What are some games only intellectuals can beat?
- Home
- Board: /v/ - Video Games
- Reading: What are some games only intellectuals can beat?
What are some games only intellectuals can beat?
999
Ghost Trick
Ace Attorney
Ever17
>>337579023
Mensa Academy
>>337579023
tales of monkey island
>>337579023
50% either it works or it doesn't
>>337580749
yeah it should be 50%.
One shot is always a crit, so the only chance that matters is that of the second chat, which has a 50% crit chance.
>>337579023
>intellectuals
if you have to call yourself that you're clearly not one.
Bioshock Infinite
![1920px-Bayes'_Theorem_MMB_01[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TJm9j4o.jpg "1920px-Bayes' Theorem MMB 01[1]")
>>337579023
SpaceChem
>>337581284
This
>>337579023
33%
1. Both attacks critically hit
2. First attack crits, second doesn't
3. First doesnt, second does crit
>>337580749
>>337580925
it actually depends on what critical system they use.
League of Legends (yes, I know, lolbabs and ASSFAGGOTS) use a semi-random system where, at 50% crit, you actually crit more often than 50% of the time. It gives you *slight* increased odds for the next crit, to try and prevent "dry spells" where your 50% would go 4+ shots without going off. Criting resets it back down to the flat 50%.
Then there's the True 50%, where each shot occurs at exactly 50% odds.
>>337580749
It is 50%, but not because of your reason.
You already know 1 of the hits is a crit. So there is a 50% chance the other will also be a crit
50% chance crit x 50% chance crit = 25%
50% chance crit x 50% chance noncrit = 25%
50% chance noncrit x 100% chance crit = 50%
50% chance noncrit x 0% chance noncrit = 0%
25%
This is the correct answer
>>337582660
>it actually depends on what critical system they use.
It states what system they use. A constant 50% chance means it's not a pseudorandom system like you're talking about. So these fellas got it right and you can easily work it out with Bayes theorem or just a simple tree diagram.
>>337582041
>>337581284
and with pseudorandom systems you don't start at the stated chance like you seem to think, you start with worse odds but it evens out to the stated chance over infinite tries. That's the normal way of doing pseudorandom systems.
>>337583149
>50% chance noncrit x 100% chance crit = 50%
>100% crit chance
Okay so I'm fucking stupid when it comes to probability (it took me like an hour to understand the Monty Hall problem). Can someone explain to me why the probability isn't 25%? There's a 50% chance the first will hit, and a 50% chance that the second will hit, so why isn't it a 25% chance both will hit?
>>337583149
>At least one of the hits is a crit
>>337583546
There's a 100% chance that one of them will hit though.
>>337582041
The likelihood of these cases is not the same.
(3.) Happens at 50% likelihood while (1.) and (2.) happen at 25% each.
>>337583546
Because the problem states that one of them is a crit for sure
>>337580749
I like to give this answer to questions, but in this case 50% is actually right.
Brava.
First one crits, there's a 50% chance that the second one crits and they're both crits
Second one doesn't crit, there is 100% chance the second one crits but that's irrelevant because then both of them can't crit
There's exactly a 50% chance of each of these two events occurring
So we have a 50% chance that the first one crits, then a 50% chance from there that the second one will be a crit.
It's 25%
>>337583546
Just do a tree diagram or write down the outcomes by hand.
CritxCrit - 0.25
CritxHit - 0.25
HitxCrit - 0.25
HitxHit - 0.25
HitxHit is ruled out since it's stated "at least one of the hits is a crit", so you just dismiss it. That leaves three outcomes with equal probability of occurring, one of them being CritxCrit, so it's 1/3.
/v/ is bad at math
It's 150% you fucking retards.
IT'S 50 FUCKING % OK SHUT THE FUCK UP ALL YOU RETARDS
>>337584193
You're ignoring the order
>>337582660
Nobody alluded to some sort of system in which it's "technically not 50% like LoL" you stupid fuck.
Go back to red_dit with your pseudo-insightful nonsense. You'll get lots of upvotes.
>>337584193
oh yeah so it is.
Guys this is like the Monty Hall problem where the order in which the calculations are done is important. You're not "flipping the coins" at the same time and that makes things different
>>337584193
>adds up to 75%
When you eliminate HitxHit you have to adjust the odds for the rest of them.
>>337584359
no?
He has HitxCrit and CritxHit listed seperately
>>337579023
>Defeat a boss to get a item .
>11.11% it will duplicate next time.
>It duplicate 9 times in a row.
It's 1/3.
There are four possibilities, each with 25% chance:
No crit.
1st crit, not second.
2nd crit not first.
Both crit.
We know it's not the first, so we're left with three options, each of which has the same probability, and one of which is 'both crit'.
Therefore the odds are 1/3.
Crit - Hit = 33%
Hit - Crit = 33%
Crit - Crit = 33%
The answer is 1/3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
It's the second question/
>>337584448
Kill yourself
>>337584546
Fuck Moon lord
>>337584561
>>337584193
These anons are right
>>337584491
Which he did, which is why he says the answer is 1/3
>>337580749
It's 50% or 75% depending on your point of view. Neither answer is 100% correct, but university poofs wil disagree.
>>337584491
Yes, you divide 0.25 by 0.75 and get 1/3.
>>337584538
That's not the order, that's just which one lands on what
The two hits occur at different times, one after the other
By the time you do the second calculation, the first one is already done and effects what calculations are done for the second hit
If the first one doesn't crit the calculations for the second hit are irrelevant because there is no chance for both to crit
What's a 50% chance of a 50% chance?
>>337584561
Exept HitxHit is completely irrelevant, even to critxcrit.
There is still a 50% chance he doesn't crit on the first hit, it just means he will crit on the second attack.
So we only have to consider the case where he crits on the first hit, and after this there is a 50% chance he crits.
So the answer is 25%, the information you were given was irrelevant and trips everyone up.
>>337584941
This
Think it through, anons.
>>337584941
25% is the probability of two crits in a row with no other conditions.
If you set the condition that one of the hits has to be a crit, you eliminate one base case.
So instead of there being 4 cases, there are 3 cases.
So, there's one in 3 cases of both hits being crits.
Hence 1/3.
>>337585218
Oh yeah sorry.
Got it in my head there was an order to things, rather than it was a hint to the outcome.
Feel real dumb right now.
There are two hits.
One is a crit guaranteed, the other is a 50% chance.
It is a 50% chance both hits are crits because we are rolling on the chance of one hit with a 50% chance.
People get caught up in the order of the attacks, but in truth that does not matter. There are 3 outcomes, but only two possible outcomes (h/h, c/h, and c/c). H/H is impossible which leaves C/H and C/C. 1/2 is 50%.
>>337582660
psudo random is a way to pull towards the mean over extremely small samples, it doesnt move the mean you ignoramus
P(Both Crits | Given atleast 1 Crit ) = P(Both Crits and atleast 1 Crit)/P(1 Crit) = P(Both Crits)/P(atleast 1 Crit) =
Let X = number of crits
X~Binomial(2 trials, .5 probability of success)
P(X=2) = (.5)(.5) = .25
P(X=atleast 1) = 1 - P(X=0) = 1 - (1-.5)(1-.5) = .75
The answer is 1/3 fags
>>337585313
If it had specified which hit was required to be a critical, that would have changed the outcome. But it doesn't.
>>337585434
Wrong.
The order matters because the problem doesn't specify WHICH hit is a crit.
If the problem was like so:
A man hits a dude twice, the first hit is a crit, what is the chance of the second hit being a crit also?
You get these cases.
Crit - Hit
Crit - Crit
One in two.
50%.
>>337585218
You're not thinking it through here how it would actually play out
No Crit -> Crit and No Crit -> No Crit fill the same "slot" because one hit happens first. They still affect the probability because the second hit is 100% irrelevant if the first one does not crit. No Crit -> Crit is not a different outcome for the purposes of this problem than No crit -> No crit. You have to do the first hit first, and that's a straight 50-50 chance. If the first hit does not crit, it does not matter what the second hit is. You don't remove the No crit -> no crit and not the No crit -> Crit because even if that cannot occur, There's still a 50% chance of the first hit not being a crit which leads to a failure of "Both hits are crits"
If the first hit DOES crit, you now have a 50% chance that the second hit will crit. The order that they're done in matters and changes the probability.
You have one 50% chance, and then another 50% chance IF the first one succeeds. You're not doing it all at once and having a ~33% chance.
>>337585704
You forgot
Hit - Crit
>>337585704
The order doesn't matter precisely because we know one hit is a crit. It doesn't matter which hit is a crit because we only care about finding the hit that is the unknown, which is a 50% roll.
>>337585583
Not critting doesn't mean you're guaranteed to crit next. In practice not critting then critting wouldn't have double the chance of happening than critting then not critting, right?
You just have to remove the not crit-not crit possibility and readjust the probabilities so they're all equal again. It's 1/3.
>>337585583
This
It's super simple math
>>337579023
0% you retard
Both hits can't be crit if crit can be only 50%
>>337585910
>Not critting doesn't mean you're guaranteed to crit next
It does
>>337585910
>Not critting doesn't mean you're guaranteed to crit next.
Yes it does you dumbass
>At least one of the hits is a crit
>>337579242
>visual novels
OP said intellects, a baby could click random options.
>>337579023
Portal
especially Portal 2
>>337585583
Fucking thiiiiiiiis
For fuck's sake anons I only got like 17 on my Math ACT and I could fucking solve this
>>337585910
>Not critting doesn't mean you're guaranteed to crit next
It does, the fucking prompt said that at least one of the hits was a crit. Apply yourself.
>>337583149
That's what I thought too anon
>>337583919
>So we have a 50% chance that the first one crits, then a 50% chance from there that the second one will be a crit.
Either the first or second hit has a 100% chance of a crit.
>>337585895
It DOES matter because if the first hit is not a crit, there is a 0% chance of us succeeding
>>337585776
No, I was demonstrating what the problem would be if the order didn't matter.
>>337585895
It does matter. If you don't know which hit is a crit, you don't have 3 cases, you have 2. It changes the probability.
>>337585743
Again, you guys are assuming that the order doesn't matter.
Two versions of this problem, and this is completely mathematically sound, lookie here.
ORDER MATTERS:
3 cases
Hit - Crit
Crit - Hit
Crit - Crit
1/3
ORDER DOESN'T MATTER
2 cases
Hit - Crit or Crit - Hit
Crit - Crit
1/2
The problem in the OP is the former one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
Please read this if you don't believe me.
>>337581220
That sign is f*cking cool! where is it from?
>>337580749
There are 4 options
1st hits, 2nd miss
1st miss, 2nd hits
Both hits
Both misses
You can eliminate the chance of both missing so there are 3 options remaining and 1 of 3 is both hitting
33%
>>337585968
>>337586003
>>337586117
Holy shit you plebs need to learn some conditional probability.
So you're saying hit/crit is twice as likely as crit/hit?
>>337586179
The second hit is irrelevant if the first hit doesn't crit
>>337586207
I study chemistry and probably took more college maths classes than you
>>337583429
>>337583567
[first hit] x [second hit]
>>337585948
ur dumb son
>>337579023
the answer is 75%
>>337586202
no clue m8, first thing on bayes' theorem's wiki page
>>337586187
No you fuckbar, this is not the Boy/Girl problem because we're asking if BOTH are a boy, not the chances that one is a boy or some shit
You didn't even read what I fucking wrote you just googled some shit you heard about in a class that sounded similar
>>337586187
>>337585776
Well i not object that case
>>337579023
No least one crit.
hit - hit
hit - crit
crit - hit
crit - crit
25%
At least one crit.
crit - hit
hit - crit
crit - crit
33%
+Also order didn't matter
crit - hit
crit - crit
50%
>>337586321
Cool, my computer science degree had a lot of maths classes too. So were you ever taught conditional probability?
>>337586362
a 100% crit chance contradicts the premise.
>>337583149
It is not 25%, the probability of each hit is independent from the other since one is already a crit you only have to count the one left, which is 50/50.
If you are unable to undertand that because of my broken english, just write it down (I will write CRIT as the one that always happens, and crit/no crit as the one we dont know):
1) CRIT; crit
2)CRIT; no crit
3) crit; CRIT
4)no crit; CRIT
2 times out of 4 (50/50) you crit, so its a 50%.
>>337586207
I'm saying that if you don't crit, you are garunteed to crit next
But that's fucking irrelevant for this problem
>>337579023
Four scenarios:
First hit is always crit:
>Crit, crit
>Crit, Hit
Second hit is always crit:
>Hit, crit
>Crit, crit
If you coun't the amount of "crit, crit" there are two out of four.
It's 50%.
>>337586276
If the first hit doesn't crit then the second one will always crit, and viceversa.
>>337586187
That question on the Wiki is flawed and unrelated since it has set an additional criteria (older child and younger child). There is no difference in the hits other than the crit roll.
One hit is a crit. The other hit has a 50% chance to crit. The chance is 50%.
Its 0% you retards
When have you EVER gotten two crits in a row?
>>337586516
Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?
Mr. Smith has two hits. AT least one of them is a crit. What is the probability that both hits are crits?
It's literally the same problem, man...
>>337586572
Yes in high school
Were you ever taught basic English?
>>337586652
IF the first hit doesn't crit the second hit DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER BECAUSE THE FIRST HIT DOESN'T CRIT SO WE ALREADY FAILED
>>337586630
Crit crit doesn't count twice. It's the exact same case.
There aren't four cases, there are three.
>>337586701
>Weapon + Buff 50%< to get crit
>Not get single crit after 20< hit.
>>337586883
There aren't 3. Either one of the hits is a guaranteed crit therefor the 'crit, crit' scenario can be split into two different ones because it's ambiguous which one of the crits is guaranteed.
>>337586630
Thank god someone with a brain posted on this board.
Thank you anon, you are probably one of the few no retarded posters here.
>>337587018
It doesn't matter which one is the 'guaranteed' crit. The hits aren't unqiue.
>>337586883
It counts twice because you know 1 will crit for sure, but you dont know which one. so its
1) CRIT, crit
or
2) crit; CRIT
They arent the same case and as such you have to count both.
>>337586612
1) CRIT; crit
3) crit; CRIT
Never go full retard. There's no difference between crit/crit and crit/crit.
>>337586709
No, it is different
It is different because of the order that the crits happen in
I am 100% sure about this
The chart in the boy/girl problem is rolling for one of four different pairs, but that's not what we're doing here. We're rolling 50%, then rolling 50% again, and we have to get them both right. There's a progression to it that doesn't exist in the boy/girl problem
The second hit doesn't matter if the first hit doesn't crit. the first hit NEEDS to be a crit in order for the statement "both hits are crits" to be true. So we're not rolling once for a pair of outcomes, we're rolling twice for two seperate outcomes.
>>337587226
>>337585583
THESE ARE CORRECT
LOOK AT THESE YOU MOUTHBREATHERS AND THINK ABOUT SHIT INSTEAD OF JUST GOOGLING A SIMILAR PROBLEM
If order matters then there are three case scenarios:
First crits, second doesn't.
First doesn't crit, second does.
Both crit.
The chance is 33%.
If the order does not matter then there are two:
Either of them crit and the other doesn't.
Both of them crit.
The chance is 50%.
>>337587226
WAIT NEVERMIND THIS ONE'S RETARDED
H, C BECOMES A 50% CHANCE SO IT'S 25% BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A 50% CHANCE OF THE FIRST ONE BEING H REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE SECOND ONE IS
SO 0.25/1 IS 25%
>>337587220
>>337587018
>>337587283
I'm completely baffled by this reasoning. There is no difference between a "guaranteed" crit and a regular crit.
You either crit or you don't.
Like, the only way this can play it is like this;
Crit and a hit
Hit and a crit
Hit and a hit
Crit and a crit
Since the only thing that is guaranteed to happen is that hit and a hit doesn't occur, so there are only 3 cases.
Look at the probability trees posted in the thread. They have mathematical reasoning behind them. There are no assumptions, it's just truth.
This shit is Probability 101.
50% since one of them is 100% crit it means there are 2 possible outcomes
1. first is crit, this means second has 50% chance of being crit
2.Second is crit, this means first one has 50% chance of being crit, in both situations it's 50% thus it's 50%
A=probability of two crits=.25
B=probability of at least one crit=.75
P(B|A)=1
P(A|B)=(1 x .25)/.75=1/3
Fucking Bayes' Theorum niggas, 1/3 is the right answer
>>337587429
wow someone who actually accepts multiple answers depending on interpretation. for the record I believe there's a 25 percent chance answer too, see:
roll for first hit, if it doesn't crit then the second will auto crit (50% chance of this scenario)
if the first hit did crit then roll for the second, 50% to crit and 50% to not crit
so the crit-crit scenario is 25% (and crit no crit is 25%)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>>337587384
You quoted 2 different answers lad
>>337579023
It is 1/2 if we are looking at a pair of hits, and are given the information that one particular hit, the first or the second, was a crit.
It is 1/3 if we are looking at a pair of hits and told that at least one crit occurred with no further information.
>>337579023
Zelda Wii U
Wait we're all idiots
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This problem can be solved one of two ways depending on how you look at the information we're given
If it's decided as part of the calculation beforehand, as in it's actually part of the game mechanics that one of these will be a Crit, then it's 25% because of the order of things
If "At least one of the hits is a crit" is something we're being told after the fact, like if we're watching a recording of the two attacks and being told this by someone who's already seen it, but "at least one of the hits is a crit" isn't actually part of the game mechanics, then it's 33%
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was specifically designed to make us argue with each other depending on how we approached it
This is exactly why most game communities are ruined by mini-maxers.
>>337587590
You need to brush up on conditional probability. Just google Bayes' theorem and do some reading.
>H, C BECOMES A 50% CHANCE
It doesn't. You have a 50% crit chance, 0.5*0.5 is 0.25.
>>337587790
you cannot assume that failing to crit will force the second hit to crit like that.
the answer is 1/3
>>337587860
See
>>337587590
>>337587638
You're not listening. You're still looking at them as pairs and not a progression of events
The probability trees have two different answers because one is retarded and doesn't realize that the chance of H, C becomes 50%, not 25% when H,H is removed
>>337587226
there IS a different you retard, you dont know which one is the confirmed one so you ahve to count bopth possibilities because order in math matter.
Never go full retard ;)
>>337587384
The pictures show different results
>>337587996
no, anon, no. there is no ONE answer, this has been discussed to death.
I thought at least one hit had to crit, so if the first one doesnt the second one must (interpreting the problem such that the hits are calculated in order as they happen)
>>337587930
THE FIRST ASSUMPTION CONTRADICTS THE 50% CRIT CHANCE PREMISE
YOURE IDIOTS IF YOU SEE IT THAT WAY
>>337579023
Chess
>>337587701
you have to count 3 situation in one not just both of it.
>>337587996
You can.
There's always a guaranteed crit.
If the first one doesn't you can logically conclude that the second one will due to the rule.
That the first hit is a crit doesn't exclude the second from being the guaranteed one.
Pic related.
>>337587930
>The question was specifically designed to make us argue with each other depending on how we approached it
Of course because idiots without reading comprehension think they know math.
>>337587638
Let me handle this man, my mother tongue is retard.
They're ignoring the 50% crit chance and assuming the critical chance system is set up in such a way that in 2 swings you will always crit at least once. So if you get a hit first you would suddenly have 100% chance to crit on the second. Of course this contradicts the premise, and the only reason to think of such an answer is by being a momentous retard with no grasp of conditional probability whatsoever but that's what's happening here.
ITT: people acting like there's more to this problem than than what it asks for... what purpose? To seem smart on a cantonese jump-rope discussion panel?
>>337579242
VLR is mileages harder than any of those.
>>337587974
Holy shit no fucking listen to me
H, C is a 50% chance because it is the only possible outcome after H, and the possibility of H is 50% because H, H cannot happen. The only thing that can happen with the rules that we are given is H, C. So if you get an H, the chance that the next one will be C is 100%. 100% of 50% is 50%.
>>337579023
The answer is obviously 50%, if you have a true 50% crit chance per hit that is.
>>337588394
For fun now get out and go to other thread talking about you waifu.
>>337588267
There is no rule.
With these 2 random hits in this one particular instance, you do not have 2 misses, but that does not mean it is impossible to ever happen.
>>337588250
no you don't, there is no third state.
It's either
Crit NOT
CRIT CRIT
NOT CRIT
or
CRIT CRIT
>>337587996
That's literally what we're being told you idiot
One must be a crit. If the first one is not a crit, the second one must be a crit. There is no possible outcome where the second one is not a crit after the first one is not a crit
>>337588204
Nigga what
>>337588176
>>337588267
Seriously hoping this is a troll now.
The way this problem works is you write all possible outcomes, then eliminate the impossible based on what you are then told. Seeing as you can't even draw the tree correctly though, I doubt you'll ever get it.
>>337588267
How is a guaranteed crit on the first hit 50% crit chance? That's absurd. It's really the OPs fault because his question was so vague.
>>337588567
>It's either
>Crit NOT
>CRIT CRIT
>NOT CRIT
This is the 3 state.
The Guarantee 1 crit only delete the NOT NOT which make it not become 25%
>>337588398
>harder
I love VLR but ascribing any level of difficulty to these games is arbitrary and retarded. Also half of VLR is literally a fucking hidden object game.
>>337588535
You essentially already know what one of the hits is going to be due to:
>At least one of the hits is a crit.
Then either the first or second hit can be variable (between H an C)
>>337588714
Because the 50% then applies to the second hit and not the first one.
The first hit in your scenario is the guaranteed one. That doesn't eliminate the second one from being a crit.
>>337588381
Yeah, I really don't understand these weird assumptions people are making.
I think I'm going to duck out before I have an aneurysm. The funny thing is that I had almost this exact problem posed before me in a probability and statistics class, and I assumed it was 50% before thinking about it, and I got schooled for it.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
FUCKING LISTEN
YOU WILL GET TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS DEPENDING ON IF YOU ASSUME THAT THE "AT LEAST ONE OF THE HITS IS A CRIT" IS PART OF THE MECHANICS THAT WE APPROACH THE PROBLEM WITH OR A HINT AT WHAT THE TRUE RESULT IS
YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT STOP FUCKING ARGUING
UNLESS YOU THINK IT'S 50%, THEN YOU'RE RETARDED
All possibilities for 2 hits are:
n-n
C-n
n-C
C-C
All possibilities occur with uniform probability.
The last 3 follow the condition of the problem, and only the last one satisfies the problem.
One out of three.
>>337588401
>Holy shit no fucking listen to me
I do, but you're wrong and I'm trying to explain why.
>H, C is a 50% chance
No, it's 1/4 unrestricted, and 1/3 with the restriction of H/H not occurring. Ruling out H/H doesn't increase the probability of H/C compared to the others, it's still as likely to occur as any of the other outcomes.
>The only thing that can happen with the rules that we are given is H, C
No, the only "rule" is that you have a 50% crit chance. The fact that at least one crit is something you're told post-factum and doesn't influence the odds in any way.
> the chance that the next one will be C is 100%
You have a 50% chance to crit. A 100% crit chance contradicts the premise. Your answer is not a viable solution.
>>337588381
>They're ignoring the 50% crit chance and assuming the critical chance system is set up in such a way that in 2 swings you will always crit at least once
That is literally what the problem is telling us
>>337588860
There's no different way of interpreting the question.
>One of the hits is always a crit
>The other has a 50% chance of being one.
4 different outcomes 2 of which is desired means there's 50% chance of a desired outcome.
100%, I don't fuck around with my crits, you fucking noobs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
Mr. Jones has two children. The older child is a girl. What is the probability that both children are girls?
Mr. Smith has two children. At least one of them is a boy. What is the probability that both children are boys?
Gardner initially gave the answers 1/2 and 1/3, respectively; but later acknowledged that the second question was ambiguous.[3] Its answer could be 1/2, depending on how you found out that one child was a boy. The ambiguity, depending on the exact wording and possible assumptions, was confirmed by Bar-Hillel and Falk,[4] and Nickerson.[5]
end your lives
>>337588949
You're making assumptions the problem didn't give you and acting smug about it. So is he. See >>337588860
>>337588954
No, it says in no uncertain terms that you have a 50% chance to crit. Not that you have a crit chance that's sometimes 50% and sometimes 100%, that's something you've made up on your own. Something that contradicts the premise of us having a 50% crit chance.
>>337588994
>>337588954
It's telling you the outcome of 2 entirely arbitary hits, not a mechanic of the crits
>>337588794
That's only if you say "There can't be no crits" BUT we have TWO possibilities that branch out on other two, 4 states, where 2 are identical
>>337588813
No, really. 999 is babby-tier compared to VLR.
>>337589074
Oh wow maybe if you read the thread you'd realize how fucking retarded you are
>>337586203
You have the logical structure right but misunderstand the question, one hit will always crit so we can discount:
both misses.
now to fullfill both parts of the problem we need 2 crits so we can discount any outcomes with a miss,
the only outcome we are left with is both hits which is, therefore, a 75% chance.
>>337588204
OP should have stated or dismiss 50% per hit instead of just saying out of two hits, one being a guaranteed crit (100%) the second hit being 50% or 0% based on absolutely ZERO information from the OP.
Fact is: the equation was stated with a massive flaw. It's like saying 50% times X divided by 100% minus Y.
>>337588994
Well, there are actually two ways to interpret the question if you have dyslexia.
Whether or not the order matters. If the order doesn't matter the problem is actually 50%. But the problem posed in the OP implicitly states that the order doesn't matter.
I think people are confusing this together? That's the only logical conclusion I can come to.
The only other conclusion I can come up with is thatthe people in this thread are dumb and have never done probability
>>337589189
>s-s-s-stop destroying my shitposting thread witha single wiki link
Kill yourself faggot
every single one of these threads is only because the question is ambiguous
Ya'll niggers need god.
Order doesn't matter. At least one of the hits is a crit. That means 1/2 hits is a crit right off the bat. We can ignore that now because no one said that it was the first or second hit. No one cares if it's the first or second hit.
There's 1 hit left to make. There's a 50% chance that it will hit a crit. 1*50% = 1/2
You have a goddamn 1/2 chance of both hits being a crit.
ORDER
DOES
NOT
MATTER
YOU
FUCK
NUGGETS
>>337584678
It's 50%
One of the hits is always a crit so the remaining hit is either a crit or it isn't a crit.
>>337589148
It doesn't specify
>>337588994
You're being fucking stupid
Flip two coins, You're twice as likely to get one heads and one tails than you are to get two heads because there are two possibilities to get one of each and only one possibility to get both heads
00
0-
-0
--
I always love these threads because you can never tell who's joking and who's for real. Like there are legitimately, actually real idiots in this thread who think the answer is 50% and not 25%
>>337588994
If you treat the "one of the hits is a crit" as superfluous information about an arbitrary set of results (and the question as unrelated to this), then it's 25% based on 50% and then 50% again for hit 1 and 2.
If you treat "one of the hits is a crit" as a crit mechanic, then there are only three possibilities:
MC
CM
CC
Which gives us 33%.
Jesus christ guys, if you just apply Bayes' Theorum you literally get 1/3. It's a proven fucking rule of probability. It's not that hard.
"Hide this thread"
I just won, by the way.
>>337589296
If the order doesn't matter the question would've been phrased like this:
"You hit an enemy twice. The first hit is a crit. Assuming a 50% crit chance, what is the probability of both hits being crits."
The way the question is phrased implies the order matters.
>>337589281
The link was already posted MULTIPLE TIMES and discussed you nimrod
>>337589296
You're retarded and I've already explained why read the fucking thread
>>337589207
Its 50% you imbecile, reread the question and stop overthinking it
>>337589087
I'm not. There are only two assumptions, the 50% crit rate and at least one of the two swings being a crit. Both of those are given in the OP.
>YOU WILL GET TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS DEPENDING ON IF YOU ASSUME THAT THE "AT LEAST ONE OF THE HITS IS A CRIT" IS PART OF THE MECHANICS THAT WE APPROACH THE PROBLEM WITH OR A HINT AT WHAT THE TRUE RESULT IS
That right there is assuming something not stated in the problem. Furthermore it contradicts the premise of you having a 50% chance to crit.
>>337589296
I'm never going to understand where all of the belligerent confidence people who have never learned conditional probability get when they're talking about conditional probability comes from.
>>337589482
>s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s--s-s-s-s-top reposting things that DESTROY my shitposting thread
MY
FUCKING
GIGASIDES
>>337589446
>if you just apply Bayes' Theorum you literally get 1/3
Are you retarded? 1/3 is not a 50% chance no matter how you spin it. Go back to school.
>>337589446
No, use your fucking brain, don't just vomit out some shit you read, there are multiple ways to interpret the question
The mostly agreed upon answer to this "problem" is "not enough information is given". Not knowing how "at least one is a crit" is determined makes it unclear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxm4Xxvzohk
Read up 50%fags, it's time to learn some conditional probability and Bayes Theorem
>>337589296
You want to argue the opposite bro, because if you don't know which one, the first or second, was the crit, then you can't use that argument to argue the remaining hit is 50%, because you have no idea which hit is the remaining one.
>>337589296
Shut your goddamn fucking mouth. Let me think for a second.
>>337589486
The problem could be read that way. It doesn't contradict anything, it could simply be a calculation done after the chance to crit
Roll 50% chance to crit
Get not crit
Check if previous hit was a crit
If not, overwrite result, make this one a crit
>>337589157
4 state
1 state can't happen
2 are identical
Only 1 lead us to the Crit Crit
Which make it become 1/3
Except that you say if 1 crit not guaranted it will be 1/3 because the other 2 are identical so count only 1.
>>337589296
It doesn't matter if you care about order or not. It's still 1/3.
You know I can at least understand where the 50% people are coming from due to the vague language of the question regarding how you know at least 1 hit was a crit.
The 25% people are bonkers though.
>>337582041
holy fuck you are one stupid motherfucker
2 and 3 are the same thing, 1 critical hit and one not. The question is what are the odds that both hits are crits. It's 50%
So is it one hit is always going to crit, or that the second hit will crit if the first hit did'nt? This is important. Anyone who tries to answer these question without proper understanding is a fool.
>>337589617
If people try to refute this or say that it's irrelevant, I'm going to literally kill myself.
>>337579023
KOTOR 1 has some pretty challenging logic and mathematics puzzles. I don't think they're all required, but you'll have to play darkside to solve everything with violence or destruction.
>>337589580
You never assume information you were explicitly given in a math problem. It gives information about the set of both hits and not of either hit individually, and so that's what we have to use.
>>337586175
25% is the chance that both are crits if it isn't guaranteed that one is a crit. But since it says that one hit will definitely be a crit, then the odds of them both being crits goes up to 50%.
>>337586203
this anon is correct. it's the same as the coin flip. the rest of you are fucking stupid
>>337589698
>If not, overwrite result, make this one a crit
That's not a 50% chance to crit, so it contradicts the premise.
>>337589785
They are not the same thing, they are 2 separate elements with equal probabilities.
You are not giving the "1 Crit 1 Not" event its proper weight if you disregard those as the same.
CC
CH
HC
HH
-HH
CC
CH
HC
1/3
>>337589826
I can imagine this problem being posed in a class and some neckbeard in the back of the class starts spouting about game mechanics.
>HOW CAN U SOLVE THIS WITHOUT KNOWING HOW THE CRIT SYSTEM WORKS
>>337589373
It is obviously the implication of the question, based on the coin flip question, the order that information is given and the fact that a game mechanic like that is retarded.
You can actually make a program to simulate this.
Make two accumulator variables, one for when you get two crits and one for when you get one crit. Then, make a loop that iterates many times. In each iteration, use RNG to generate 1 or 0, twice. Sum these two random numbers together to represent three cases: two crits, one crit, or no crits.
If you get the two crits case, increment the variable you made to accumulate instances of two crits. Else, if you get the one crit case, increment that variable you made to accumulate instances of one crit. Else, redo the iteration. Finally, print the results.
On each run, you'll find an approximate success:fail ratio of 1:2.
I'm a retard when it comes to probability, but wouldn't the chance be 50%? One hit is always going to be a crit, and the other always has a 50% chance, therefore there is a 50% chance of both being crits, no?
>>337589813
it's irrelevant
>>337586041
Ghost Trick isn't a visual novel, it's a puzzle game.
>>337589781
25% derives from ignoring the "1 hit was a crit" part as unrelated to the final question and just working out 2 crits from 2 hits with 50% crit chance.
>>337589826
That's cool. Doesn't mean "At least one is a crit" isn't an ambiguous statement.
>>337589794
People have already stated that OPs problem is flawed. The best answer would be a 50% chance on the second hit regardless of the first already have crit.
The 25% and the 1/3 people are absolute idiots though because just because the first hit crit does not degrade the second hit's crit chance below 50%. At least that is what is assumed from OPs shit question.
>>337589617
Literally irrelevent. At least one hit will always be a crit as per g8ven in tge wuestion, which means the other hit will either be a crit or not leaving only two probabilities, one critical or two criticals
I'm
>>337586630.
and I agree with this:
>>337590058
>>337590074
So give us the 1/2 relevant ,dear mr.irrelevant.
>>337590058
If the order doesn't matter, yes.
If the order matters, no.
>>337590241
>So give us the 1/2 relevant
what
>>337590204
>>337590058
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bayes%27+theorem
There's 3 different ways you can program this to get all 3 results.
One of the two hits is randomly chosen to be critical, then the other hit is calculated, which you get 50%.
Both hits are calculated, if both hits are hits then the calculation happens again until a critical happens, which then you get 33%.
The first hit is calculated. If it's a critical, then the next hit is calculated. If it's a hit, then the next hit is changed to a critical, to which you get 25%.
So yeah it all depends on the programmer's interpretation I guess.
>>337590136
It's not. It gives explicit information on the set {hit 1, hit 2}, and any further assumptions, like that we only have that information because we know that {hit 1} was a crit, are baseless.
>>337589617
What the fuck are you talking about? How does Bayes Theorem help equate anything in the OP at all? A 50% chance per hit DOES NOT have diminishing returns on the second hit regardless of a 100% chance on the first hit, which I assume already happened.
>>337590320
I don't have javascript enabled. Try harder.
>>337590140
25% chance comes from
1/2 x 1/2
50% chance comes from
1/2 x 1/1(guaranteed crit)
In the first scenario the guaranteed to crit part doesn't factor amount of double crits.
That's why I'm confused about this shit, the problem lacks information to distinguish between the two.
>>337590140
>The best answer would be a 50%
I do my first hit, and miss. I had a 50% chance to miss. The second being a hit by mechanics is irrelevant.
I do my first hit and crit. I can still miss the second hit.
Hence we can at the very least here understand that the chance of failing must be above 50%.
>>337590321
>One of the two hits is randomly chosen to be critical
Having a 100% crit chance contradicts the premise.
>If it's a hit, then the next hit is changed to a critical
Having a 100% crit chance contradicts the premise.
You're left with only 1 valid interpretation as the other two contradict the premise.
>>337590369
What are you talking about, you can't assume the first hit was a crit, it could have been either hit.
Question: What are the odds that both hits are crits, if at least one hit is a crit?
Answer: 50%.
This is the probability of A given B, where A is "both hits are crits" and B is "at least one hit is a crit."
It's pretty simple.
>>337587787
just let them argue, this is fucking hilarious
>>337590505
>you can't assume the first hit was a crit
But it's in the OP as part of the equation my boy.
>this thread
It's all a joke, right guys?right?
>>337590058
Just draw the probability tree.
Making two hits at a 50% crit rate gives four possible outcomes of equal probability 0.25 - hit then hit, hit then crit, crit then hit, crit then crit.
We know that at least one crit, and so the conditional step removes the outcome with no crits: hit then hit. The probability of (crit then crit) is its unconditional probability over the total probability of the remaining outcomes, or 0.25 / 0.75.
>>337589945
I can't believe half of these thread is linking to fucking wikipedia articles and talking about running theorems and shit.
There's three outcomes. It's asking what the likelihood of getting one of the three is. A fucking child could do this.
>>337590330
>It's not.
It is.
>It gives explicit information on the set
It is an ambiguous part of a WORD PROBLEM.
Go ahead, express the information "at least 1 is true" using numbers alone.
>>337590486
Alright then, there you go. I was just putting every interpretation in its programming equivalent.
>>337580749
literally this
>>337584678
>american education
>>337590618
Learn to read before you learn to math son.
>>337590053
You can do the same shit with a single coin anon
Flip a coin, flip a coin again, but if the first result was tails change it to heads.
>>337590691
Have you ever fucking seen a probability problem in your life?
ALL of them are word problems.
>>337590663
This is just a shit tier /b/ thread with coins changed to crits to make it about videogames
>>337590663
Outcomes being 100% random and pre-determining information about the outcomes such that one of the outcomes is impossible, are two mutually exclusive concepts
>>337590691
Maths and numbers are not the same thing. It is a maths problem, asked in a fairly standard form for a question on conditional probability, and it explicitly gives information on a set of results.
>>337590505
Are you high or did you just not take the time to read it?
With that said though I think the guaranteed crit hit on the first attack is a distraction from the overall equation and thus irrelevant to the answer.
>>337590824
Neato burrito. Totally irrelevant, though. Doesn't make it any less ambiguous.
>>337590663
That's like saying If I painted a 6 sided die with 1 on 5 sides and a 2 on 1 side the chances of getting a 2 are 50%.
>>337590919
Okay. It's expressed with this thing called the "english language". Ambiguity is such a part of using words to convey meaning that we actually have a word for ambiguity in our speech. It's "ambiguity".
uh
meme
final answer
>>337579023
H/C
C/H
1/3 Claim
>Both Different
1/2 Claim
>Both Identical
So does the Identical different ?
Does 2 twin with exact same genes and same nourish and active, but not same location different?
>Yes 1/3
>No 1/2
http://www.braingle.com/brainteasers/29228/two-coins.htmlYou might initially think that the answer is 1/2, but it is not so.
>>337590791
I'm sorry but no matter how you put it guarantee is always 100% no matter what you say. Math doesn't lie unless the problem is flawed, which it is, but the answer in this case is still 50% based on the equation.
Delude yourself with false math all you want but you cannot fool anyway when you say a glass of water is half full when you can clearly see it is completely empty.Queer.
>>337590989
That's not even equivalent.
>>337590656
Hit then crit and crit then hit are equivalent because the order of crits is irrelevant.
The problem is essentially asking
>The crit chance is 50%. One hit is a crit. What are the odds that the other hit is also a crit?
And the answer is 50%, because they're independent events.
>>337590053
In lua. Works slightly differently, but the concept is still the same
If order matters: 33%
If order does not matter: 50%
But why would the order matter?
Let me rephrase this question to try and make more sense.
I am replacing 2 lightbulbs in a dark room.
I have a 50% chance of picking a good bulb, and a 50% chance of picking a burnt out bulb.
I screw in the bulbs and flick on a light switch in the hallway. I can see light coming from the room.
What are the odds both bulbs work?
>>337591197
But there's 2 outcomes anon, its 50/50
>>337591241
>And the answer is 50%, because they're independent events.
It's assumed but it's not stated in the OP and I think this is the reason so many people are confused. I agree though, based on the information, it is a 50% crit chance.
>>337590964
If the first hit isn't and the second hit is a crit, the condition "at least one of the hits is a crit" is true without the first hit being a crit. Your interpretation removes a possibility that is not explicitly removes by the question.
>>337591241
Saying something is irrelevant doesn't make it true. If you flip a coin, you are more likely to get two different results that two of the same result, because order does matter and (HT or TH) is twice as likely as either one of HH or TT.
>>337591298
Why wouldn't it matter? They're two distinct events.
>>337591195
Point to the word "guarantee" in the problem, dumb trash.
>>337591359
0.25%
>ITT: anons getting mad at each other over using different models of a problem.
>>337586203
Missing isnt a variable though.
It says you hit it twice,so missing is impossible. So theres only 2 options
Crit, Hit
or Crit Crit
50%
>>337591389
There's three outcomes.
>>337591449
Whether you have HTT or THT or TTH is irrelevant if the question is only about the number of heads.
The odds of crit A being true are 50% no matter whether crit B is true or false. If we assume B is true, then the question "what are the odds that both crits are true?" has an answer equal to the probability that crit A is true.
There are two outcomes:
1 crit
2 crits
Each has a 50% chance of being true.
>>337591449
>If the first hit isn't
It clearly states that the first hit is a guaranteed crit though. How else can you put it? There is no "if the first hit isn't" because the first hit clearly is/has critted already. You CANNOT, for the love of god, say that the hit didn't crit when surely you can see it already did.
That is why the first hit is irrelevant to the question because the only probability that matters is the second hit, does it crit or does it not crit and based on OPs own data it has a 50% to crit.
You hit the enemy with your life points as damage,
Upon killing him you will regain life points spent, failure to do so will result in your death.
How do kill?
>arguing about solved problems
This has been analyzed to death on this board, and it was analyzed to death by mathematicians as the "Boy or Girl paradox" even before /v/ got a hold of it.
Fact: If you are merely told that you got "at least one" crit (or equivalently that you got "not zero" crits), you can only rule out one of four equally probable outcomes, and therefore the answer is 1/3.
CC - 1/3
CN - 1/3
NC - 1/3
NN - ruled out
Fact: If you know you got at least one crit because you checked the result of one particular attack and observed that it was a crit, you can rule out two of four equally probable outcomes, and therefore the answer is 1/2.
CC - 1/2
CN - 1/2
NC - ruled out
NN - ruled out
>hurr durr you're wrong
If you think I'm wrong about anything written above, you should look up "Boy or Girl paradox" on Wikipedia, because the situation there is the same. In other words, if you think I'm wrong, the explanation of the equivalent problem on Wikipedia is wrong too, and you've got some editing to do. Get to it! Bonus points if your edits aren't reverted by people who actually know about probability. You might even have to engage in an edit war with a mathematician. Good luck! Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
The critical hit problem is ambiguous for exactly the same reason that the second question of The Two Children Problem is ambiguous: If all we know is that we have at least one boy/crit, the probability of two boys/crits is 1/3. If we know we have at least one boy/crit because we looked at one child/hit and saw a boy/crit, then the answer is 1/2. Your intuition probably tells you that such a subtle difference in the interpretation of the problem shouldn't change the answer, but it does.
>>337591817
Now you just trolling
>>337591817
First hit is not a guaranteed hit. That's why order matters in the problem.
ITT: fags who took a 100 level stats class
if one is always going to hit then you're just left with a coin toss
>>337585512
you and everyone else saying 33% is wrong
you're assuming we care which order they hit, its just asking the probability they will both hit, nothing about order or whether the first or second is the one hitting. none of that matters. You know for a fact that one of them will always hit so it might as well not even be factored in. You're left with a 50/50
>>337591806
We can't assume either is true. We can only assume what we're given: that at least one of the set is true. It's not the same thing.
>>337591817
>It clearly states that the first hit is a guaranteed crit though.
No, it clearly doesn't. It says that at least one is a crit. That is very clearly a possible outcome without the first one critting.
>>337591264
you fucked up
>>337591892
It's no use man, I tried to use this as proof of my solution but people think that the problem is irrelevant.
Get out while you're still sane.
Regardless of wether it's the first or second hit that is always going to hit, the other one has a 50% chance, does it not?
Like, lets say it's the first hit that always is a critical, the chance that I have of rolling another critical after the first one is 50%.
Instead, if the second hit is the critical one, then the first hit has a 50% chance of being another critical. Forgive my stupidity, but is it not always 50% the chance of rolling both criticals?
>>337592150
Does this board also disagree with Bayes' theorem?
Okay, yeah, let's use Bayes' theorem.
P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)
where
P(A|B) = probability of event A, given that event B occurs
P(B|A) = probability of event B, given that event A occurs
P(A) = probability of event A
P(B) = probability of event B
Once again, if we're attacking twice with a 50% crit chance, the four equally probable outcomes are
CC - 1/4
CN - 1/4
NC - 1/4
NN - 1/4
So let A be the event that you get two crits (CC). The probability of this occurring alone is
P(A) = 1/4
Now let B be the event that you simply get "at least one" crit (CC/CN/NC) or, in otherwords, "not zero" crits (not NN). The probability of this occurring alone is
P(B) = 3/4
The probability of getting at least one crit, given that you get two crits, is obviously
P(B|A) = 1
Now Bayes' theorem gives the result: The probability that you get two crits, given that you get at least one crit, is
P(A|B) = (1) * (1/4) / (3/4) = 1/3
But then there's the other interpretation.
Let B instead be the event that you observed the result of one attack and found that it was a crit (CC/CN but not NC/NN). The probability of this occurring alone is
P(B) = 1/2
The probability that one attack is observed to be a crit, given that you get two crits, is obviously
P(B|A) = 1
Now Bayes' theorem gives a different result: The probability that you get two crits, given that you observed the result of one attack and found a crit, is
P(A|B) = (1) * (1/4) / (1/2) = 1/2
The answer depends on how you found out that you got at least one crit. It's that simple.
>faggots arguing over whether the question is 2-permutation or 2-selection
the question is ambiguous
>>337592085
Doesn't matter which hit crit there answer is still 1/2 but only if you have 100% accuracy and the hit has no chance to miss. If it does have a chance to miss than I guess you could say the chances of it critting is 1/3.
>>337592304
this
everyone saying 50/50 is assuming selection
everyone saying 1/3 is assuming permutation
dumb question
>>337592041
You don't know which one it is that hit though
>>337592150
>>337591892
>>337592270
They will call it irrelevance while don't have any relavance compare it.
Just let them be.
Not all can learn.
>>337591943
>order matters
It does not.
If the first hit is a crit, there is a 50% chance that both hits are crits.
If the second hit is a crit, there is a 50% chance that both hits are crits.
0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
0.25 + 0.25 = 0.5
Therefore there is a 50% chance of both being crits.
This is mathematically obvious and you're only having trouble with it because you keep insisting that order matters when it clearly does not. It doesn't matter which hit we call the "guaranteed hit" because you can select that guaranteed hit randomly (50% chance of each) and still get 50%.
>>337592270
Your equation is irrelevant because the op doesn't state if hits can miss.
>>337592041
>You know for a fact that one of them will always hit so it might as well not even be factored in
Again, this is not how conditional probability works. Knowing information about a set of outcomes and knowing information about the individual outcomes are not the same thing.
>>337592334
The question doesn't say that either was guaranteed to crit. It says that at least one of the two did crit.
Suppose that it said instead "they didn't both fail to crit", which is an equivalent statement.
>>337592457
You're legitimately retarded, aren't you?
the amount of stupid in this thread is astounding.
>>337591359
1/3, see: >>337581220
>>337592457
There is no "guaranteed" crit. You make two 50% attacks, then are told that, of those attacks, there was at least one crit.
>>337591892
Cheers anon. I'd been arguing for 1/3 but now I see how it's ambiguous. When I read the question I just assumed it was a 'you were told' question because that's how I normally see this kind of thing.
>>337584678
>depending on your point of view
that's not how math works bud
>>337592457
>clearly
>clearly
>clearly
How is it CLEARLY a problem where the order doesn't matter?
Seriously, fuck your assumptions.
>>337592457
50% is one of two possible answers based on the interpretation of the problem.
Your interpretation is that "one hit is a crit" means that one particular hit, first or second, is chosen to be a crit.
The other interpretation is that "one hit is a crit" means that either hit, and we don't know which one, is a crit. So the possibilities are
Crit / Crit
Crit / Hit
Hit / Crit
out of the four initially equally probable outcomes
Crit / Crit
Crit / Hit
Hit / Crit
Hit / Hit
so we are left with only three equally probable outcomes and the answer is about 33%.
The question is deliberately phrased in an ambiguous way.
>>337592567
That's not me but he's not wrong, you are but you are only wrong because of the flaw introduced in the problem.
>>337592391
why does it matter? Its simply asking the probability both will hit, nothing about the order.
>>337592709
.... is that Java?
>>337592783
But you're the one that is wrong.
>>337592472
Miss will create an Extra one instead, like C(Crit) N(Hit) A(Miss) you retard.
Even those 1/2 not talking about a Miss.
>>337592648
>There is no "guaranteed" crit.
Not him but that's a lie. One of the hits, regardless of which one is a guaranteed crit, it says so.
>>337592648
if one of them will always hit, then its guaranteed
the first or second are not guaranteed but one is guaranteed to be a crit
>>337592085
>We can't assume either is true. We can only assume what we're given: that at least one of the set is true. It's not the same thing.
Yes, at least one of the set is true.
So we have one crit or we have two crits.
If we have at least one crit, and the set contains two hits, what are the odds we have exactly two crits?
50%
>>337592567
>Here's the math proving you wrong
>YOU'RE RETARDED
>>337592472
It states that there are two hits. Missing is not a factor.
The first comment should be 50% and the thread should have been over
>>337592865
>cout
>java
>>337592861
But they're both separate and distinct events. Literally no reason to assume order isn't a factor to it, especially since it changes the solution.
>>337592472
There's no "missing" in my equations, dingus.
Reminder, again, that this is merely a variation of a well-known paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox#Bayesian_analysis
>>337593003
>Missing is not a factor.
Then there is no assumption, the answer is obviously 50%.
>>337592861
Its possible for only the first to crit.
Its possible for only the second to crit.
And its possible for both to crit.
All with equal probability.
You are acting like both critting is equal in probability to both single crit events combined.
>>337593056
I didn't mean to post that image
>>337593003
>He retarded
>Get called retarded
Just man up. Admit you were wrong.
>>337592709
>decrementing you're incrementer within a loop
>>337593160
Do you understand Bayes' theorem?
The analysis in >>337592270 does not depend on an assumption that attacks can miss. No such thing is mentioned in the post.
Fucking faggots learn to fucking read first.
It says "You HIT an enemy twice", see that? You HIT IT, there is no miss.
It says "At least ONE of the hits is a crit", at least ONE, ONE is always a crit, 100% doesn't matter if it's the first or the second, ONE is always a CRIT, order doesn't fucking matter.
So from 2 HITS you have ONE CRIT, your crit chance is 50% and that's all that matter here, 50%.
>>337592764
The math behind the 33% assumption is sound but the logic is wrong. The order is irrelevant because the question only asks about the number of crits.
>>337593214
But I'm not. It doesn't matter whether the first hit or the second hit crits.
The odds of one arbitrary hit critting is 50%. If the other hit is already a crit, then the odds of both being crits is 50%.
>>337592709
Can I play too?
>>337593176
that has nothing to do with 33%
There are two attacks
One of them is always a crit
The other one is the one that has a 50% chance.
The fact we know one is always a crit means we can knock it out and only worry about the single attakc.
It's a fucking 50% chance.
>>337593064
no it doesnt change the solution, either the non-guaranteed one will hit or it won't, you dont need to know which is the non-guanrteed one because the question isn't asking that.
here it might help if i rephrase it so you can better understand it
one WILL hit
the other will either hit or miss
what is the probability the uncertain one will hit?
50%
we are given NO reason to care about which is the guaranteed one and which is not
>>337593176
no im not
im counting the 1st hit being guaranteed and the 2nd hit being guaranteed as the same event because in the frame of the question, it doesnt matter which is which.
>>337592973
>if one of them will always hit
Again, not how conditional probability works. Being told the outcome of a random event doesn't mean it was non-random. It's like asking "I flip a fair coin and get heads. What were the odds of that?" and saying "100%, because we know you got heads".
We are told that at least one was a crit, and so we discount the outcomes in which that condition is false, and only those outcomes.
>>337593417
Order does matter because the first hit can be a crit and the second not a crit. Or vice versa.
Since they are two different outcomes, order matters.
>>337593537
>One of them is always a crit
>The other one is the one that has a 50% chance.
No no no, both hits have a 50% chance, and out of both of them at least one is a crit, we can't say which.
Assuming there is a guaranteed critical:
I hit once, if the first hit is the guaranteed critical, then my second hit has a 50% chance of being a critical, therefore a 50% chance of both being criticals.
I hit once, if the first hit is not the guaranteed critical, then I have a 50% chance of it being a critical, while the second one is a guaranteed critical, therefore there is a 50% chance of both being criticals.
In both cases, there is a 50% chance of both hits being critical.
>>337593538
>no it doesnt change the solution,
The reason this problem is so infamous is because that small interpretation changes the solution. Don't be retarded.
>>337593241
First way I could think of that "undid" the instance.
>>337593417
I hit your mom twice and I crit her both times. What is the probability of that? Fucking queer.
Wait a minute, that card.
>>337593537
>One of them is always a crit
No. They could both have been non-crits, because they were both made at a 50% crit rate. In this case, we know (because the problem told us) that at least one crit, but that doesn't mean either had to, just that this time it did. It's a standard probability question.
>>337593484
>The math behind the 33% assumption is sound but the logic is wrong. The order is irrelevant because the question only asks about the number of crits.
The logic is not wrong.
Ordered:
CC - 25%
CH - 25%
HC - 25%
HH - 25%
Unordered:
2C - 25%
1H1C - 50%
2H - 25%
Either way, it's valid to interpret the problem such that only one possibility (HH or 2H) is ruled out, leaving this:
Ordered
CC - 33%
CH - 33%
HC - 33%
Unordered:
2C - 33%
1H1C - 67%
>>337593598
false equivalence.
we're being told the outcome before it happens and they are two separate events, so if one is always guaranteed a certain outcome and the question isn't asking us to specify which, then yes, one of them will always hit and it doesn't matter which
>>337593721
Its a 50 % chance, but in this case, we know one is always a crit. It doesn't matter which one it is. The order in which they happen it doesn't matter.
>>337593876
Yes they could have been, but THIS FUCKING CASE WE KNOW ONE OF THEM IS ALWAYS A CRIT
You people are fucking stupid
>Sudden influx of 50% posts
>IP count doesn't go up
baiting math nerds is fun but put in a little more effort
>>337593528
Fuck off snakenigger
>>337593639
>Since they are two different outcomes, order matters.
fucking
hell
where does the problem say order matters? where? it is simply asking for the probability both will be successful crits. Order or which will hit is literally not part of the goddamned question. Order does not matter because order is not part of the fucking question
>>337593876
So what you're saying is that its either 50% or 0%?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph4ufPyVDDo
>>337593969
But you have 2 different cases where only one crit could have occurred compared to only 1 case where both crits occurred.
>>337593756
Its not an interpretation you fucking monkeyman, its a fact that the problem is not asking for order or stressing any importance of it. I'm simply answering what the question is asking, probability of two crits landing when one is going to hit everytime.
>>337593639
It doesn't because it's the same coin flip, cri/x or x/crit is the same thing, the result of X depends on the 50% flip.
>>337593820
I would say 100% since you already told me the results.
>>337594151
but those two different cases are counted as the same thing because the problem is not asking for order
>ONE HIT WILL ALWAYS BE CRITICAL
>THE OTHER HAS A 50% OF BEING CRITICAL
>WHAT IS THE CHANCE OF BOTH BEING CRITICALS?
Anyone who can't comprehend how to reach an answer of 1/3 needs to stay in school.
Yes, 1/2 can be correct depending on interpretation, but the way the problem words "at least one of the hits" rather than simply "one of the hits" makes me believe it is not that interpretation.
1/3
If your answer is 1/16 just go back to high school
>>337593805
it's whatever in a 1 method proof of concept thing like this
it's just one of those things that drives you crazy for an hour trying to figure out what the FUCK is going on when you're adding a feature to something someone else did in a huge project
>>337580749
You know I never understood this.
If we take 'two crits in a row' and define it as a single event...
then given many many shots the event 'two crits'... won't be 50%. it will be less.
Because any two shots you pick can be:
Crit / Crit
Crit / Not crit
Not Crit/ Not Crit
Not Crit / Crit
in that case it's less than 50% chance to get crit crit.
Inately, flipping coins and getting two heads in a row is not as likely as NOT getting two heads in a row.
Thus the second head which completes the set can't be 50%.
>>337594393
NOOOOOOOOO THE ORDER MATTERS EVEN THOUGH THE PROBLEM ISN'T ASKING FOR ORDER
YOU'RE COUNTING
1 BEING A CRIT
AND 2 BEING A CRIT
AS THE SAME THIIIIIIIIIIIINGoh yeah thats right they are the same fucking thing because the problem isn't asking about order
>>337594119
No.
>>337593969
>but THIS FUCKING CASE WE KNOW ONE OF THEM IS ALWAYS A CRIT
No, we don't. We know that at least one of the two was a crit, which is not the same thing as knowing that either particular one would always have been a crit. It's literally a rephrasing of the boy-or-girl paradox.
>>337593960
Probability works from known to unknown, not from past to future.
>>337594279
Tell me then, with 2 coins am I equally likely to flip 2 Tails as I am to get 1 Heads & 1 Tails?
>>337594414
>depending on interpretation
There is not interpretation. The hit cannot miss so the answer is 1/2. 1/3fags are wrong and need to stop with their bad math.
This was a good thread
I had fun in this thread
Carry on
>ctrl+f "none"
>1 result irrelevant to the topic
None. Videogames are for children.
>>337594467
now this one is easy
33%
1 hit 1 fail (order does not matter because this problem is not asking for order)
both fail
both hit
>>337594185
Just because order isn't explicitly mentioned, doesn't mean it's not important. Especially in probability problems.
>>337594027
If the first hit is not a crit, the second hit's probability of critting is 100% in your code, in contradiction to the problem statement of a 50% crit chance. Indeed, if that is the in-game logic, then your overall crit chance is clearly >50%.
>>337594521
>Probability works from known to unknown, not from past to future.
only it does when one of the outcomes is literally rigged and the problem doesn't specify order as a concern
stop baiting pls
>it's a Boy or Girl paradox thread
>>337594425
20%, r-right?
>>337594662
Not so easy since you got it wrong.
>>337594754
The question does not say that outcomes are rigged.
>>337591748
The dice anon
>>337594494
To extend on it, there's a gambling strategy called Martingale that works by simply doubling the bet each time you lose. So when you finally do win you make back everything you lost and maybe a bit extra.
The problem ofcourse is that if the string of losses becomes so large that you lose all your money and can't double during the next turn.
But this is the only objection, it works because the chance of repeated losses become smaller and smaller the more times you lose.
If you flip a coin 5 times and it is heads 5 times, what's the probability of the next flip being heads?
Is it very small due to the probability of getting so many heads in a row?
is it 50% exactly, just as it was on the first flip?
Is it some superposition of these probabilities? 25%?
It seems paradoxical.
>>337594467
25% right?
>>337594279
ok but even if you count them as the same thing, there's a higher chance that thing will happen vs one of the others
>>337594467
..1/4?
>>337594425
100% because the problem said that's what i got
>>337594956
>>337594979
Sorry, can't be guys, everyone else has been saying order doesn't matter means Crit-Hit and Hit-Crit are the same.
So I have to say 1/3.
>>337579023
its unknown
random number generators (RNG) ignores % chance to occur. a labeled 30% chance to proc is sometimes looking like 75% and others like 0.2%
you get streaks and dry spells.they only seem accurate over larger pools of instances. so its less about the 1 hit before and more about the last 100
It's a trick question due to the variance in ways to calculate it. You can consider one hit and then the other. The answer would be 33% then. If you just consider both hits happening simultaneously then it's 50%.
>>337594425
There are four positions and I need a tails in one of them. 4(0.5^4)
>>337594703
>assuming instructions that aren't written in a math problem
how did you pass school. It IS asking the probability both will hit. What reason do you have to assume order is factored in? How am i even having this debate? The problem is clear as day. What is the probability both will hit? It just plainly does not fucking specify the importance of order. Its just not there. Its not in the fucking problem. Why are you assuming this if it isn't there?
>>337594662
I just can't tell with these guys maybe hes trolling, maybe he's stupid, maybe its failing education systems.
>>337579023
The only correct answer is 50%
One hit is guaranteed, so it can be ignored in the calculation.
>>337594871
>ONE
>WILL
>ALWAYS
>CRIT
>NO WHERE DOES THE PROBLEM ASK FOR ORDER
THAT SOUNDS PRETTY FUCKING RIGGED TO ME
>>337595242
I assumed he was making fun of people who used the same logic to come up with an answer of 50% for OP's problem.
>>337586630
Dipshit this is basic probaility, the probability of two events happening is prob of event one times prob of event two
0.50 times 0.50 = 0.25 or 1 over 4.
>>337594815
how did you even get 1/5
>>337595203
correct
>>337579023
0%.
You know the game is never gonna give you that much luck.
>>337594953
>it works because the chance of repeated losses become smaller and smaller the more times you lose.
You mean that it doesn't work because it doesn't.
>>337595280
No, at least one DID crit.
>>337594961
nope
either both will hit
or
one will hit
literally as simple as that
not sure how you can debate this
>>337595279
>hundreds of replies
>people still come barging into the thread boldly proclaiming this rudimentary understanding of a problem which has been shown to be ambiguous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
>>337595280
No. At least one of the two hits has a crit. Neither are guarenteed.
Reading comprehension people, its important.
Result can be either..
A: Crit, then Hit
B: Hit, then Crit
C: Crit, then Crit
So 33% of them BOTH being crits.
>>337594841
>>337595242
good bait
if you're not baiting, explain how I was wrong
is it not true that there are 3 possible outcomes considering the fact that order is not a concern?
both hit
none hit
only 1 hits
1 out of those 3 is the desired outcome
how is that not 33%?
>>337595436
You know that the goal of this thread is to piss off as many people as possible, right?
>>337595345
>No, at least one DID crit
and at least one will EVERY TIME
>>337595437
the problem literally says one will be a crit everytime. How is that not the fucking definition of guaranteed
>>337595436
naw bub, you're just retarded. if one hit is guaranteed to be a crit, you only need to know the chance of the other hit being a crit too, which is 50%
>>337595494
H-C and C-H are different outcomes you mongoloid
>All the people arguing for 50%, which is a valid answer, but with completely flawed and incorrect logic
As a math major, kill me.
>>337595448
A and B are the same. 1 is hitting. The problem doesn't ask the probability of the second or first hitting, just of both being crits.
>>337579023
25% two crits occur
75% one crit occurs
0% chance no crits occur
>>337595685
>math major
>>337595686
>A and B are the same
Of course they're not.
Let's say I crit and I manage to kill a guy because of it, that's totally different than first hitting, not killing the guy, getting hit, then critting and way overkilling him
So yeah. Hit crit. Crit hit. Crit crit. These are your possibilities. Those are your odds.
>>337595663
I KNOW THEY'RE DIFFERENT BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER TO THE PROBLEM YOU CUM DRINKER
ITS NOT ASKING FOR ORDER
ITS ASKING THE PROBABILITY OF BOTH HITTING
H-C AND C-H ARE THE SAME EVENT IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF THIS PROBLEM, ONLY 1 IS HITTING
ITS ASKING FOR THE PROBABILITY OF BOTH HITTING, NOTHING ABOUT ORDER
>>337595613
No, it doesn't. "You hit an enemy twice": a single set of two trials, not something magically forced to happen every single time you hit something twice, just as if it had said "you flip two coins".
>>337595280
no, you are mis-understood the question. He is not saying every time you hit twice, you are guaranteed to hit at least once, he is saying there was one instance that someone hit twice, and you are given that in that particular situation, at least one hit crit.
The 50% chance to crit is probability information applyable to all uses of this weapon. The "at least one is a crit" is historical information applicable to exactly one case.
>>337595613
No, it literally says "one is a crit" that is historical information of one instance. It means "one did crit"
>>337595754
That is not how probability trees work.
>>337595754
crit/no crit
and
no crit/crit
should be counted as the same event because the problem does not specify order as a concern and in both events, only 1 is hitting. The only information that is important from that outcome in reference to the problem is that 1 is connecting. Order is not a concern.
>>337595776
What the heck is wrong with that?
I got a decent job coming out of college this year, enjoyed what I did, and got some programming and financial knowledge.
>>337595808
holy fuck imagine being this mad and dumb at the same time
>>337595783
but we're not asking the probability of killing a guy in one hit or being told how much hp he has or even given any scenario at all like that
we're simply being asked what is the probability of both hitting, imagine this is being done on an invincible training dummy.
>>337595834
>you flip two coins
wrong, the correct thing to say would be, you flip two coins and one of them (you dont know which but it isn't important) will always be heads.
>>337596070
You mean of both critting.
If Hit and Crit are the same, then you simply put them together and you end up with 50%. It's not rocket science Anon.
>>337595808
Okay, they're the same. You either get two crits, or a crit and a hit.
But they're still twice as likely, because if the first hit is a non-crit, then we can never get two crits but we can still get a hit and a crit, and if the first hit is a crit, we're still just as likely to get a hit and a crit as we are to get two crits.
This "order does / doesn't matter" idea is a red herring for both sides. It's irrelevant how you think of it, the probabilities are still the same.
>>337595976
but if you miss the first crit your guranteed a crit on the second since at least one must crit. If you crit the first time the second id guareented to be a crit
>>337595863
>No, it literally says "one is a crit" that is historical information of one instance. It means "one did crit"
even if it already happened, why does that suddenly make order matter? The problem still isn't specifying that as a concern.
>>337596154
I think this >>337591359 version of the problem best shows it.
>>337596154
But it doesn't say "will always be". It says "is". One of them "is" a heads, but might not have been until you checked and might not be again next time, because the question certainly doesn't say anything other than that it's a 50% chance.
>>337595635
>he didn't even read the Wikipedia article
>>337595436
Well, that's resolved then. I guess it is ambiguous after all. I'm certainly not going to argue with famous statisticians.
>Gardner initially gave the answers 1/2 and 1/3, respectively; but later acknowledged that the second question was ambiguous.[3] Its answer could be 1/2, depending on how you found out that one child was a boy. The ambiguity, depending on the exact wording and possible assumptions, was confirmed by Bar-Hillel and Falk,[4] and Nickerson.[5]
>>337596184
this was the first post to actually explain this to me correctly
now i understand
the probability is boosted in favor of hit/miss because hit/miss has two conditions. So order still doesn't matter however it DOES boost the chances of a hit/miss scenario
so i guess its 33%
neat
>>337596247
The proper word here is "permutations". Not exactly the same thing as order, but very similar, and is relevant to probability.
Is dps normalized?
50% normies gtfo
I don't care if it is a valid answer, if your mind didn't instinctively go to conditional probability, then get out of my internet.
>>337579023
The answer is you don't really know because you are just assuming something, but actually it could be anywhere from 0% to 100%
>>337595371
because when you have 2 attempts, there are more chances at least one will hit
>you hit an enemy 100 times. what are the chances at least one is a crit
>hurr 50% either you got a crit or you didn't order doesnt matter
Why do people keep using the Bayes theorem for this problem, isn't it just a simple binomial distribution?
There is a case to be made for it being 50% but 1/3 is more valid due to how the question is worded
>>337595494
Because you are adding in a probability that doesn't exist in the equation. There is no possible way to reach 33% unless you are adding in an additional element to the equation.
http://anydice.com/program/52bc
>>337597176
fuck you
>>337596983
Sure it could be 1/3 but only if you assume that one hit has a chance to miss. Since one of the hits is an crit that means it obviously didn't miss. How you people are getting 1/3 or even 33% from 50% is beyond logical.
>>337596980
if you set it up as all permutations of crits/non-crit, yes. If you insist on not using permutations, than no.
>>337597176
50%
either they're all crits or they're not
>>337586207
we are 100% saying that
>>337597247
because a hit and a crit is twice as likely to happen as two crits.
>>337597374
keked
>>337586595
But it shows how the math works.
If you have the first attack with a 50% crit chance, and the second 100% chance, what is the chance both will crit? It's kind of obvious that it will be 50%.
>>337597447
No because you either hit or you crit, there is no miss, which you are implying, which is the only way you can come to 1/3 in the first place. How are you getting 3 from only two variables? A crit and a regular hit.
>>337597667
but no hit is a 100% hit chance.
It's how your math works, but not the math of the problem.
>>337597769
Yeah. I find it ridiculous that people are citing potential for our hits to miss. Why just make up additional details?
>>337597796
We're not talking about hit chance, we're talking about crit chance.
Answers given by anon so far:
>50%
>25%
>75%
>33%
>100%
>0%
>/v/ - Mathematics and Probability Theory
>>337597176
You know 1 is gonna crit for sure.
So the probability to get 100 crit is (in that particullar case) the same as the one to get 99 crit.
so it's 0.5^99
>>337597796
>but no hit is a 100% hit chance
How not if you have 100% accuracy? Maybe dodging or missing doesn't exist, which seems to be the case. You either have a chance for lets say 100 damage (regular hit, non crit) and 200 damage (a critical hit). You hit an enemy twice and for the sake of sanity we say the first hit crits, you have 50% critical hit chance on the second hit, so the answer would be it will either be critical damage or non critical damage. The answer is 1/2.
>>337597769
I am not implying a miss, I'm inplying the chance of getting a CRIT and a HIT (notice no misses involved) is twice as likely to happen TWO CRITS (also notice, no misses involved).
in all instances of 50% hit chance, with two hits, you have a 25% chance to get two crits, 50% chance to get a crit and a non-crit, and 25% chance to get no crits.
In the one situation described by OP, you found out one scenario didn't happen: the 25% chance to get no crits. Therefore, you are left with the 50% chance of a crit and a hit and the 25% chance to get two hits. Reblanced to 2/3's and 1/3.
>>337598245
>>337598073
I meant crit chance.
>>337579023
The answer doesn't have enough info for an answer outside of a very basic 50%.
>>337579023
you hit an enemy twice
Hit, Hit
One of those hits is a crit, meaning either
Hit, Critical
Critical, Hit
But both can be Criticals, so
Hit, Critical
Critical, Hit
Critical, Critical
1/3 chance of being both critical.
>>337598245
The question you propose is different from OPs as it gives the additional information that the first hit is a crit.
>>337579023
Here you go. It's 1/3. Stop debating this.
>>337598518
It doesn't matter why there is a guaranteed chance for one of the hits to crit, it's a problem created to test your math.
>>337598372
But see you are still adding additional information that is missing from the OP's problem. You're now implying you attack with both hands together, in which case you would still be wrong.
Okay lets say you have a sword in each hand, and you attack with both swords at the same time which a 50% crit chance. The OP states one of the hits crits so you cannot count that as a chance for regular damage therefore you can only calculate one hit, which is 50%. Either it crits or its doesn't. Even if you attack with each sword separately the answer is still 50%. There is no way around this with the exception of bad math.
>>337598954
>being this retarded
>>337598942
/thread
>>337599026
no, not understanding how permutations work means you are bad at math.
>>337599142
>permutations
its a combination you nigwat
>>337598942
Not all outcomes have the same probability. NC-NC has 0%
>>337599234
if you are using combinations, then you aren't using binomial distributions.
>>337598832
But one of the hits has to crit. Lets say you are attacking with a heavy weapon and the intervals between attacks are slow. The reason why people are assuming the first hit cr7it is because the second hit cannot happen before the first hit and we are assuming the first hit already happen since there absolutely has to be a crit. Regardless of which hit crits though, in this case, the results will always be the same. 1/2 or 50%.
>>337599023
except that there is not a guaranteed chance for a crit, OP even says so, there was a single event where you now a crit occurred. This does not affect the probabilities for a crit.
>>337591965
What did you expect?
>>337599312
OP doesn't state whether the hit (because only one hit matters here for calculation purposes) is permutation, combination or binomial. We have to base the entire equation off of rational three dimensional science.
Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate
E.V.E.
>>337594494
I've always preferred math that actually represents reality, instead of abstract masturbatory bullshit. Each flip has a 50% chance. Kill yourself.
Hi everyone. The answer is 25%.
You 33%-fags are revving up those insults, but you're actually wrong.
There are 3 possible outcomes. What makes you so sure they all have an equal chance of occurring? Exactly, it's just a lazy assumption.
I tested with quarters. If you eliminate all occurrences of tails-tails, you end up with 50% tails-heads, 25% heads-tails, and 25% heads-heads. No amount of poorly coded nonsense will contradict reality.
It's 25%.
>>337589887
>it's the same as the coin flip
nigga what? a coin flip always has a 50/50 chance
you don't just add an extra option just because a jew steals it when the coin hits the ground
>>337599314
But that assumption is not necessarily correct. in OPs case, both hits have already happened, at least one of them is a crit, and you don't know which one was a crit.
the case of the first hit being a crit and the second not, and the case of the first hit not being a crit and the second one being a crit are different possible outcomes.
>>337599503
>At least one of the hits is a crit
Do you not understand English?
>>337599825
Lad, one crit is guarranteed. So it cant be 25%
>>337599825
Your answer is clearly nonsense because how are you going to simply degrade a 50% crit chance down to 25%? It's illogical. You are mistaken.
>>337599978
Ah, that's where you're wrong. An outcome where you get at least one crit is guaranteed, which means the possibility of noncrit-noncrit is 0%. That's it, any other assumptions you're making are not correct.
>>337599825
Bullshit.
If you flip a coin 12 times, you should expect HH, HT, TH, and TT to occur 3 times each. If you eliminate TT, you're down to 9 trials with each possible outcome being gotten thrice.
>>337599945
in this particular instance of hitting twice out of the many times this sword has hit twice, one of them was found to be a crit. There is still no guarantee that any individual hit is a crit.
>>337586047
wow youre such a gamer my man XD *tippity*
>>337600156
So noncrit-noncrit is 0%, then the other 3 are 25%.
You're missing 25% from your final tally.
>>337599884
But you are assuming again too, you are assuming that one has to be a non crit just because one of them has to be a crit. Maybe both of them crit but OP gives you the correct answer in the OP with his question. The answer is 50%.
>>337600207
No, it says "you hit an enemy twice". It doesn't mention any other hits.
>>337599825
Flawed empiricism as well as reasoning. You are likely using a small sample space and/or cherrypicking results.
>>337600334
>you are assuming that one has to be a non crit just because one of them has to be a crit.
I never once made that assumption. If I made that assumption, then I would guess the answer to OP's question to be 0%
>>337600426
the "50% hit chance" information implicitly does.
>>337600092
Your response really doesn't make much sense. What do you mean "degrade a 50% crit chance"? Where did I do that?
It's been demonstrated many times:
crit (50% chance) x crit (50% chance) = 25% chance ("at least one crit" fulfilled)
crit (50% chance) x hit (50% chance) = 25% chance ("at least one crit" fulfilled)
hit (50%) chance x crit (100% chance) = 50% (second hit MUST be a crit in order to fulfill "at least one crit")
hit (50%) chance x hit (0% chance) = 0% (second hit CANNOT be a hit or it violates "at least one crit")
Everyone arguing for 33% is being too lazy to look at the problem correctly and too smug to look at the reasoning behind 25%.
>>337600156
>which means the possibility of noncrit-noncrit is 0%
You've confused yourself by over thinking the probability of the equation. You are wrong, the answer simply cannot be 25% unless we are operating something other than the laws of three dimensional physics. I'm sorry if you came in all gungho and got shot down but you are nevertheless wrong here.
>>337600156
You're also wrong. One crit is not guaranteed. The crit chance is 50%, the chances are the same for every hit, you're supposed to only be considering the cases where you did get a crit.
>>337600589
It says 50% crit, not 50% hit.
>>337599142
It's a combination problem because OP stated that you hit "an enemy" i.e. one enemy twice. Order doesn't matter because the result will be the same whether you crit the first or the second time. NC is the same outcome as CN.
>>337600610
No. If one crit isnt guarranteed it would be 25%, because 0,5^2=0,25. But because 2XNOCRIT doesnt exist, you shouldnt calculate it.
>>337600780
No shit, that's obviously what I meant.
>>337600671
Learn english, "at least one of the hits is a crit" means 1 hit is guaranteed.
>>337600321
If noncrit-noncrit is 0%, then noncrit-crit is 50%.
>>337600473
Nope, just doing proper scientific method. Plus it's backed up by better logic than the 33% theory.
>>337600610
why in the hell are you still calculating the two hits? One is a critical for sure so you only have to calculate one hit. 25% simply cannot happen because there is no 1/4th there is only a 1 in 2 chances. One that crits one that does not, how hard is that to understand sir?
>>337600860
Then say what you mean, instead of saying something else.
25%
>>337600934
>If noncrit-noncrit is 0%, then noncrit-crit is 50%
Ah, that makes sense now.
>>337600610
>calls other people smug for doing it right
>gets called out for his shitty calculation
Have a (you)
>>337600967
"at least one of the hits is a crit" does not mean "one hit always has a 100% chance of being a crit".
>>337601139
50%. Because it will happen or not.
>>337601139
50%, either you get them or you don't
>>337600887
Guarantee means 100% chance. But there's not a 100% chance, it's a 50% chance. We do not have changing critical hit probabilities in this question.
"At least one of the hits is a crit" implies that two noncrits is not a possibility being considered. It does not mean that the crit chance miraculously goes up to 100% if the first hit is not a crit.
>>337601149
well, we're not asking about future situations, we are asking about a situation that already happened and for FACT one of them was 100% a crit
>>337600934
>Plus it's backed up by better logic than the 33% theory.
Sure, assuming you hit four times, which is the only way you can come to a 25% crit hit chance ratio. Either that or you are adding in nonexistent variables such as a miss or a block.
This is what you're answer equates to:
>1 hit (crit)
>1 hit (miss)
>1 hit (normal damage)
>1 hit (miss, crit, normal damage or blocked)
With a 25% aswer you're assuming either two additional hits or two additional variables.
>>337601149
>does not mean "one hit always has a 100% chance of being a crit
There are only two hits though, which we know one of them is a critical hit. You are adding variables that don't exist my friend.
>>337579023
>B-But my 9th grade math class said it's 25% because math...
ITT: children who will one day try to apply theoretical models in practice only to have everyone laugh at them for being complete fucking retards. It's 50% if you're an engineer. It's 50% if you're a computer scientist. It's 50% if you're an architect. It's only 25% if you're a liberal arts major.
>>337601341
All that tells us is that the "non-crit,non-crit" outcome did not happen.
>>337601410
Flip a coin twice in a row. What's are the chances of heads-heads?
>>337601617
see
>>337591359
that's a closer to real world problem where the outcome is 33%
>>337601617
Well it's 50% if you interpret the question correctly, 33% if you incorrectly assume we're dealing with permutations, 25% if you're the one idiot that has no idea how probability works.
>>337601617
This. I have to criticize my colleagues' incompetent as fuck code when I debug because they try to put unnecessarily complicated and completely meaningless shit in instead of putting the much simpler and easier to run version of the same exact thing.
>>337601617
It's not 50% to anyone except lazy idiots.
50% chance to crit on the first strike. If it isn't a crit, then whatever happens doesn't matter.
If it does crit, then we can analyze the chance of it critting.
since it's a 50% chance again, then getting a double crit is a 25% chance since 50% * 50% = 25%.
Chance doesn't split evenly.
>>337601852
33% if you correctly assume we aren't dealing with binomial distribution.
>almost 500 posts about a solved problem
>>337601617
I'm a liberal arts major and the answer is 1/3.or 1/2 depending on how the problem is interpreted.
>>337601617
>"My da-I mean I'm working as a smart science guy and my superior education told me that it's not me who have been skipping school it's you who is degenerate cuck reddit faggot!!"
>>337601718
>Flip a coin twice in a row. What's are the chances of heads-heads?
This is where you are going wrong though. If we will use a coin. Lets say for the sake of the equation that heads is a crit and tails is a normal hit.
You do not have to flip the coin twice, only once because that is more faithful to OP's problem.
For example, why would you flip the coins twice when you already know one of the flips is going to land on heads? Therefore you only flip the coin once for this calculation and what does that leave? A 50% chance to either be heads (crit) or tails (normal).
Hope this helps.
>Vydiots think chance is the same as probability.
And this is why gambling is such a profitable industry.
>>337602292
>You do not have to flip the coin twice, only once because that is more faithful to OP's problem.
nope, you flip two until you get a case that is not tails/tails
>>337601979
What do you expect from /v/eddit?
>>337602391
That has nothing to do with why gambling is profitable. You are a complete moron. Get out.
People who argue 33% or 50% are ALWAYS pretentious dicks who think they can hide behind shit code.
The problem states "50% CRIT CHANCE". Since nothing else affects the crit chance of your first strike, there is a 50% chance it crits. If you disagree, that is where you are incorrect.
A properly coded video game will CHECK if the first hit was a crit. If it was not, then it will ensure the second hit is in order to fulfill the rule.
This means that a swing and crit can be followed by either a hit or another crit, determined by 50%. If you swing and do not crit, the game must ensure you next hit is a crit.
Argue if you want. Tell me engineers and astronomers etc say it's 33% or 50%. You aren't understanding the problem correctly and are making assumptions that cannot be made.
AMERICAN EDUCATION
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
E
D
U
C
A
T
I
O
N
>>337602475
But that's not OP's question at all. Why are you adding an additional flip? For what purpose? We already know one of the hits is a crit. You just proved that you're adding an additional variable. You are basically doing three hits in which one of them crits and the other two are unknown.
I understand what you're saying and you would be right if there were four hits that were unknown but that's not the case. You are coming to 25% because you are flipping a coin twice and the coin has 2 sides so that's 1/4 but that isn't faithful to OP's question.
>>337602624
except you are assuming that OP's situation happens every time. But OP is only describing one particular event.
>>337602624
see
>>337601617
Go submit a report to your supervisor as to why you need to spend their money and time based on impractical theoretical models
>>337602624
>A properly coded video game will CHECK if the first hit was a crit. If it was not, then it will ensure the second hit is in order to fulfill the rule.
The problem is that most people don't interpret it as a rule in the game.
The rule in the game is that each hit has an independent 50% crit chance. We are then told after the fact that one crit occurred for this particular instance of two hits.
You're basically agreeing with the first "assumption" depicted here: >>337601979
But most people would say that's a bad understanding of the problem.
>>337602624
You're a fool. You go on to call 50% pretentious when the final sentence of your shitpost clearly agrees.
>>337579023
New Vegas
50%
>>337602624
The problem is equivalent to a well-known paradox and mathematicians agree that the answer is either 33% or 50% depending on the interpretation of the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_or_Girl_paradox
>>337602624
>A properly coded video game will CHECK if the first hit was a crit. If it was not, then it will ensure the second hit is in order to fulfill the rule.
Except that's bullshit. Games use RNG which yields results that naturally adhere to laws of probability. If you code a game the way you mentioned then you would have to keep a tally of the result of every hit and FORCE the next result to fit the rule according to that tally. This is an inefficient and incorrect approach to implementing probability in a game.
>>337596472
>the order doesn't matter
>but the order changes the odds for the outcomes
gg retard
>>337601139
>your next attack cannot miss
>but the boss gets dodge
what
>>337579023
this question is so gay because the only way you can know if you had crit or not is if you had actually crit.
if this was the case it would be
CC
CH
meaning a 50% chance for two crits since there's only two options.
However, the question is phrased ambigiously so you have to assume that CH AND HC are valid choices which would give it 33% chance to be CC
it's basically just a shitty question designed to play off the fact that you're sleuthing some insane past event that doesn't matter at all.
>>337601617
>>337603054
>>337603103
I figured it out. The reason computer/math/engineering people get it wrong is their misunderstanding of the present tense.
The problem says "is" not "was". This means the rule is being applied in real-time.
>>337602913
you obviously don't understand what I'm saying.
you flip two coins. is it tails/tails?
no: good, it's relevant to OPs problem
yes: no-good, it's not relevant to OPs problem, flip them both again (repeat).
Your case ignores either A. ignores a possible outcome (considers Heads-Tails, but not Tails-Heads) or B. gets the probabilities (getting a tails is not the same probability as getting a heads-tails combination).
>>337603475
This is 100% correct.
If you know which hit was a crit, then 2 of 4 possibilities are ruled out and the answer is 1/2.
If you don't know which hit was a crit, then only 1 of 4 possibilities is ruled out and the answer is 1/3.
It sounds stupid, but it does make a difference.
>>337603645
I disagree that the use of the word "is" means it one crit must occur for every two hits. Your interpretation would make more sense if the sentence were: "At least one of the hits must be a crit."
Past or present tense doesn't matter. "At least one of the hits is a crit" describes one particular instance of two attacks, not a rule. The rule is a 50% crit chance. That's it.
>>337603696
>>337603645
no, you are misunderstanding the fact that tense doesn't matter, and that computer/math/engineering people are using past tense to re-frame the question to make it easier to understand.
>>337591723
>It says you hit it twice,so missing is impossible. So theres only 2 options
>Crit, Hit
>or Crit Crit
>50%
No, there's three options:
Crit, Hit
Hit, Crit
Crit, Crit
33%
>People who say 50%
False assumption: Either Hit 1 or Hit 2 is 100.00% guaranteed to be a crit, which the decision between Hit 1 or Hit 2 critting being random.
>People who say 33%
False assumption: Three separate outcomes means each outcome has an equal chance of occurring.
Both assumptions are wrong.
>>337601979
This image is the only objective answer. The OP's question is a problem based on the information that you are given, and you can come to any one of these answers based only on your interpretation of the question. Each interpretation cannot be correct if any other one is, but they are all logical ways of understanding the problem given the information. All this problem serves to show is that error in communication results in answers that can vary to a degree.
>>337604192
It's possible to have a 33.3.5 sure but we all know the answer is 50%.
>>337604061
what are you getting at? Are you saying you are guaranteed to get a crit in two hits in Diablo?
>>337604063
>using past tense to re-frame the question to make it easier to understand.
So they are changing the problem to fit the answer they want to give. The tense does matter because we are talking about something that can actively change. The outcome of the first hit can determine the outcome of the second in real-time, because this is a video game.
Saying it has already happened when the entire problem is in present tense is wrong, and that is why both 50% and 33% or wrong. Maybe that sneer at liberal arts majors was unjustified, since it appears people in this thread cannot understand English properly.
>>337604298
Nah, in this case you either hit or regular damage or you hit for critical damage. OP's problem is flawed that is why 50% can be the only right answer.
There is simply not enough information given for it to be any less or more than 50%.
>>337604298
>False assumption: Three separate outcomes means each outcome has an equal chance of occurring.
That's not a false assumption. You can determine that each outcome has an equal chance, since the crit chance is exactly 50%.
>>337604527
We are reframing the question because OPs question assumes you have information from the future while doing something now. In no place does OP explain that hits determine the outcome of any other hits, just that each one is 50% chance.
>>337604527
Everyone understands what you're saying. The problem is,
>The outcome of the first hit can determine the outcome of the second in real-time, because this is a video game.
That's wrong.
