Jai Hind! Air India flight carrying 242 people heading for London crashes #PrayforCECA

[Leongsam]

Probability is just a theory.
In real life situation it is not applicable.

Dear Uncle,

Probability theory determines the most fundamental physical laws that structures our reality.

The basis of our physical existence is based on quantum physics and at quantum level probability determines the behaviour of the building blocks of nature.

 

[laksaboy]

It is important to inhale oxygen from the oxygen mask when you are taking an Air India flight. No need to eat or drink, but oxygen is very important.

 

[shiokalingam]

 

[sbfuncle]

Dear Uncle,

Probability theory determines the most fundamental physical laws that structures our very reality.

The basis of our physical existence is based on quantum physics and at quantum level probability determines the behaviour of the building blocks of nature.

Then all I can say is that
You have been conned.

 

[Leongsam]

Then all I can say is that
You have been conned.

You may not understand something but just because you don't understand it does not mean it is not true.

 

[shiokalingam]

 

[Leongsam]

Sounds like fake news to me.

 

[sbfuncle]

You may not understand something but just because you don't understand it does not mean it is not true.

Most of the time we cannot apply the generic theory of probability to predict things in life.
For quantum physics stuff is different
I do not understand the details but I know it is different.

But eg medical diagnoses, accidents etc it is not applicable.
It works more towards
Either it happen or it doesn't.
Loctor say you will die in x days based on their past data of historical patients also doesn't mean you will die in this x days. A high probability in this case becomes low.

 

[Leongsam]

Most of the time we cannot apply the generic theory of probability to predict things in life.
For quantum physics stuff is different
I do not understand the details but I know it is different.

But eg medical diagnoses, accidents etc it is not applicable.
It works more towards
Either it happen or it doesn't.
Loctor say you will die in x days based on their past data of historical patients also doesn't mean you will die in this x days. A high probability in this case becomes low.

You are misunderstanding the concept of probability. It does not determine the outcome of a single event which is binary.

EG you have an accident... it either kills you or it doesn't.

You toss a coin it's either heads or tails... like you said heads (or tails) either happens or it doesn't.

However if you toss a coin 100 times the outcome will tend towards 50/50. The more times you toss the more accurate the prediction based upon probability theory.

 

[sbfuncle]

You are misunderstanding the concept of probability. It does not determine the outcome of a single event which is binary.

EG you have an accident... it either kills you or it doesn't.

You toss a coin it's either heads or tails... like you said heads (or tails) either happens or it doesn't.

However if you toss a coin 100 times the outcome will tend towards 50/50. The more times you toss the more accurate the prediction based upon probability theory.

Precisely becos of the more times we toss the more accurate, we need to let more planes take off in order to know the actual probability.

 

[Leongsam]

Precisely becos of the more times we toss the more accurate, we need to let more planes take off in order to know the actual probability.

Yes but you don't need the same number in order compare plane trips vs car trips. All you need is a good sample size to provide a confidence level that is for you to define.

All this can be worked out mathematically.

For example if you want to know, with 99% confidence the outcome of flipping a coin you don't have to flip it millions of times. All you need is 664 flips.

This is based upon this formula

To determine the sample size needed to estimate the probability of heads vs. tails for a coin flip with a 99% confidence level, we can use the formula for sample size in estimating a population proportion:

Where:

( n ) = sample size (number of coin flips)

( Z ) = Z-score for the confidence level (for 99% confidence, Z≈2.576Z \approx 2.576Z \approx 2.576
)

( p ) = estimated proportion (for a fair coin, p=0.5p = 0.5p = 0.5
)

( E ) = margin of error (desired precision, e.g., ±5% or 0.05)

 

[sbfuncle]

Yes but you don't need the same number in order compare plane trips vs car trips. All you need is a good sample size to provide a confidence level that is for you to define.

All this can be worked out mathematically.

For example if you want to know, with 99% confidence the outcome of flipping a coin you don't have to flip it millions of times. All you need is 664 flips.

This is based upon this formula

To determine the sample size needed to estimate the probability of heads vs. tails for a coin flip with a 99% confidence level, we can use the formula for sample size in estimating a population proportion:


View attachment 222431

Where:

( n ) = sample size (number of coin flips)

( Z ) = Z-score for the confidence level (for 99% confidence, Z≈2.576Z \approx 2.576Z \approx 2.576
)

( p ) = estimated proportion (for a fair coin, p=0.5p = 0.5p = 0.5
)

( E ) = margin of error (desired precision, e.g., ±5% or 0.05)

Simple.
I ask you, we let plane take off 664 times vs a car trips of 664 times, would you be able to apply the same formula and tell me that

The number of people dying from plane crash is just a drop on the bucket?
Leemember that each plane carries a few hundreds of passengers.

More likely with 664 trips for each there will be 0 casualties. And even if there are some fatal car accidents that occurred in that 664 trips, the number will be tiny.
However 1 plane crash alone will take up a big number.

So I don't see you can apply this explanation here.

 

[Pinkieslut]

 

[oliverlee]

The cheebai is an attention seeking whore who picked himself up on the ground after the plane crashed. No other explanation. Why is his cheebai face so lucky that he should survive and others perished

 

[True Believer]

The ministers were stupid and naive to sign the agreement, no minister in any other countries of the world has agreed the CECA agreement. Now, sinkies are the one paying the price for the stupid mistake and suffering, the country has become shitty and filthy.

Backing out of CECA now would be an open admission that the PAP under LHL, made a grave mistake in signing such a lopsided agreement, so PM LW has no choice except to carry on the charade.

 

[Narong Wongwan]

The sole survivor is really damn lucky.
Maybe final destination soon

 

[sbfuncle]

Yes but you don't need the same number in order compare plane trips vs car trips. All you need is a good sample size to provide a confidence level that is for you to define.

All this can be worked out mathematically.

For example if you want to know, with 99% confidence the outcome of flipping a coin you don't have to flip it millions of times. All you need is 664 flips.

This is based upon this formula

To determine the sample size needed to estimate the probability of heads vs. tails for a coin flip with a 99% confidence level, we can use the formula for sample size in estimating a population proportion:


View attachment 222431

Where:

( n ) = sample size (number of coin flips)

( Z ) = Z-score for the confidence level (for 99% confidence, Z≈2.576Z \approx 2.576Z \approx 2.576
)

( p ) = estimated proportion (for a fair coin, p=0.5p = 0.5p = 0.5
)

( E ) = margin of error (desired precision, e.g., ±5% or 0.05)

Another simpler way you can view it to understand more about what I meant is

When you increase the number of flights, the crash rate will increase exponentially.
So the more trips you increase and increase until when it reaches like car trips, you will see many many plane crashing.

From here, airline companies cannot lie anymore and people will start to fear taking a plane becos of the high occurrence. Isn't it?

So to put this statement of taking a plane is safer than a car is actually not correct. It is becos of the lesser flight trips only.

 

[Leongsam]

Another simpler way you can view it to understand more about what I meant is

When you increase the number of flights, the crash rate will increase exponentially.
So the more trips you increase and increase until when it reaches like car trips, you will see many many plane crashing.

From here, airline companies cannot lie anymore and people will start to fear taking a plane becos of the high occurrence. Isn't it?

So to put this statement of taking a plane is safer than a car is actually not correct. It is becos of the lesser flight trips only.

Where on earth did you get the notion that crash rates will increase exponentially. If anything it is the opposite that has happened. Flying is getting safer and safer as the years go by.

 

[sbfuncle]

Where on earth did you get the notion that crash rates will increase exponentially. If anything it is the opposite that has happened. Flying is getting safer and safer as the years go by.

It will becos of fatigue, laziness. Human error Etc
Humans are the one operating it and maintaining it.
The more flights will only cause more accidents. Not same or less.
Unless it is by robots, then I shall take back my claims.

You never get to see it getting better even with better technology now de woh.

 

[nightsafari]

Dear Uncle,

Probability theory determines the most fundamental physical laws that structures our reality.

The basis of our physical existence is based on quantum physics and at quantum level probability determines the behaviour of the building blocks of nature.

That's not entirely correct.

Our reality is determined by quantum mechanics. Probability is the best way we have of DESCRIBING/ESTIMATING the behaviour of our universe at the quantum level. Probability is NOT the underlying physical law of our reality nor does it DETERMINE the behaviour of quantum particles.

As of now, no one understands HOW quantum mechanics is determined, but only that it is best described in a probabilistic sense. In fact, I would go out on a limb and say you might as well say our universe is more easily determined by observation rather than probability because it has shown to have a positive determining effect on particle behaviour.