Does math belong in the courtroom?

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 มิ.ย. 2024
  • Sign up with brilliant and get 20% off your annual subscription: brilliant.org/ZachStar/
    STEMerch Store: stemerch.com/
    Support the Channel: / zachstar
    PayPal(one time donation): www.paypal.me/ZachStarYT
    ►Follow me
    Instagram: / zachstar
    Twitter: / imzachstar
    Lying with Statistics Video (including Sally Clark): • This is How Easy It Is...
    Further Reading: amzn.to/2UnM4Do
    Animations: Brainup Studios ( brainup.in/ )
    ►My Setup:
    Space Pictures: amzn.to/2CC4Kqj
    Magnetic Floating Globe: amzn.to/2VgPdn0
    Camera: amzn.to/2RivYu5
    Mic: amzn.to/35bKiri
    Tripod: amzn.to/2RgMTNL
    Equilibrium Tube: amzn.to/2SowDrh
    ►Check out the my Amazon Store: www.amazon.com/shop/zachstar

ความคิดเห็น • 1.3K

  • @Gabriel-um9hm
    @Gabriel-um9hm 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3624

    I once got a speeding ticket after a car passed me. In court the cop admitted that my car was over 200m away and the beam on the radar was 30 degrees wide but claimed that the radar was pointed right at me and he's sure he didn't accidentally get it on the car that passed me. I pointed out that a 30 degree beam at over 200m is over 100m wide which is over ten times the width of the highway and would of reflected off both cars. The prosecution then said that math is nothing but conjecture and I was found guilty on a 30 over ticket despite doing the speed limit.
    We need more math in the courtroom but we also need better educated judges.

    • @robertgomez5378
      @robertgomez5378 4 ปีที่แล้ว +616

      Perhaps a court math expert to testify on the legitimacy of math.

    • @huge_letters
      @huge_letters 4 ปีที่แล้ว +615

      @@robertgomez5378 well that's why usually experts on all kinds of studies are welcomed into to court to give insight on intricacies of life. Howefer math mentioned in OP is very basic and any person who finished high school should be able to deal with such problems which only goes to show how educated this judge was.

    • @undeadman7676
      @undeadman7676 4 ปีที่แล้ว +82

      This is why terrorists exist

    • @Hi_Brien
      @Hi_Brien 4 ปีที่แล้ว +129

      @jocaguz18 I know lawyer pretty well who wouldn't be able to do that calculation. They didn't do particularly well with maths in highschool, and that flaw in their learning carried into university as well. A lot of folks concerned with law aren't concerned with mathematics, so I don't think it's fair to be too surprised that there is a judge somewhere in the world that tries to avoid using math especially on lesser crimes like that.

    • @undeadman7676
      @undeadman7676 4 ปีที่แล้ว +266

      @@Hi_Brien
      There is a world of difference between ignoring incredibly complicated multivariable statistics and ignoring the basics of trigonometry. The Law of Sines has been around since the 1700's. It's incredibly easy to use. If any judge ignores evidence based on basic laws of math, especially when that evidence completely exonerates somebody, or at the very least explicitly outlines reasonable doubt, that judge should immediately be fired. Period. Stop defending morons. It makes you one too.

  • @nxtech201
    @nxtech201 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2037

    "Have you ever met people? " that hit extra hard.

    • @sohn7767
      @sohn7767 4 ปีที่แล้ว +103

      Not since the quarantine

    • @gordontang7837
      @gordontang7837 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Didn't see that one coming

    • @Galatzo
      @Galatzo 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      404th like :(

    • @nexovec
      @nexovec 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      hey, I just wanted to ask what is the outro music? This is here because I wanted you to see this.

    • @jonathankrider6170
      @jonathankrider6170 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      it is quarintine... i have kind of forgot people exist

  • @upandatom
    @upandatom 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2030

    I misread this as "Does math belong in the bedroom"

    • @somerandomweeb4836
      @somerandomweeb4836 4 ปีที่แล้ว +494

      1+1=3
      Yes it does belong

    • @zachstar
      @zachstar  4 ปีที่แล้ว +857

      There is a lot of potential for some good content with that title though.

    • @gamepocalypsegaming278
      @gamepocalypsegaming278 4 ปีที่แล้ว +40

      Well if you’re Rachel Riley, yes.

    • @albertbatfinder5240
      @albertbatfinder5240 4 ปีที่แล้ว +160

      Go forth and multiply.

    • @pupperemeritus9189
      @pupperemeritus9189 4 ปีที่แล้ว +72

      courting room instead of courtroom

  • @alexanderkrizel6187
    @alexanderkrizel6187 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2275

    Numbers don't lie. People misusing numbers do.

    • @itachi6336
      @itachi6336 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Very true

    • @pepepeepee5555
      @pepepeepee5555 4 ปีที่แล้ว +29

      People misusing number don't lie either. Lying is assuming a false statement intentionally, people misusing numbers do not lie.

    • @joelmiller2601
      @joelmiller2601 4 ปีที่แล้ว +51

      Missed opportunity bruh, keep it short and simple.
      “Numbers don’t lie, people do.”

    • @alexanderkrizel6187
      @alexanderkrizel6187 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      There is such a thing as too simple. In your version, you cannot be sure if all people lie, some people or what the relationship is to numbers. Mine is pretty straight-forward. People who MIS-use numbers are lying, not the numbers themselves.

    • @joelmiller2601
      @joelmiller2601 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Alexander Krizel Not really, its all about context, and I’d wager most people can tell. To me, yours just elaborates on what is already a given. Pretty much the same.

  • @nommindymple6241
    @nommindymple6241 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1064

    “Million-to-one chances...crop up nine times out of ten.”
    -Terry Pratchett

    • @valeweinmann9907
      @valeweinmann9907 4 ปีที่แล้ว +30

      It's always nice to find a terry pratchett quote

    • @diribigal
      @diribigal 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      I think this is mathematically accurate for a population of around 2 302 586. For the population of the US, it's more like they crop up in the ballpark of 10^(143)-1 times out of 10^(143).

    • @trumanhw
      @trumanhw 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@diribigal no no, 330m i thought?

    • @diribigal
      @diribigal 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@trumanhw yes, I used a US population number of around 330million to get my "one out of 10^(143)" chance that a "million to one" chance wouldn't occur

    • @acekotana4425
      @acekotana4425 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@diribigal that's a big number that I'm too dumb to understand

  • @MK-13337
    @MK-13337 4 ปีที่แล้ว +842

    "dear ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the probability you all were chosen to be in this jury is about 1 in ten googol. Therefore this jury isn't randomly chosen and we must declare a mistrial"

    • @Vykk_Draygo
      @Vykk_Draygo 4 ปีที่แล้ว +18

      But juries aren't random, and there is no requirement that they must be. Jury pools are somewhat randomized (seeing that they must be pulled from a certain geographical area), but the actual jury is most definitely not random, and is, in fact, carefully selected.

    • @MK-13337
      @MK-13337 4 ปีที่แล้ว +52

      @@Vykk_Draygo The jurors are randomly selected from the pool, and then both sides of the case can disqualify some jurors. So in truth I know my calculation is off. And people don't really know how random jury selection is. I don't want to do in depth research of the US legal system for a youtube comment joke 😉

    • @TroyVan6654
      @TroyVan6654 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Except you ask the judge, not the jury, for a mistrial

    • @daddylonglegspidersdontexi3210
      @daddylonglegspidersdontexi3210 2 ปีที่แล้ว +35

      ladies and gentlemen the probability of the defendant being born is over 1 in a trilliom therefore they cannot exist, case closed

    • @leotamer5
      @leotamer5 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@daddylonglegspidersdontexi3210 The experimental probability is 1 in 1.

  • @user-jd1cy9gp3q
    @user-jd1cy9gp3q 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1325

    Next video: Does math belong in the bedroom?

    • @merug4349
      @merug4349 4 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      LMFAOAOAOA

    • @JanneVirsunen
      @JanneVirsunen 4 ปีที่แล้ว +59

      In Swedish, the word for the number six and the word for sex is... sex.

    • @michelbruns
      @michelbruns 4 ปีที่แล้ว +38

      Janne Virsunen almost same in German
      Sex
      Sechs

    • @_cynth_wave
      @_cynth_wave 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Always.

    • @JanneVirsunen
      @JanneVirsunen 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @@michelbruns Germanic languages unite!

  • @Sam_on_YouTube
    @Sam_on_YouTube 4 ปีที่แล้ว +275

    I have used math in the courtroom. You have to explain it REALLY well to the judge, jury, and other lawyers. Generally, if you can explain it visually with 1 page, that tends to help.

    • @lightningstriking7
      @lightningstriking7 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @Roman Hauksson-Neill no! Now leave him alone...

    • @hakor_
      @hakor_ 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@lightningstriking7 chill

    • @iwatchwithnoads7480
      @iwatchwithnoads7480 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@lightningstriking7 well that's a lawyer alright. figures

  • @bobthemagicmoose
    @bobthemagicmoose 4 ปีที่แล้ว +707

    I was shocked in law school how mathematically disinclined most of my peers were. When discussing this topic it wasn't so much that our math intuition can be faulty but that math is some sort of sorcery that only wizards can practice. (and no joke, a student wanted to bring a calculator to a test because there would be a question with single-digit multiplication)

    • @hanzeggers3576
      @hanzeggers3576 4 ปีที่แล้ว +34

      Scott Richards that could’ve also been because more Advanced calculators can be very easily used to cheat if Professors don’t know what they can do

    • @matheny2014
      @matheny2014 4 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      Arcane is the word you are looking for.

    • @hanzeggers3576
      @hanzeggers3576 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      matheny2014 hahaha great one ☺️👌

    • @johnherrera5261
      @johnherrera5261 4 ปีที่แล้ว +20

      To be fair its pretty easy to trick someone using statistics especially if you hide the base numbers

    • @life42theuniverse
      @life42theuniverse 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Tucson Jim 8) from Caesar Augustus

  • @simonhallin8909
    @simonhallin8909 4 ปีที่แล้ว +276

    Courtroom mathematicians: Of all 100 people we tested no one was born on January 1st, therefore we are 100% certain no one is born on that date!
    Ramanujan, Euler, Gauss: Are we a joke to you?

    • @KnakuanaRka
      @KnakuanaRka 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Yeah, someone doesn’t know their statistics.

    • @m.caeben2578
      @m.caeben2578 4 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      I love you included Ramanujan.

    • @simonhallin8909
      @simonhallin8909 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@m.caeben2578 Ofcourse, one of my favorite mathematicitons

    • @ianmoseley9910
      @ianmoseley9910 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      All racehorses are deemed to be born on January the 1st

  • @SCP.343
    @SCP.343 4 ปีที่แล้ว +214

    13:17 missed opportunity to say "that does not mean that Bob's your uncle.".

  • @zenlizard1850
    @zenlizard1850 2 ปีที่แล้ว +55

    "That's the third nurse in this video."
    Three nurses in one statistics video? what are the chances of that?

    • @MultiPleaser
      @MultiPleaser ปีที่แล้ว +2

      "Not even 100 million nurses in the world". However, there are about 3 billion TH-camrs, so U would guess the odds are approximately 100%

  • @jeffreydenenberg7101
    @jeffreydenenberg7101 4 ปีที่แล้ว +194

    Even as a high school junior it immediately seemed wrong to me when he said they multiplied all the p values

    • @Elite7555
      @Elite7555 2 ปีที่แล้ว +25

      Me also. The way they did it would suggest that changing your employer raises the probability to be a murderer, which obviously is nonsense.

    • @AlcyonEldara
      @AlcyonEldara 2 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      Me too.
      Sample 1: 6 heads 4 tails
      Sample 2: 4 heads 6 tails
      Somehow ccombining the 2 should make it less likely? XD

    • @danielgautreau161
      @danielgautreau161 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@Elite7555 That is a perfect way to explain the fallacy in a non-technical way.

  • @luketownsend5048
    @luketownsend5048 4 ปีที่แล้ว +72

    “I dont think there is a right answer regarding how to use numbers in courts, besides use them correctly” aaaand subscribed.

    • @WalterLiddy
      @WalterLiddy 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Yes, but often the lawyers actually DO understand the math, they just misrepresent it because they know it's easy to confuse a jury. So at best the opposing side gets an expert to explain that their 'evidence' is not legitimate, and for most jurors that's a wash, because they just see a he-said, she-said situation.

  • @jdrissel
    @jdrissel 4 ปีที่แล้ว +137

    I was thinking that everyone should have the right to a statistician in addition to an attorney.

    • @kennethkho7165
      @kennethkho7165 2 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      they already have the right to call statistics expert witness

    • @mikeguitar9769
      @mikeguitar9769 2 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      100% of statisticians agree

    • @linus6718
      @linus6718 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@mikeguitar9769 Haha

    • @rogerdsouza4724
      @rogerdsouza4724 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Or should there be a court appointed statistician bound towards particular courthouse or even cases if their nature calls for it.

  • @laurendoe168
    @laurendoe168 4 ปีที่แล้ว +61

    We did this exercise in 5th grade. Sure enough, 30 classmates and there was a match. BUT... because we were all within one year of age, this meant the match was also born on the exact same day.

  • @RC32Smiths01
    @RC32Smiths01 4 ปีที่แล้ว +388

    Math has quite a place in forensics and criminal justice purposes. I'd say it is very interesting to incorporate math into the law!

    • @joelmiller2601
      @joelmiller2601 4 ปีที่แล้ว +23

      Yes! That’s what immediately came to mind, especially in cases of forensic engineering where it needs to be determined why certain structures/products fail and whether it’s the fault of the design or because of poor maintenance.

    • @RC32Smiths01
      @RC32Smiths01 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@joelmiller2601 That is very spot on!

    • @91722854
      @91722854 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@joelmiller2601 U study forensic engineering? Has it any relations with forensic psychology or criminology?

    • @louf7178
      @louf7178 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      It, statistics, is used all the time with regard to DNA probability; it's usually like 1:3 trillion (?) match probability (of which virtually everyone is taking the professional's word for it).

    • @evil001987
      @evil001987 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      For every physical evidence ever brought forward one could always make an argument that there is a false positive.
      Goes for DNA-matches, eye-witness accounts, etc. Without statistics and mathematics, forensics doesn't exists. If you ban statistics from court, you will need to ban forensics. Still we have people commenting that it doesn't have a place in court-rooms, as shown in comments in the video.

  • @tylermacdermott5467
    @tylermacdermott5467 2 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    I remember a case from more then a decade past. A man was charged with rape and murder because he had a key to the women's apartment and lived in the same complex. With no other evidence. It turned out that both his and her apartments could be unlocked with each other's keys. Since the keys had only 5 pins and each pin has only 5 cuts and the cuts between 2 adjacent pins can only vary by 3, then you factor in the number of apartments. Basically something that seemed very unlikely at the time of arrest, turned out to be quite likely. A sad story for everyone involved, but another example of statics in court.

  • @crystalwalker6496
    @crystalwalker6496 4 ปีที่แล้ว +44

    I remember an episode of a very old tv show, Maverick. So the title character is a gambler and knows stats a bit for his time. He is the only man on the jury who has doubts the accused committed murder. Maverick gets all but one of the jury to change their minds. With the last one, he makes a bet. If he can draw five pat hands from 25 random cards, the jury votes innocent. But if he can’t, they vote guilty. It looks to be a low probability, but actually there’s a high probability of getting the 5 pat hands.

    • @moroni8299
      @moroni8299 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Was the show 12 angry men?

    • @Chronischer_Innenbahn-Laeufer
      @Chronischer_Innenbahn-Laeufer 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      What are pat hands

    • @jackiemowery5243
      @jackiemowery5243 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Chronischer_Innenbahn-Laeufer if you are honestly asking; a pat hand in poker (the game in question) is a high value hand (high probability of winning) you would have confidence in without drawing replacement cards to improve your chances of winning. You would "stand pat".

    • @Chronischer_Innenbahn-Laeufer
      @Chronischer_Innenbahn-Laeufer 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@jackiemowery5243 I know poker. I don’t know pat hands. Is it two of a kind?
      Thanks for answering by the way.
      Is it a special type of poker? I never heard of replacement cards.

    • @jackiemowery5243
      @jackiemowery5243 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Chronischer_Innenbahn-Laeufer That would be draw poker. You start with 5 cards dealed and you can discard up to 3 in hopes of improving your hand. A pat hand might mean you received a full house (3 of a kind and a pair) or a Royal Flush.

  • @Pennycilin3
    @Pennycilin3 3 ปีที่แล้ว +90

    "Events with really low probability happen all the time!"
    Gacha players: "Finally some motivation."

    • @blob7800
      @blob7800 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      thanks

    • @Nalianna
      @Nalianna 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Lloyd Christmas: "So you're saying there's a chance?"

    • @utoothheartyeight
      @utoothheartyeight 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      "Nobody goes there anymore because it's now so crowded."

    • @number1sleeper925
      @number1sleeper925 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      So me getting Summer Kama can happen?

  • @VRUmasterVRU
    @VRUmasterVRU 4 ปีที่แล้ว +75

    A great way my maths teacher taught us the birthday paradox is this: What is the probability to fly on an airplane with a bomb. Let's say its 1 in 30 million. Now we can calculate the probability of flying on an airplane with two bombs: 1/30m^2 = 1 in 9 with 14 0's - that's quite the high number. Should we just carry a bomb ourselves for safety?

    • @zergreenone8111
      @zergreenone8111 4 ปีที่แล้ว +28

      I don't really think that is that related to the birthday paradox, I think it's more closely related to the gambler's fallacy

    • @VRUmasterVRU
      @VRUmasterVRU 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      ZerGreenOne You are correct, it’s not the same but has some similarities.

    • @adrianalexandrov7730
      @adrianalexandrov7730 4 ปีที่แล้ว +17

      everyone who'd answered "yes" in my class would fail: it's independent events, so you bringing bomb does not affect probability of a terrorist bombing exactly that plane.

    • @bug5654
      @bug5654 4 ปีที่แล้ว +20

      @@adrianalexandrov7730 Excuse me sir, this is my emotional support bomb, thank you VERY much. (Plz no nofly list me FBI).

    • @epicm999
      @epicm999 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@bug5654 rip

  • @MrsTrap99
    @MrsTrap99 4 ปีที่แล้ว +22

    I like these types of videos where you explain how theoretical concepts apply to real life situations. Keep up the amazing work!

  • @PapaFlammy69
    @PapaFlammy69 4 ปีที่แล้ว +72

    TL;DW: nah

    • @Ennar
      @Ennar 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Well, clearly you don't know anything about maths... Just joking, Jens, cheers!

    • @dimitribonanni4035
      @dimitribonanni4035 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Too Long, didn’t wead?

    • @strebicux6174
      @strebicux6174 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Tldr*

    • @d.l.7416
      @d.l.7416 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @Strebicux TL;DW = too long didn’t watch
      Coz it’s a video✨

    • @angelcaru
      @angelcaru 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@dimitribonanni4035 Too Long Didn't Watch

  • @benwinstanleymusic
    @benwinstanleymusic 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    your explanations are so clear and understandable, which is often really hard for something like stats. Keep up the great work Zach!

  • @isabella-nu2fc
    @isabella-nu2fc 4 ปีที่แล้ว +234

    Math belongs everywhere

    • @bulldozer8950
      @bulldozer8950 4 ปีที่แล้ว +34

      As long as it’s correct math...

    • @aleksszukovskis2074
      @aleksszukovskis2074 4 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      People who cant use it correctly do not .

    • @91722854
      @91722854 4 ปีที่แล้ว +26

      @@aleksszukovskis2074 Math belongs everywhere, just the people who are incapable of using it correctly don't belong anywhere

    • @aleksszukovskis2074
      @aleksszukovskis2074 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@91722854 i agree

    • @gasoline9666
      @gasoline9666 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Math is everywhere, too

  • @KevinFlores-ey8tz
    @KevinFlores-ey8tz 4 ปีที่แล้ว +42

    I'm thinking Scott Steiner might've did some wrong calculations when he said he had a 141 2/3% chance for winning at Sacrifice

    • @strebicux6174
      @strebicux6174 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      You know the numbers.... And they spell DISASTER for yoy

  • @heikanaomi4426
    @heikanaomi4426 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I needed this video to check myself. I always try to see all sides before ever making a judgement (in my mind or out loud)..but I didn't realize I was still being duped by the misuse of the numbers. Thank you so much!

  • @NemoK
    @NemoK 4 ปีที่แล้ว +123

    Hey Legal Eagles! Today we'll be talking about math, and why lawyers hate it!

    • @louf7178
      @louf7178 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Don't be so quick to feel invincible - manipulation is their craft (which COULD right or wrong); I'm entirely perturbed of plain effort for winning, and this, sadly, is what is mostly strived for e.g. defense lawyer firm: who would hire a firm that has a losing record? - job security in spite of rightful justice.

    • @tudornaconecinii3609
      @tudornaconecinii3609 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      Except that lawyers, unlike judges and prosecutors, do NOT have it as a fundamental professional standard to be truth seeking or objective. Their job is to present the strongest defense for their client, by any legal means necessary. This is a feature of the system, not a bug.

    • @tudornaconecinii3609
      @tudornaconecinii3609 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Hell, even if you look at the vows taken when entering every given judicial profession, this checks out. Lawyers are the only ones who do NOT have to swear on impartiality under oath.

    • @NemoK
      @NemoK 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      What

    • @abijo5052
      @abijo5052 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @@tudornaconecinii3609 exactly. Because that's the point of having a legal system of two lawyers. It reduces bias by enforcing bias. If a lawyer had to seek justice and impartiality, then their personal biases, such as what justice means to them, would affect the outcome of the case. Instead, both lawyers are given a strong reason to fully be biased towards their own side, so to try their hardest to win. So any ideas of justice or whatever they might have don't matter, as they just want to win the case. By using this, an impartial judge or jury (their bias is a different issue) can see which side has a more convincing argument, as any argument from one side will be fully dissected and argued against from the other side.

  • @peter1062
    @peter1062 4 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    Wouldn't the chances of matching DNA profiles increase dramatically if people were closely (or not so closely) related?
    Isn't the frequency of certain genetic characteristics higher in families or tribal communities?
    People in isolated areas like small islands have often been intermarried for many generations.

    • @ChJuHu93
      @ChJuHu93 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Usually yes. I've not read into that test, but for full analysis of the genom you can even extract the biological relationship between the two.

  • @cawl8122
    @cawl8122 4 ปีที่แล้ว +195

    I know this is dumb but there's a random blue pixel in the top left of ur black background and it's bugging me

  • @bradenborman4396
    @bradenborman4396 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    I try to keep up with your videos and a lot are just over my head, but they’re all enjoyable! I like this one the best

  • @krist264
    @krist264 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Really appreciate this channel breaking down fascinating concepts in understandable language to help people think more critically and perceive things from different perspectives.

  • @SCP.343
    @SCP.343 4 ปีที่แล้ว +56

    One in a million, with more than seven billion people on this rock, doesn't really mean as much as it sounds like it means.

    • @pwnzus
      @pwnzus 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      The meaning wouldn't change though," one in a million" is still "one in a million" even if there were a trillion people on Earth.

    • @jonathanshaw6784
      @jonathanshaw6784 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      There’s a ted talk buy a woman involved in the spam filter for twitter. With that many tweets a one in a million chance happens several times per minute.

    • @SCP.343
      @SCP.343 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@pwnzus yes, it would be in the literal sense the same, each time you run an iteration of a system the odds of each possible outcome remains the same. But the more times you run it the more the actual occurrences of each possible outcome begins to look the same as the model of the statistical probability.

    • @deanfarina8968
      @deanfarina8968 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@pwnzus :What you said is true jm,but it dose increase the chances that the 'one' is standing right next to you...with a frozen banana in his left hand while standing on her right foot whistling Dixie and farting the star spangled banger in Portuguese and and and and...ok...I'm done...(Puts his helmet back on and wipes the drool from his chin as his Texes catheter gently overflows onto the counter of the Dairy Queen where he thinks he works as the attendants slowly unfold the straitjacket which happens to be just his size except for the strap that goes between his unequal legs which are the same in length but different in girth like this absurd diatribe you read to the end for no reason other than the fact that...wow...it sure is dark in here dot,dot,.
      Please ignor the name and picture above as that is not me...or any of us for that matter.

    • @jmchez
      @jmchez 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Are there seven billion people available in your list of suspects? 370 million in the USA, 8 million in New York City, 2 million in Manhattan and so it goes.

  • @Shiraori999
    @Shiraori999 4 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    "How can people be this stupid?"
    "Have you met people?"

  • @zuhail339
    @zuhail339 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Please keep making these AMAZING videos Zach ♥️

  • @disrael2101
    @disrael2101 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Super facisnating and easy to understand explanation! Please keep posting more similar stuff

  • @Aruthicon
    @Aruthicon 4 ปีที่แล้ว +50

    Ah, yes, Januray, my favorite month next to Apple.
    I don’t know where I was going with that joke.

    • @skfok8472
      @skfok8472 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      R/iamveryrandom

    • @strebicux6174
      @strebicux6174 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@skfok8472 r/foundthehondscivic

    • @YouTubeallowedmynametobestolen
      @YouTubeallowedmynametobestolen 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      I can't figure out where you went with that joke.
      But you got there in style, my friend.

  • @s6th795
    @s6th795 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    This was recommended right above your "how to lie with statistics" video. Very fitting.

  • @rc5989
    @rc5989 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Very interesting and informative video. Enjoyed!

  • @happycamperds9917
    @happycamperds9917 4 ปีที่แล้ว +39

    Lawyers: “We spent 8 years in law school and now we need to learn statistics too!”

    • @ableone8956
      @ableone8956 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Yes you do!

    • @sweepsweep5572
      @sweepsweep5572 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      doctors need it. merchants need it. everyone who wants to do better does.

    • @taragnor
      @taragnor 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Honestly I feel like everyone should learn statistics. Even for the common person, it'd solve a bunch of the confusion over interpreting coronavirus numbers. So many arguments are made using statistics and knowing how to interpret them is very important.

  • @CrittingOut
    @CrittingOut 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    This is funny because i just recently rewatched your how to lie with statistics video

  • @davidohrstrom3517
    @davidohrstrom3517 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    I love your videos about probability and statistics! Really good job

  • @cabooey2905
    @cabooey2905 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    your "This is How Easy It Is to Lie With Statistics" is one of my favorite vids because what it shows and how messed up things can be

  • @WheelDragon
    @WheelDragon 4 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    I feel like statistics is one of the best ways to avoid anecdotal evidence. If someone says "hey here's this one time where this happened" you can respond with, "yeah, but that thing was an anomaly, and is a cherry picked case."

    • @MrMarclax
      @MrMarclax 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      but what about the times the statistically improbable does happen?

    • @nedinnis6752
      @nedinnis6752 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@MrMarclax It won't get much weight if you try to use it as evidence, as far as I know.

    • @MrMarclax
      @MrMarclax 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@nedinnis6752 Im not saying that using something improbable as proof is valid. Of course it wont hold much weight. What I was insinuating is that, in a court of law, you can't counter someone's testimony because what happened to them is statistically improbable.

  • @rayanon
    @rayanon 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Hey Zack, you really have a loooooootttt of information in Math, Physics, Chemistry and Bio. I watch your videos often to deeply understand certain concepts of the universe. Your level of education and academics must be really verry high. What degrees and education you have earned?

    • @genericusername4206
      @genericusername4206 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Sir Genius he is an engineer, he has a video on it

  • @nirre4601
    @nirre4601 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Your videos are really inspiring to me. Im studying finance math because of you. Your statistics videos motivated me a lot. Thank you keep up please

  • @JellyWaltzov
    @JellyWaltzov 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Ok, this is the most comprehensive and balanced video I have seen on the subject so far. I salute you.

  • @joaoruiz2577
    @joaoruiz2577 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Zach, do you know the book "Weapons of Math Destruction" by Cathy o'Neill? It's basically about the misuse of math in situations like loan applications, directed advertising and even job interviews! It goes in the same vein as this video, exposing how math can be used maliciously (actually, used only to increase profits, not bearing in mind anything else)

  • @ChadDerekJacobson
    @ChadDerekJacobson 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    if there's one thing people don't understand more than exponential growth, it's statistics, and if there's one thing people don't understand more than statistics, it's probabilities
    my mind is CONVINCED 23 people is not enough for a birthday match after just comparing one person with 22 (instead of taking the next person and comparing by the next 21 and so on)

  • @bernhardriemann1563
    @bernhardriemann1563 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I love your videos about different fields of math and their implications for our life.🙂🥰
    Greeatings from Germany

  • @johnsnow5305
    @johnsnow5305 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Your videos on stats & probability are my favorite. Maybe it's because it's more useful in decision making in everyday life.

  • @Jacob-ye7gu
    @Jacob-ye7gu 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    20:40 I dont know if you were doing this, but the way you said "even with ted bundy" reminds me of a fallacy we commonly see, which is conflating the severity of the crime with the likelihood of guilt - or similarly, the magnitude of the victims' / families' emotions with the validity of the evidence

  • @complainer406
    @complainer406 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Wouldn't the odds be different for a person matching any 5 of the loci from a given sample vs matching a select 5 (i.e. the only 5 that they had)?

  • @louisconstant8214
    @louisconstant8214 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Very interesting video! I liked how it came full circle to the birthday paradox again at the end.

  • @wolcek
    @wolcek 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    I love the ratio of words to information conveyed. It's so huge...

  • @Aedi
    @Aedi 4 ปีที่แล้ว +68

    The birthday problem is 100% a paradox. Paradoxes aren't just self contradictory statements, there's actually 3 types of paradox, one of which is any problem or question which has an extremely counterintuitive solution/outcome. The birthday problem is a paradox because it doesn't fit with how our base intuition works.

    • @jay-xj1om
      @jay-xj1om 4 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      Paradoxes _always_ stem from imperfect understanding of reality. If they seem counter-intuitive it's because our intuition was flawed to begin with (which it always is due to our rather poor sensory organs).

    • @jp4431
      @jp4431 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@jay-xj1om th-cam.com/video/kJzSzGbfc0k/w-d-xo.html

    • @huge_letters
      @huge_letters 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@jp4431 Liar's paradox is not a paradox - when you make a statement you just leave out the first part where you also admit that this statement is true. Year is 365 days long = It is true that year is 365 days long. So if you boil it down to essentials statment "I am lying" is the same "It is true that this is a lie" which we can then boil down to saying "A is true and A is false"(A and not A). You can already see the problem here but to give an example - "This bottle is blue and this bottle is yellow". Nothing paradoxical about this - just semantics.
      I mean if there was a paradox which be just contradictory by it's nature - it's a pretty clear indication that it's actually our misunderstanding on our part since self-contradictory things cannot exist by definition.

    • @DanteKG.
      @DanteKG. 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      If i remember correctly the very definition of a paradox is a contradicting statement.
      So yea, i would say that counter-intuitive statements don't qualify as paradoxes

    • @danielgautreau161
      @danielgautreau161 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      There are many math results that are traditionally called Paradox that seem counter-intuitive or seem at first glance to be wrong or because it's shown that something must be false by showing that it implies1=2. Russell's/ Simpson's/ Burali-Forti/Euler-Cramer/Tarski-Banach, etc. But whether a result gets called Paradox is a matter of taste.

  • @Felixkeeg
    @Felixkeeg 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    18:18 basically another case of "those fookin' biologists"

  • @TheAlison1456
    @TheAlison1456 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The most interesting thing you said in the whole video is something to the effect of us already making probabilistic inferences.
    That's taking a subject out of the cold, dead, deceivng hands of academicist white paper culture and showing the humanity it in fact has.

  • @chrisshelswell3222
    @chrisshelswell3222 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Really interesting - great presentation / vid

  • @Quadratical
    @Quadratical 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    1:35
    "Januray"
    JANURAY

    • @diribigal
      @diribigal 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      To be fair, the chances of being born on Januray 1 are pretty low.

  • @LanK111er
    @LanK111er 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Just kind of a weird question but are the locations of the horizontal DNA pairs actually independent? I'm gonna do some research but I'd love to know if anyone else knows.

  • @rothmeh6597
    @rothmeh6597 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Your videos are always a masterpiece

  • @narisenbara5117
    @narisenbara5117 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    This was so illuminating!

  • @DJTejasMusic28
    @DJTejasMusic28 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    This is really good stuff. I wanna become a lawyer and I study advanced stats and calc in school. For me personally, I would love to see more content like this.

  • @ishworshrestha3559
    @ishworshrestha3559 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Hi I really love your videos. I am right now studying electrical engineering from developing country(poor)
    Can you make video on how can I do well in future (like getting jobs in USA)

    • @abcdxx1059
      @abcdxx1059 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Define Poor you moron

    • @suyashgarg4005
      @suyashgarg4005 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Quite an interesting operationalization of "doing well in future."

    • @ishworshrestha3559
      @ishworshrestha3559 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@abcdxx1059 I mean Nepal. I feel like I am wasting my time studying here.

  • @rsmith4339
    @rsmith4339 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Wow , just wow , I have a new understanding . It's pleasant to find you misunderstood a subject you thought you did .

  • @descuddlebat
    @descuddlebat 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Important video, the brain is not very good with probabilities and statistics so a video packed with good points about those is a gem ^^ I am still shook by the SIDS story from the other video, honestly

  • @mattschumacher4581
    @mattschumacher4581 4 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    This is the problem with the justice system. We assume that “highly likely” is the same as “definitely”. If we abide by the saying “guilty until proven innocent”, then a probability can’t really be used to prove someone guilty because there’s still a probability that the person is innocent even if it’s a low probability. I mean if its an insanely low probability, like 1 in a trillion, then yeah they are guilty, but 1 in a million does not mean impossible.

    • @ntdscherer
      @ntdscherer 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      The standard cannot be absolute certainty. We might as well just throw away the whole criminal justice system if we were to do that, because that standard is essentially impossible to achieve. And people generally would not be able to really understand the difference between one in a million and one in a trillion, let alone actually be able to meaningfully assign such a probability to someone's guilt, so there's no use trying to pin down an exact number as a standard of proof either.

    • @mattschumacher4581
      @mattschumacher4581 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Nate Scherer I understand that but sometimes we use the term highly likely to describe a 9 in 10 chance or something. We just need to know the difference between a high probability and an very high probability. And then we have to use context and other evidence to determine guilt. Sometimes juries and prosecutors are too willing to send someone to jail.

    • @ntdscherer
      @ntdscherer 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@mattschumacher4581 You're definitely right about that. There are lots of people in prison for crimes they didn't commit, which should be sufficient reason to abolish the death penalty. We also need to get rid of all the junk science police and the FBI use to convict people.

    • @mattschumacher4581
      @mattschumacher4581 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Nate Scherer that is so true. We also need to take some of the money we spend on prosecution and give to public defenders. A lot of prosecutors only care about winning cases bc they are paid better if they prosecute more people but they should care more about upholding the law and prosecuting the right person. Basically we just need to accept the fact that is easy to get away with crimes. But it’s much easier to get away with crimes if an innocent person has already been prosecuted for the crime you committed.

    • @ntdscherer
      @ntdscherer 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@mattschumacher4581 Yes! Totally agree.

  • @jonnyp1340
    @jonnyp1340 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Someone phoenix wright me with an objection

  • @tejassumriya567
    @tejassumriya567 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Your videos hurt my brain but i cant stop watching them

  • @sagacious03
    @sagacious03 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Okay analysis! Thanks for uploading!

  • @nk361
    @nk361 2 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    18:58 I think you actually did exactly what you were talking against in the video because even if it's one in one million people on earth, like you said, you can easily reduce the group of people who match the DNA by location, gender, age, appearance, criminal record, etc. Which you sort of mentioned, but still mostly made it sound like it could have been any match on earth. You essentially combine unlikely matches to get a larger and larger probability of it being only them. Pretty much all else sounded correct to me though. :)

  • @spiderwings1421
    @spiderwings1421 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Even IF we assume independent events on the SIDS case, looking at the population of the world, this is likely to happen to at least 100 individuals in the world, or around for in the US
    Edit- lol he literally said the exact same thing 5 seconds after I commented this

  • @nneichan9353
    @nneichan9353 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    I hope to never be on a jury again. I was the only health professional not discharged from the jury, simply because the judge felt the pool numbers were getting too low. He then told me that when the jury was deliberating I could not inject any opinion based on my experience even if I new a conclusion arrived at or stated by another jury member was wrong. I lost a significant degree of respect for the legal system that day.

  • @elliott8700
    @elliott8700 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    another quality upload Mr. Star :)

  • @henrylorenz8911
    @henrylorenz8911 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Do you know how small the chance is, that a planet has life on it? I guess we don't exist

    • @chandy3859
      @chandy3859 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      When people forget how many the sample are.

  • @carterlove
    @carterlove 4 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    If your one in a million thee are 8000 people just like you

    • @laststand6420
      @laststand6420 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      People are superficially the same... And fundamentally, ridiculously different.

  • @Ivana-xm4wi
    @Ivana-xm4wi 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I think that a statistician or two should be present by the law at the trial if statistics is used, so that data can't be biased.

  • @filipjovanovic7356
    @filipjovanovic7356 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    damn I love this channel

  • @noddle045
    @noddle045 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Comparing losing both your infant children with winning the lottery...yikes.

  • @Aziqfajar
    @Aziqfajar 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    2:24 I smell friction

  • @thenayancat8802
    @thenayancat8802 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great video, these are not easy statistical problems to convey clearly.

  • @thepetrichor443
    @thepetrichor443 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    i clicked on the video and was immediately sent back to my 2nd year of college when i took discrete math 2 and learned about the pigeonhole principle, which is basically that birthday example you went over

  • @theproofessayist8441
    @theproofessayist8441 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    It's quite interesting because although I love math - I think utlitarianism or other quantitative frameworks of ethics to be very cringey in my opinion. Regardless this is a very innovative video. Kudos!

    • @obviouslymatt6452
      @obviouslymatt6452 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      What’s cringey about utilitarianism? And it doesn’t even have to be about quantifying it, it’s just about doing whichever you believe to cause the least harm and most pleasure, rather than judging it by some inherent moral standard or belief, such as “lying is always bad”

    • @rudelwolf1591
      @rudelwolf1591 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@obviouslymatt6452 well, because you have to quantify to use utilitarianism. Without quantification, the simple question of what decision has the best outcome get's basically impossible. And quantifying in that way is also basically impossible, as the moment you try to quantify the worth of life, happiness, pleasure, pain etc. you will have basically a different perspective for every human in the world.
      I don't want to say that utilitarianism doesn't have its uses, but you always have to keep in mind that it is not as easy and clear cut as it is often percieved to be.

  • @huvudpersson7344
    @huvudpersson7344 4 ปีที่แล้ว +44

    The solution isn't not using statistics in court, the solution is not having a jury of random people deciding the fate of legal cases.

    • @jeromeorji1057
      @jeromeorji1057 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Sure but that would be undemocratic. One hand, you ensure that the jury is "fair" by choosing jurors randomly but on the other hand, the majority of the populace is highly prone to illogical thinking and other fallacious reasoning. Going the undemocratic route consolidates the power to decide the fate of everyone else in the hands of a few, and the few is more easily corrupted than the many.

    • @huvudpersson7344
      @huvudpersson7344 4 ปีที่แล้ว +21

      @@jeromeorji1057 I understand what you mean, but I am not saying that having just one judge is the answer. For example, in the UK they have their system with a jury of magistrates, or like in Sweden (and I'm sure many other countries) Where you have three judges that have a long legal education and a good understanding of the law. Yes, there are some cases where judges can be bought and influenced by others, but a jury can easily be tricked into thinking something based on emotion or things that are completely illogical, and you can be sure that lawyers are aware of this and will use this as much as they can.

    • @huvudpersson7344
      @huvudpersson7344 4 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      And about undemocratic: isn't the most democratic thing having competent people that understand and will use the laws that govern the democracy correctly?

    • @HotCrossJuns
      @HotCrossJuns 4 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      @@huvudpersson7344 The whole point of democracy is that everyone's voice is equal to each other. Now, obviously, there are flaws in this system, but as Churchill said: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried"
      Therefore, a jury of judges would be anti-democratic as the judges would be considered elites of society that completely controlled the criminal justice system

    • @9308323
      @9308323 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@jeromeorji1057 Truth never cared for democracy.

  • @TheGrinningSkull
    @TheGrinningSkull 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Wow, I love the DNA analogy bringing back the birthday paradox. That was awesome to understand it!

  • @prometheus7387
    @prometheus7387 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Nice video Zack!
    To talk about that genetics + facial evidence again, can we also consider the fact that the DNA likely influences those very facial looks so the identities are not necessarily independent from his genetics?

    • @Bianca_Toeps
      @Bianca_Toeps 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Exactly. And especially if the guy had brothers, it might just as well have been them.

  • @morisakomasaru8020
    @morisakomasaru8020 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    It probably does.

  • @flobbie87
    @flobbie87 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    "All other wills are invalid.", doesn't make any sense.

    • @strebicux6174
      @strebicux6174 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Yeah wtf? Why would she ever write a second will then?

    • @DDUU11
      @DDUU11 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@strebicux6174 Maybe she had supposed she could start losing her mental faculties later, for whatever reason, and make a worse choice (or write a second will because she forgot the first ever existed)

    • @strebicux6174
      @strebicux6174 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@DDUU11 yeah the mental health one is a good answer

    • @calvinmcneil9824
      @calvinmcneil9824 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      It would make sense just in case someone forged a new will later on

  • @leehutchinson7005
    @leehutchinson7005 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The key in the last case, which is simpler to understand, is that the wrong question was put forward in court. They asked the probability of a match and being innocent instead of the probability of having a match and being guilty. In the UK if the prob was 1 in a million for being innocent then the approx number of people who would match would be 60. So on stats alone the probability of being guilty is only 1 in 60.

  • @irreleverent
    @irreleverent 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The calculation for the SIDS mother made me twitch a bit. The data was just so blatantly misused along multiple axes that it hurt.

  • @thomashanson3476
    @thomashanson3476 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Who’s here after dream got called out?

  • @JoseJimeniz
    @JoseJimeniz 4 ปีที่แล้ว +25

    "What are the odds he's innocent?" I would not, in good conscience, send someone to prison based on odds. I want actual evidence that *he* did it.

    • @seventeenpipingounces
      @seventeenpipingounces 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Then it sounds like you didn't watch the entire video and understand the point of it.

    • @JoseJimeniz
      @JoseJimeniz 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@seventeenpipingounces I did watch it. Which part do you think addresses our concerns.

    • @JoostMehrtens
      @JoostMehrtens 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@JoseJimeniz So what do you count as evidence, finger prints? DNA? Eye witnesses? They all have a probability of failure.

  • @ziwuri
    @ziwuri 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Januray is my new favorite month.

  • @eaven6740
    @eaven6740 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Speaking of math I remember this one problem I had on an assignment
    It was essentially this: You had 2 cops, both were about 10 miles away on the same road , were able to communicate with each other through radio, and the speed limit is 60mph. Cop 1, earlier in the road sees someone driving by, checks them with radar going exactly 60, all fine, but they're suspicious for some reason so they tell cop 2 about this car, start a timer, and wait. A little under 8 minutes later cop 2 sees the person driving by, checks their radar and still 60, but after doing some quick math (Math that if done right proves the person HAD to have gone over 60 at some point between the cops) and tickets/gives official warning for speeding. Although the cops never actually saw it, would they be justified in giving a speeding ticket to someone (So long as their math is correct in all aspects) for a speed limit that they were mathematically proven to have broken?

    • @ntdscherer
      @ntdscherer 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Assuming they actually measured the distance correctly, marked the times correctly, and did the math correctly, I don't see why not. The only possible issue is multiple cars matching the description, so they would need to do it by license plate number. That's how they ticket people using aircraft after all. There are markings on the highway, and they just use a stopwatch to see how long a car takes to get between two markings a known distance apart (one mile I assume). Then radio it to a car. In that case the car never passes out of view, but it's the same principle. What was the expected answer for the assignment?

  • @wgfuzgvy6016
    @wgfuzgvy6016 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Imagine being recommended this video because of the whole dream incident

    • @julymorris6367
      @julymorris6367 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      This reminds me of when shartpissbaby69 and penisnotfound went through the urmomfat exile arc 😔

  • @42f87d89
    @42f87d89 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    It makes so much sense to use the birthday paradox to explain why you can't just multiply the total number of option by the probability you want! How could I never had thought of that. It's like an extension of the pigeonhole principle.

    • @nowonmetube
      @nowonmetube 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      He used the birthday paradox wrongly though. He used a probability of 50% _sharing a birthday._ Why 50% though?
      What are the odds that there's a 100% change they shared their birthday?

    • @SgtSupaman
      @SgtSupaman 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@nowonmetube , he used 50% because that is what is commonly used when this "paradox" is presented (because 50% is half and it is really easy to figure out half of 366, which leads people to the initial wrong answer of 183). This figure of 23 is also used because it is the closest one will get to having an equal chance of finding a shared birthday vs not finding one (it is actually about a 50.63% chance that two people in a group of 23 will share a birthday).
      The reason no one uses 100% in that problem, is because the answer is intuitive and pretty obvious. You would have to have 367 people to have a 100% chance that someone in the group will share a birthday with someone else in the group. Even a group of 366 people will still have an extremely small chance of everyone having a different birthday. And when I say "extremely small", I mean -small enough that I couldn't find a calculator that could figure it out- it is .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000536% (that's 5.36x10^-156 % or a chance smaller than 1 out of an octodecillian googol).
      However, there are some other interesting points one could use. To get around 90% chance of someone sharing a birthday, you need a group of 41 people (90.25%), to get around 99%, you need a group of 57 people (99.00%), and to get about 99.99%, you need 80 people.

    • @nowonmetube
      @nowonmetube 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@SgtSupaman but still 100% it would NEED to be 366, right? Because even though pretty low, but the chance is there, that everyone of 365 has a different birthday, right?

    • @SgtSupaman
      @SgtSupaman 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@nowonmetube , correct. I used 367 as the required group to reach 100% because there are really 366 birthdays (some people are born on February 29th).

  • @canyadigit6274
    @canyadigit6274 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    I really enjoyed this video

  • @suponjubobu5536
    @suponjubobu5536 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    I am now excited to get to probability classes!

  • @WiggaMachiavelli
    @WiggaMachiavelli 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    1:26
    "guaranteed"
    No, we're not. You need 367 people in a room to guarantee that at least two share a birthday. Nothing short of that will give you a guarantee.

    • @Topples7
      @Topples7 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      "Basically"

    • @andysmo
      @andysmo 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Having 367 people doesn't guarantee it, since some may have the same birthday.