Russian roulette probability question

[Tach]

Tach:

You obviously haven't caught up with the conversation. The problem was solved in your absence.

Not by you, that is clear. Of all the participants in this thread you are the only one who did not solve the problem.

Read back to see the full solution. You'll learn something.

I read the solutions, they produce the same result as the simpler solution I outlined earlier for you and AN. I see that you expect me to solve every step for you, right?

 

[James R]

Tach:

Quit while you're ahead. You're making yourself look stupid again.

 

[Guest254]

I read the solutions, they produce the same result as the simpler solution I outlined earlier for you and AN. I see that you expect me to solve every step for you, right?

Why do you do this? Time after time you make a complete muppet of yourself on this forum, and this is no exception. Your solution is the lowest possible form of such: case-by-case brute force which is only approachable for low N (hence why you didn't choose to do it, for say, N=1,108,099,001). It has as much finesse as that of a blind rhino painting with watercolours. To suggest it's easier than the others presented is outright stupid. Congratulations.

Hell, when no one had already told you how to do the problem, you chirped in and told everyone it wasn't possible!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Don't make claims you can't back up.

I told you it could be done by brute force, and I even outlined how to do it. The discussion among others then concluded the general result. After I told you enough information was provided you then repeated back my method to me with the case n=3, a case I had explicitly said I'd already done by brute force!!

Not only didn't you say nothing I didn't already knew but said things I'd explicitly said I already knew!!

 

[Tach]

Why do you do this? Time after time you make a complete muppet of yourself on this forum, and this is no exception. Your solution is the lowest possible form of such: case-by-case brute force which is only approachable for low N (hence why you didn't choose to do it, for say, N=1,108,099,001). It has as much finesse as that of a blind rhino painting with watercolours. To suggest it's easier than the others presented is outright stupid. Congratulations.

Heck, quite predictably, the master asshole just chimed in. As predictably, you cannot extrapolate from the case N=3 to N>3. Congratulations! As a "mathematician" you surely must know that there are multiple ways of solving a problem. Besides, no one was talking to you, I was trying to help your sidekick, AN.

 

[Tach]

I told you it could be done by brute force, and I even outlined how to do it.

...after I explained to you how to use the $$1-p(none)$$ and after I defined $$p(none)$$ to you. It is not my problem that you are the same ungrateful asshole who cannot generalize from N=3 to N>3.

 

[Guest254]

Tach in "deny everything and beat my chest" shocker! Will you ever learn?

 

[Tach]

snip

Quit jerking off by yourself, see if you can get a girlfriend. Get a life. Stalking is the lowest form of bottom feeder.

 

[przyk]

It is not my problem that you are the same ungrateful asshole who cannot generalize from N=3 to N>3.

We think you can't do it either. Prove us wrong. Generalize your method for arbitrary N.

As the saying goes, put up or shut up.

 

[Pete]

Heck, quite predictably, the master asshole just chimed in. As predictably, you cannot extrapolate from the case N=3 to N>3. Congratulations! As a "mathematician" you surely must know that there are multiple ways of solving a problem. Besides, no one was talking to you, I was trying to help your sidekick, AN.

What are you doing, Tach?

 

[Tach]

We think you can't do it either. Prove us wrong. Generalize your method for arbitrary N.

I am not going to play your game, $$p(none)$$ extends easily when you add a player. It is sad to see you joining the other assholes' choir.

 

[Tach]

What are you doing, Tach?

Exchanging barbs with a bunch of jerks.

 

[Guest254]

Quit jerking off by yourself, see if you can get a girlfriend. Get a life. Stalking is the lowest form of bottom feeder.

Then, if beating your chest doesn't work, go for masturbation quips -- that'll do it!

 

[Tach]

Then, if beating your chest doesn't work, go for masturbation quips -- that'll do it!

If the shoe fits, wear it. You missed the stalking part and the part about getting a life.

 

[Guest254]

So that is your tactic? Abandon the chest beating and start name calling? What next!?

 

[Tach]

So that is your tactic? Abandon the chest beating and start name calling? What next!?

Well, well, who started the muppet show? Pot, why don't you meet your friend, kettle?

 

[Guest254]

Oh come now, looking like a muppet can hardly be a new concept for you! You've done exactly this in countless threads!

 

[Pete]

Exchanging barbs with a bunch of jerks.

Why?
All you're doing is pissing people off.
It's not looking good for you.

 

[przyk]

I am not going to play your game, $$p(none)$$ extends easily when you add a player.

How? All you did was brute force the relatively simple case N = 3.

It is sad to see you joining the other assholes' choir.

It doesn't look good for you that you react this way whenever anyone challenges you to put your money where your mouth is.

 

[James R]

Quit jerking off by yourself, see if you can get a girlfriend. Get a life. Stalking is the lowest form of bottom feeder.

Exchanging barbs with a bunch of jerks.

How old are you, Tach?

You sound like a teenager.

Actually, I'd peg you at about 20 years old - an immature 20.

Old enough to have a little education, but not wise enough to lose the unattractive ego.

Do you have a girlfriend? Or do women find you to be a bit of a stuck-up arsehole jerk (to use your terminology)?