >>29322973
>>29323055
If you treat them as the same, you still need to add up their probabilities correctly. NC and CN both have a 1/3 probability. If you say you don't care about their order, then their joint probability is 2/3.
>>29323011
You don't know whether or not the problem defines the valid probability set ((1,0), (0,1), (1,1)) as having equally likely states. Because of the way the game may be programmed, the (0,1) state may have a 1/2 probability of occuring (due to the prevention of the (0, 0)) state or if the (0,1) state has a 1/3 probability because the probability set is just arbitrarily restricted by that parameter.
>>29323055
Yes order does matter, it's probability you dip shit.
>>29323011
I misspoke, the context is ambiguous. With no context the statements can be interpreted in a number of different ways, but in my answer I used the simplest and most obvious context that the statements can be applied to as you should with these sorts of questions.
>>29323064
>>29323058
Nah it's correct.
>>29323079
>You don't know whether or not the problem defines the valid probability set ((1,0), (0,1), (1,1)) as having equally likely states.
Yes you do. That is literally taken care of by the crit rate being 50% and independent of other strikes.
>>29323102
No. It's not.
the "sure hit" is the same thing as the normal hit you fucking mongoloid.
>>29323102
There is no thing such as "sure crit", which you base your entire post on. It's failed from the start.
You'd think robots would know how to do this. This kind of math is how you win at stuff like tabletop games or Fire Emblem.
>>29323131
>>29323129
Yes there is. it is written in OP's pic.
>>29323139
Where. You're retarded.
>>29323139
Where? I don't see it. Nothing about a "guaranteed critical if the first hit fails".
This is the probability of landing two hits w/ two strikes given one strike is a crit. So its
= P(Two Crits|At Least One Crit)
= P(2 Crit & At Least 1 Crit)/P(At least 1 Crit)
= P(2 Crit)/P(1 Crit)
= (2C2 * (1/2)^2)/(2C1 * (1/2)^1 * (1/2)^1)
= 1/2
= 50%
>>29323139
Besides, there is literally a formula for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability
P(A|B)=P(A and B)/P(B)=0.5^2/0.5=0.5
God damn.
>>29323111
nice trips my man
It doesn't state that the rate is independent of other strikes, only that the rate (when applicable) is 50%. The different interpretations set in when you try to analyze how the restraint given (that there must be at least one critical hit) is actually implemented into the system, since it may be independent (in the case where you're just restraining the more complete set to exclude (0, 0) from the applicable space) or dependent (in the case where the game is forcing the (0, 0) state from being physically impossible and therefore was never inside of the probability space at all).
>>29323160
There has to be a crit. If the first hit is not a crit then the second one is.
>>29323160
>>29323153
"at least one of the hits is a crit". One of them is guaranteed. Therefore, four cases:
A hits B misses
A misses B hits
A misses B misses
A hits B hits
>>29323198
that doesn't make c/c magically turn into two equally likely events.
>>29323209
"at least one of the hits is a crit"
only means that miss miss is not an option
that's all it means
>>29322941
I can't deliver any code, unfortunately, but I think this will work:
in my game "Exammople" the warriors can execute an enemy when his health is below 20%. Their special bar is filled with wrath. (0-100). The more wrath pts he has, the higher the chance to crit with that hit. Then there are certain items that eg automatically grant you a second crit once you land a crit. But that item is based on your normal crit luck. (Base value that "simple attack" has). That means if you execute your enemy with 100 wrath, you do not get that bonus automatically, even if that hit is critical. You only get it if you had landed a crit anyway (with the same probability you'd get one when executing a standard attack). Same goes for buffs that affect your crit score mixed with your own crit score. It's always base value vs actual value. I hope I could answer your question with these examples without confusing you
>>29323189
>It doesn't state that the rate is independent of other strikes
>Assuming a 50% crit chance
Anything else, and you're just making things up. There is simply no way to interpret this as something like "b-b-b-but it's not 50% in this case because it would hurt my feelings!"
>>29323252
I didn't say the answer 50%. It's not possible for it to be 50%, but I do think that if you follow the "events are dependent" line of reasoning, you end up with an answer that is not 1/3.
See >>29322512 for a perfectly reasonable way that the game may be implemented according to the specifications given in the OP where the events are dependent. You are being as foolish as you are making your detractors out to be.
ITT:
>people with reading comprehension who called 1/3 from the start
>downers who still defend 50%
>>29323209
>at least one of the hits is a crit
>A misses B misses
invalid possibility
>>29314211
let's assume it's a game
>you don't crit-the game crit for you
>you crit-you don't crit
>you crit-you crit again
>1/3 guys
>>29323305
>if you follow the "events are dependent" line of reasoning
But they're not. That's not debatable. It's defined at the outset. A crit chance is 50%.
here it is guiz
solved for ya
>>29314278
You're stupid.
2 hits, one of those is a crit. So there are two possibilities here :
1)Second is a crit (both are crits)
2)Second is not a crit (only first one is crit)
The chance of crit is 50%. Therefore the chance of second critting is 50% therefore the chance of both critting is 50&. Instead, let me give you retarded cucks a better task :
1% of all men have faggotry.
80% all faggotry infected men have positive PID (penis inspection day) test.
20% of all men not infected with faggotry have positive PID test.
You just got a positive PID test. What's the chance you're a faggot?
>>29323366
Point to me in this image where it defines the hits as independent. It says that the case where a critical hit is calculated, the chance will be 50%.
It does not say if the game will automatically crit if you do not crit the first time. If the game does this, the events are dependent. If it does not, they are independent.
You cannot know this from the image.
>>29323445
(forgot the %)
>>29322973
I was in the 50% camp until I saw this.
The "at least one is a crit" actually means nothing in the context of this problem. Since we are interested in two crits, the condition for "at least one crit" never triggers until our goal has failed.
Think of it this way, you begin your attacks with the goal of getting two crits. If and only if you fail the first crit, you get the second one for free. We have already failed our goal at this point, so the statement means nothing.
Second scenario: we set out again to get those two crits. This time we get that 50% crit on our first try. We have now fulfilled the conditions for "at least one crit". That condition no longer can affect our probability since we met our conditions. From here, we must pass yet another 50% crit chance to reach our goal of two consecutive crits.
Therefore the end math would be 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25.
>>29323464
>Assuming a 50% crit chance
If there were a special mechanism which changed the crit chance based on previous hits, it needs to be mentioned. You can't make it up on your own. Since the only mentioned thing about crit rate is that it's 50%, that's the only thing you are allowed to assume.
>>29323541
Says who? Consider the situation where you're trying to reverse engineer the algorithms in a computer game, which this problem could very easily be.
You don't know how the system deals with critical hits, and you're trying to figure out how it works based on how the probability converges when you plot a large number of results out over time. If it converges to approximately 1/3, then that means the system is independent and you're just really lucky. If it converges approximately to 1/4 or 3/8 (still trying to figure out what the true answer to this dependent situation is) then you know that the game is giving you the second crit for free.
I can understand rejecting answers that make no sense either in theory or application, but if you're not even willing to entertain a different application of a really generic problem, you're pretty retarded mate.
OP here, all posters of wrong answers here will be targeted by assassins tonight, you know who you are.
>>29323689
If they're dependent but both probabilities are 1/2, the "probability of second crit given first crit" can be anywhere between 0 and 1, which will move the "probability of two crits" between 0 and 1/2.
I have a six shooter loaded with 3 bullets and one loaded with 6. I fire at you with both of them in turn. What are the odds you get shot twice.
>>29323799
You're retarded anon, sorry.
No hit is sure to be a crit, the only guarantee is that at least one ends up being a crit.
>>29323883
>2 hits
>1 hit is a crit no matter what
>Not 1/2
Failed abortions, please leave.
>>29323883
>No hit is sure to be a crit
>at least one ends up being a crit.
We don't care which hit is a crit though, we only care whether we get two crits, or just one.
>>29323935
>1 hit is a crit no matter what
That's not what the question says.
It says "at least one is a crit"
That just means "at least one is a crit".
Normally there are four possible outcomes
NC/NC
C/NC
NC/C
C/C
wanna point out how many of those are invalidated?
I'll give you a hint
It's not two.
>>29323937
Probability is not found through outcome it's found through events. If I have a 6 sided die with an icon on only one face, it's not a 50/50 chance to get the icon.
>>29324001
Both events are just as likely.
Unless the question specifically asks for a certain order of occurrences, crit-notcrit and notcrit-crit are the same outcome.
We are asked about whether both crit, or just one of the crits, in which case ncrit-crit and crit-ncrit both apply.
>>29323689
>Says who?
Did you waddle through high school math by changing the math problems if you didn't like them? Every time you didn't figure it out, you just made an additional assumption and then whined to the teacher when he marked you wrong?
>>29323883
There is no way that which hit is a crit is random. Similarly it doesn't matter whether I know which gun contains 6 bullets and which contains 3. They don't start with 3 each and then one is magically loaded with another 3 bullets at the time of shooting, and similarly there is no true randomness to the answer of which "hit" is the "guaranteed crit". It is determined before the events unfold by the programming.
The odds of correctly guessing which is the guaranteed crit after the events have occurred would be 1 in 3, but in that case you are not applying the laws of probability to the event that took place but to a separate event, the event of you guessing, and if that is what the question is asking it should have been much clearer.
for fucks sake guys
>at least one,at LEAST ONE is crit
>you failed to crit/you crit because AT LEAST ONE
>you crit/good job,your free crit is gone because AT LEAST ONE
>you crit,you crit done
>33%
>>29324506
>using school as a metric for real life
ultremekek
succeeding in real life involves considering all possible situations that a problem could entail, not being an autist that's locked on one interpretation
>>29324826
This is a math problem. It's clearly defined. It has only one correct answer. At work, do you always do things in a different way than you're told because you just didn't like the original request and specs?
>>29324520
it's 50% stop being retarded, your explanation makes no sense.
>>29324942
All the 50% answers have been proven wrong over and over again.
Four possible outcomes. Only one is invalidated because of the "at least one crit" clause.
That leaves three options. BUT WAIT the probabilities of these options are not equal. This is where you 33%ers fucked up.
An initial no crit will ALWAYS result in a crit for the second attack. That bumps up the probability of no crit then crit to 50%, since the 50% initial no crit chance will 100% result in a crit.
Probability of actions:
No crit - crit : 50%
Crit - No crit : 50%*50% = 25%
Crit - Crit : 50%*50% = 25%
Just because there are three remaining options does not mean each has an equal chance of occuring.
>>29314211
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability
>>29325062
You made the mistake of thinking the at least one crit clause comes into effect before the hits are even made.
>>29325062
>This is where you 33%ers fucked up
now i get it
>>29325062
No, you made the same stupid mistake that all the 50%s made. All three options have an equal chance of occurring. You are changing the problem by breaking the "crit has 50% chance" rule. You are changing it into a chance that depends on the first outcome. It needs to be treated as independent.
>>29325713
>>29325713
>>29325713
140iq and above only
>>29325725
Ooh boy. Here we go again. Can't wait for the high school dropouts to shout at math majors on how they are idiots.
