you make me feel like I'm in elementary school. My actual professor's leave me feeling like I'm learning rocket science. never thought this stuff could be so easy. thanks Dr. Leonard!
As many have already said, YOU ARE AMAZING! After over 25 years, I decided to go back to school to pursue a BSN and Statistics is a prerequisite. These videos helped me understand soooooooo much, without being intimidated/confused with all of the new "lingo" entailed, because of your thorough explanations of each concept. I'm not in your class(I live in another state, or I would be) so these videos are truly an invaluable resource to me in understanding statistics. THANK YOU!
Again saving my life Mr. Leonard ! I did great in calculus a few months ago cuz of you and now statistics got complicated ... But thanks to you there's nothing to worry about. It's a shame we can't clone you thou, it would save us all a lot of time and frustration. You are a real professor to me! Like ... I wish I could put you next to my "professors" and show them how awesome you are and how it's done. Your students don't appreciate you enough ...
New subscriber here, and I am amazed, thank you so much, I finally get it. I have been struggling with this chapter but now it is crystal clear. You are awesome!! Thank you again :)
i'm in a contemporary class of math in college, and i've been confused about the "at least one" concept for the longest. it's finals week, and my final is tomorrow, and you completed the missing puzzle piece for my cumulative review. thanks a bunch!!!
I'm so grateful for you and your videos... my professor has got to be the worst statistics professor ever.. I'm learning statistics through your videos
Sir, I have a confusion, in the last lecture you said that p(A|B) = p(A) when B has already happed In this lecture you represented probability of being guilty given that we know that he did it as p(guilty|did it), So if we consider p(guilty) as p(A) and p(did it ) as p(B) then these both said different things but are written as same, So if we want to write probability of being guilty given that we have already calculated the probability that he did it ?
@@arnabbiswas6868 yes I have said the same thing p(A|B)=( probability of B given that A has already happed) So according to it p(guilty|did it)= (probability of guilty given that we have already chosen a person who did it ) but sir said it mean (probability of selecting a guilty person given that we know that he did it) So my question is what is the difference between it's representation?
@@user-yo7ri7sv5d p (guilty|did it) means probability of the is guilty given that we have already chosen a person who did it.probability of selecting a person given that we know he already did it means in first trial we selected a did it person and by applying this condition we have to find the probability of selecting a person in second trial.
@@arnabbiswas6868 but if we chhode a person in first trial that did it and then we choose a person in next trial that is guilty then it's probability is 83/176 (if without replacement and the did it we chose is not guilty)or 82/176(if without replacement and the did it we chose is guilty) but in this lecture it totally mean a different thing that we need to calculate the probability of selecting a person who is guilty and we know he did it, here we have not performanced any trail before. but the representation of these two is same so how can we distinguishe between these?
I HAVE A Q I need help with..........An accident has occurred on a busy highway between cities A (with a population of 100000) and B (with a population of 200000). It is known only that the victim has surname Smith and is from one of the two cities. Records show that 1% of the city A population and 0.08% of the city B population have the surname Smith. What is the probability that the victim is from city A?
I know this comment is old so I'm just responding for anyone who sees this in the future but I got the answer of .3846 (please lmk if I'm wrong)! This can be solved by dividing the pop. of smiths in city A (1000), by the pop of total smiths in cities A and B (2600). Another way of finding the answer would be if you draw out the tree diagram, and find the prob. the victim is from city A given they're surname is smith it would be .033 (repeating)/.0866 = .384.
How did you get 1/1,408,576? When I put (1/2)^20 in my calculator I get 9.5367. I know you are clearly doing it right and I'm not putting it in my calculator right... but I'm super confused!
@Lalo Lacinato Maybe. The 12th Ed. was published in 2014; the video was uploaded in 2011, but I doubt the 3rd Ed. was THE current edition at that time. I've taught several semesters using the 12th Ed.; overall, Triola does a very nice job with his textbooks.
The first example regarding the guilty table doesn't seem to make sense. IF you know with the absolute certainty of God himself... Because God knows, who the guilty are, and who the innocent are... If you know for a fact that all the persons who did the crime are Judy, Jill and Randy... Why weren't all three of them convicted guilty, if you know for a fact that all three of them did the crime in the first place? that three persons did indeed perform the crime. Then I think all those persons are guilty by definition (because they performed the crime i.e. they are guilty persons all them)... so why isn't the percentage chance 100%? If you know with the certainty of God himself, who the guilty people are (i.e. who actually did the crime), then you would have to nullify the wrongly issued convictions by a jury, such that the innocent people are not declared guilty, by a jury... Then the innocent people would be let free from jail. xD
you make me feel like I'm in elementary school. My actual professor's leave me feeling like I'm learning rocket science. never thought this stuff could be so easy. thanks Dr. Leonard!
As many have already said, YOU ARE AMAZING! After over 25 years, I decided to go back to school to pursue a BSN and Statistics is a prerequisite. These videos helped me understand soooooooo much, without being intimidated/confused with all of the new "lingo" entailed, because of your thorough explanations of each concept. I'm not in your class(I live in another state, or I would be) so these videos are truly an invaluable resource to me in understanding statistics. THANK YOU!
U r the best professor I hv ever seen... Thank you So much Sir....
Your videos helped me in calc 2, taught me most of calc 3, and are now teaching me stats. Thank you.
Again saving my life Mr. Leonard ! I did great in calculus a few months ago cuz of you and now statistics got complicated ... But thanks to you there's nothing to worry about. It's a shame we can't clone you thou, it would save us all a lot of time and frustration. You are a real professor to me! Like ... I wish I could put you next to my "professors" and show them how awesome you are and how it's done. Your students don't appreciate you enough ...
The BEST professor/teacher hands down!.
im not even in ur class... but these video are better then the class taking
New subscriber here, and I am amazed, thank you so much, I finally get it. I have been struggling with this chapter but now it is crystal clear. You are awesome!! Thank you again :)
Very Amaaaaaazing lecture
Thanks Alot prof. Leonard (Y)
i'm in a contemporary class of math in college, and i've been confused about the "at least one" concept for the longest. it's finals week, and my final is tomorrow, and you completed the missing puzzle piece for my cumulative review. thanks a bunch!!!
best maths teacher i have ever seen in the world
I am glad that you take the time to explain and even go back in the exercise to explain again. Thank you!
i am now taking my stat class on youtube taught by prof leonard xd
but it’s true 👍🏻
You are AMAZING! Way better than my professor!!!
I'm so grateful for you and your videos... my professor has got to be the worst statistics professor ever.. I'm learning statistics through your videos
You are the main reason I don't go to lectures, keep up the good work.
It's extremely convenient when you find a badass TH-cam playlist on exactly the subject that you are studying, so you can sit and chill at home, haha!
Thank you sooo very much, i understand every bit. You are so fluent and clear. God bless you
This guy is a legend.
OMG, You are the best Professor Leonard
Prof. Leonard, you're a life saver!
Thankkk you Prof.Leonard, you are literally saving me
Outstanding teacher!!!! Im a highschool student taking college classes and i was so confuseddddd😭😭😭😭😭😭 thanks professor!!!
Professor Leonard, you are great
Great Lecture Thanks Professor Leonard
I appreciate your work prof!
Amazing Lecture. Thank you.
Amazing lecture ! Thank you so much!
Thank you Professor u teach Statatics very well
So happy for this!! This saved me Your the best!!! :D
The best of all time ^_^ you deserve a happy face but mathematically symbolalized.😁😍😍😍😍😍🥰
Love this mans
The Superman of Stats for me lool
If you listen closely at 15:56-15:59, Someone is yawning
awesome!!! crystal clear!!
THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!
oh my gosh THANK YOU!!
is making sample space type of permutation
R u a genius
Thank you, sir
Can you upload a video that explains Bayes Theorem? Please??
Sir, Bayes Theorem? Requesting you to either navigate me to the video if already taught or else pls could we have a session on it
Sir, I have a confusion, in the last lecture you said that p(A|B) = p(A) when B has already happed
In this lecture you represented probability of being guilty given that we know that he did it as p(guilty|did it),
So if we consider p(guilty) as p(A) and p(did it ) as p(B) then these both said different things but are written as same,
So if we want to write probability of being guilty given that we have already calculated the probability that he did it ?
P (A|B)=p (A) when A and B are two independent event watch the lecture carefully.
@@arnabbiswas6868 yes I have said the same thing p(A|B)=( probability of B given that A has already happed)
So according to it p(guilty|did it)= (probability of guilty given that we have already chosen a person who did it ) but sir said it mean (probability of selecting a guilty person given that we know that he did it)
So my question is what is the difference between it's representation?
@@user-yo7ri7sv5d p (guilty|did it) means probability of the is guilty given that we have already chosen a person who did it.probability of selecting a person given that we know he already did it means in first trial we selected a did it person and by applying this condition we have to find the probability of selecting a person in second trial.
@@arnabbiswas6868 but if we chhode a person in first trial that did it and then we choose a person in next trial that is guilty then it's probability is 83/176 (if without replacement and the did it we chose is not guilty)or 82/176(if without replacement and the did it we chose is guilty) but in this lecture it totally mean a different thing that we need to calculate the probability of selecting a person who is guilty and we know he did it, here we have not performanced any trail before. but the representation of these two is same so how can we distinguishe between these?
@@user-yo7ri7sv5d watch the previous video
oh my gosh Thank You...
I HAVE A Q I need help with..........An accident has occurred on a busy highway between cities A (with a population of 100000) and B
(with a population of 200000). It is known only that the victim has surname Smith and is from one of
the two cities. Records show that 1% of the city A population and 0.08% of the city B population
have the surname Smith. What is the probability that the victim is from city A?
I know this comment is old so I'm just responding for anyone who sees this in the future but I got the answer of .3846 (please lmk if I'm wrong)! This can be solved by dividing the pop. of smiths in city A (1000), by the pop of total smiths in cities A and B (2600). Another way of finding the answer would be if you draw out the tree diagram, and find the prob. the victim is from city A given they're surname is smith it would be .033 (repeating)/.0866 = .384.
How did you get 1/1,408,576? When I put (1/2)^20 in my calculator I get 9.5367. I know you are clearly doing it right and I'm not putting it in my calculator right... but I'm super confused!
He did 2^20, but I need to understand why he used 2 haha
Click ur ab/c button on ur calculator
9.5367 is equal to 1/1048576
@@iwanaputri663 but why
I am having a doubt
What if 2 events are disjoint
Then what will be conditional prob
they are both independent events. So P(A) . P(B) ....simple as P(B|A)=P(B)
great lecture......... easy to swallow...
awsome !
ur AMAZING!!!!! =)
Thank god
Missing video 4.6
He didn't discuss 4.6, it goes straight from 4.5 to 4.7
you explain from which book
I am pretty sure he is using Triola's Elementary Statistics, some edition earlier than the 12th Ed.
@Lalo Lacinato Maybe. The 12th Ed. was published in 2014; the video was uploaded in 2011, but I doubt the 3rd Ed. was THE current edition at that time. I've taught several semesters using the 12th Ed.; overall, Triola does a very nice job with his textbooks.
4:54 lol
The first example regarding the guilty table doesn't seem to make sense. IF you know with the absolute certainty of God himself... Because God knows, who the guilty are, and who the innocent are...
If you know for a fact that all the persons who did the crime are Judy, Jill and Randy... Why weren't all three of them convicted guilty, if you know for a fact that all three of them did the crime in the first place?
that three persons did indeed perform the crime. Then I think all those persons are guilty by definition (because they performed the crime i.e. they are guilty persons all them)... so why isn't the percentage chance 100%?
If you know with the certainty of God himself, who the guilty people are (i.e. who actually did the crime), then you would have to nullify the wrongly issued convictions by a jury, such that the innocent people are not declared guilty, by a jury... Then the innocent people would be let free from jail. xD
LMAO, CAN YOU PLEASE NOT BRING GOD INTO MATH?
.... google hypothetical situations.
cant report a comment for being stupid x.x
why？God is the greatest mathematician. But that was a wonderful lecture, God bless you so much prof.
yeah but he wasn't saying who was technically guilty but instead who was judged guilty, there's your difference.
Prof. Leonard, you're a life saver!