Re: [iwar] Probability times time produces what?
From: Tony Bartoletti
From: azb@llnl.gov
To: iwar@egroups.com
Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:31:00 -0700
fc Mon Oct 23 19:20:14 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
for fc@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
(with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Tue Oct 24 02:20:09 2000)
X-From_: sentto-279987-564-972353977-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Mon Oct 23 21:19:43 2000
Received: from f19.egroups.com (f19.egroups.com [64.209.169.107]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id VAA25417 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:19:43 -0500
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-564-972353977-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.10.38] by f19.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Oct 2000 02:19:44 -0000
X-Sender: azb@llnl.gov
X-Apparently-To: iwar@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 24 Oct 2000 02:19:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 29699 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2000 02:17:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Oct 2000 02:17:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO poptop.llnl.gov) (128.115.41.70) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Oct 2000 02:17:48 -0000
Received: from catalyst (catalyst.llnl.gov [128.115.222.68]) by poptop.llnl.gov (8.8.8/LLNL-3.0.2/pop.llnl.gov-5.1) with ESMTP id TAA29402 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001023190954.00ac2b40@poptop.llnl.gov>
X-Sender: e048786@poptop.llnl.gov
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
To: iwar@egroups.com
In-Reply-To: <200010240145.SAA31285@all.net>
References: <0394212231217a0EMAIL002@email002>
From: Tony Bartoletti
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe:
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:31:00 -0700
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] Probability times time produces what?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
At 06:45 PM 10/23/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Per the message sent by DrewSchaefer@ftnetwork.com:
>
> > "This simple mathematical method illustrates levels of peacefulness
> > required to sustain peace for designated periods, and purports to
> > predict conventional warfare with considerable accuracy. Though some
> > theorists may object to the use of mathematical models, Jeanes' method
> > is highly original and attractive. His central argument is that for any
> > given probability of a nuclear war per year, there is an expected time
> > span until it occurs. Thus. the longer we wait without creating a
> > safer world, the more likely it is that nuclear warfare will occur. A
> > solid empirical foundation and a comparative platform have been built on
> > the extensive analysis of numerous conventional wars since 1820."
>
>Now, I have never really understood probability and statistics that
>well, but it seems to me that if we trust the mathematical argument of
>someone who says that if there is a fixed probability of an event per
>year, the likelihood goes up as the years go by, we may be making an
>error in judgements as extreme as the author's error in mathematics.
>
>If there is a 50% chance of the die coming up 4, 5, or 6 for my roll
>today, and it does not come up 4, 5, or 6 today, is the probability any
>higher tomorrow? I think not.
True. One CAN say that the likelihood it does not come up 4, 5, or 6 in
ten successive rolls is 1/1024. But the experiment being performed is
highly repeatable with independent trials.
>But - while I am at it, I might mention that over time we may be able to
>reduce these probablities through our actions. Indeed, the whole notion
>of probability may not apply here, because probability is based on the
>"law of large numbers" and on the assumption of certain sorts of random
>stochastic processes. If we are talking about small numbers, the law
>may not apply, and if we are not dealing with stochastic processes, the
>computation basis for results may not apply. Just a thought.
This is a good point, and attempts to apply standard statistical arguments
to human and social behavior should be regarded with much
suspicion. Still, the frequency of everything from automobile accidents to
bank robberies can reveal some degree of predictability, (affected by such
measures as drivers education programs or many other variables, yes, but
still amenable to statistical-like treatment.) Why? I can only surmise
that, despite the human capacity for rational thought and exercise of free
will, much of our behaviors are still rooted in "autonomous response" or
actions of habit.
Interesting topic.
___tony___
Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/14/_/595019/_/972353977/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
------------------
http://all.net/