• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant

pavel_do said:
:) I cant claim 29 out of 40.. cause that not beating 1.000 odds..:)
Click to expand...

Just to make sure you understand this, it is possible to claim a success rate lower than 75% and still have 1:1000 odds. A lower success rate would just require more trials to prove. For example, as I noted above, the odds of getting 60 or more correct out of 90 are also about 1:1000. The real problem with that is that it would be a much longer test.
 
Peristarkawan said:
Just to make sure you understand this, it is possible to claim a success rate lower than 75% and still have 1:1000 odds. A lower success rate would just require more trials to prove. For example, as I noted above, the odds of getting 60 or more correct out of 90 are also about 1:1000. The real problem with that is that it would be a much longer test.
Click to expand...

Pavel understands this. He originally proposed more trials, but JREF felt this was problematic. The current design is intended to accommodate concerns raised by JREF.
 
Startz said:
Pavel understands this. He originally proposed more trials, but JREF felt this was problematic. The current design is intended to accommodate concerns raised by JREF.
Click to expand...
Which is why he definitely should be retested if he gets 29 -- or even 27 or 28 -- out of 40. If the JREF is serious about the paranormal, it can't ignore unusual results that fall just below an arbitrary standard that it establishes.
 
Rodney said:
Which is why he definitely should be retested if he gets 29 -- or even 27 or 28 -- out of 40. If the JREF is serious about the paranormal, it can't ignore unusual results that fall just below an arbitrary standard that it establishes.
Click to expand...

Please stay on topic, particularly in this thread. The topic of the thread is the protocol for Pavel Ziborov's claim. Potential future testing has no place here.
 
Rodney said:
Which is why he definitely should be retested if he gets 29 -- or even 27 or 28 -- out of 40. If the JREF is serious about the paranormal, it can't ignore unusual results that fall just below an arbitrary standard that it establishes.
Click to expand...

Oh, Rodney, we've all had this discussion before. Fifteen or twenty times, if I recall correctly. The JREF is not serious about the paranormal. They are serious about challenging those people who make claims about the paranormal to demonstrate their abilities. That's all we're asking Pavel, or any other applicant, to do. Demonstrate the exact ability you claim to have. If Pavel claims to be able to correctly identify 30 of 40 photographs, then 29 does not meet his own conditions.

Of course, until Pavel undertakes his test, your position on this is moot. What happens if he only gets 26 correct? Or 25? Or 19? Where do you draw the line? Or do you not recognise why it is necessary to draw a line?

Do you?
 
Gr8wight said:
Oh, Rodney, we've all had this discussion before. Fifteen or twenty times, if I recall correctly. The JREF is not serious about the paranormal. They are serious about challenging those people who make claims about the paranormal to demonstrate their abilities. That's all we're asking Pavel, or any other applicant, to do. Demonstrate the exact ability you claim to have. If Pavel claims to be able to correctly identify 30 of 40 photographs, then 29 does not meet his own conditions.

Of course, until Pavel undertakes his test, your position on this is moot. What happens if he only gets 26 correct? Or 25? Or 19? Where do you draw the line? Or do you not recognise why it is necessary to draw a line?

Do you?
Click to expand...
Let's continue this discussion in the existing thread "Odds Standard for Preliminary Test."
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
Let's continue this discussion in the existing thread "Odds Standard for Preliminary Test."
Click to expand...

In said thread, Pavel made the following post:

pavel_do said:
He is right, though I think I will be able to perform 30 out of 40, will do my best for that. If I was sure I cant do that I would say I am not going for it… I was the one who asked for 40 pairs.. At least..
But the conditions is not as good for me as the other tests that would give me enough time, less stress in order to perform positive results.
I know some one will say now.. you see.. he prepared already an excuse in case he fails..
THERE WILL BE NO EXCUSES… no one forced me to apply and take test.. It is my own decision..
Just that I want test to happen.. And if I will not step out of my way and test conditions that would make me really comfortable etc.. that the test will never happen.. cause it take too many hours.. cause I have advantage, cause it is too many photos etc.. CAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ME TO PASS IT WITH THOSE CONDITONS..
I stepped way to far just to move some how the negotiations and make test possible..
I would be more comfortable with 2-3 trials ( let say by 30 pairs in each) where achieving positive results in any would mean I passed it by covering any way 1.000 odds that needed to pass preliminary test.. I am sure during all 2-3 trial I would perform evident results that I am real deal and able to see and perform what I am claiming to! Having 2-3 trials also reduce a stress level that is the main issue for me in order to be as calm as I can during a test… Every one would feel calmer and more comfortable knowing that he can perform 2-3 trial.. But not 1.. I have explained that many times.
Same with more pairs.. that is still covers 1.000 that is way far from getting by a chance and I see no problem in having a few hour test with allot of pairs that I am the one who pays for any way..
Etc.. many reasons that I have explained before many times that is just ignored, and I am in front of the fact that it will be not allowed full stop.
Like passing it make them to give me the money! that is just a preliminary test as we all know.
Just that passing it will mean that is possible to pass the second one and get the money.

I will be honest with you. If the JREF will not let me to have results revealed immediately after each pair is named, I am not taking this test. Cause that would mean I have agreed to everything that will make test almost impossible to pass and I have to rely in chance to pass it..
Ill just drop it, and will be looking for other ways of testing ( maybe JREF offer something reasonable too). There is a time.. my claim valid for 1 year if I am not mistaken.
I really want test to happen and doing my best to make it possible. Cause I know I will be able to show that such things is real and can exist and has to be studied etc.. There is a fake psychics.. but that dose not mean there is no real ones!
Click to expand...

I highlighted one relevant part.
 
GzuzKryzt said:
In said thread, Pavel made the following post:

I highlighted one relevant part.
Click to expand...

I am sure most of people read it there, same as JREF..:) I see no reasons to copy and post it here too.. Or... Oh yes.. cause I said if JREF will not allow the envelopes to be opened immediately.. (that is not affect odds in any ways), so I am not taking this test.
And I am not taking this test with pairs, as I agreed to all that they wanted so far and that the last thing that would help me to show good results… and I am not getting off that.. If it cant not be agreed, that we have to find the other test to test me and I will do my best for that as I am doing any ways. So what the problem? I am being honest , as always but..:)
Every body, have a nice weekend.
Regards,
Pavel
 
GzuzKryzt said:
I highlighted one relevant part.
Click to expand...
What is your point? Pavel has always maintained that he foresees what will happen when the envelope is opened and this is why he needs each envelope to be opened immediately after the guess, so it is not confuse it with others.

IXP
 
IXP said:
What is your point? Pavel has always maintained that he foresees what will happen when the envelope is opened and this is why he needs each envelope to be opened immediately after the guess, so it is not confuse it with others.

IXP
Click to expand...


His point is obvious.. to twist it and make look like I have no intentions to have any test and sort of wasting my time and the others etc..

I am not even going to argue it.. it is pointless. I am just sick of it to be honnest. When some one don’t want to see (admit) the truth, he will not see or admit it.. and the truth is that I am not wasting anyone’s time, and I really want to have proper good test and show that what I am claiming I am able to perform. And I will do my best to make it happen. I just cant as a lame sheep, agree to all the conditions that would put me in the position to lose the test, but not being able to perform it is best…
Any way I am sure who want to see it he sees it..

Or that was another joke? Or the way to encourage me? I am sorry but maybe due to a cultural difference and some others.. I don’t take it as a joke, and obviously not taking it as an encouraging…
 
Last edited:
I am with you Pavel.

I think you have been quite reasonable in trying to determine exactly what you can do and under what circumstances. You are one of the few who has not changed your story or come up with new demands each time JREF proposes something. I hope you get a test that you believe you can pass.

IXP

p.s. This does not mean that I think you will pass!
 
IXP said:
I am with you Pavel.

I think you have been quite reasonable in trying to determine exactly what you can do and under what circumstances. You are one of the few who has not changed your story or come up with new demands each time JREF proposes something. I hope you get a test that you believe you can pass.

IXP

p.s. This does not mean that I think you will pass!
Click to expand...

I fully agree with IXP's position.
 
Hi Pavel.

Welcome to город skeptiks :)

It was always going to be tough for you to deal with the rigourous examination of your ability here. It's just the nature of the place that it will sometimes become quite adversarial, and you seem to have done a brilliant job so far of not taking it personally, but rather in the spirit of transparency in which most criticisms and suggestions have been made.

Please believe that nobody here will attempt to twist your words with intent to discredit you. That's just not what the folks here do. Well, mostly :)

But people will insist, quite rightly, that all the cards are on the table, so to speak.

Your honesty has set you apart from the vast majority of previous claimants, and I'm sure this will continue until a mutually agreeable test is designed.


I understand your need to see the envelopes opened as you make your choices, and I also understand the objections to this, but sadly I don't know nearly enough to help with a solution. I just wanted to add a voice of support for the way you've gone about this, regardless of the outcome.


Good Luck Mate,

Dave
 
I can't believe I missed this! Pavel, you said earier that you could not use the blank/white photos because you confused it sometimes with the cross picture. What if you used only blank/white photos & black/exposed photos as your "targets" in your test? if you had one black & one white in the pair, perhaps you would "see" one or the other more distinctively. If that is the case, then you could do say sets of 5 envelopes, but only one contains the black or white photo(whichever you can feel strongest about), the other 4 contain the opposite color photo. That would be a 1 in five chance, or 20% as opposed to the 50% chance per pair, meaning less runs. I would be really interested in seeing what your success with that protocol is, I'm sure one of our number crunchers will come up with how many runs you would have to do to meet the odds, assuming that you are sticking to the 75% accuracy claim...
 
Ravenwood said:
I can't believe I missed this! Pavel, you said earier that you could not use the blank/white photos because you confused it sometimes with the cross picture. What if you used only blank/white photos & black/exposed photos as your "targets" in your test? if you had one black & one white in the pair, perhaps you would "see" one or the other more distinctively. If that is the case, then you could do say sets of 5 envelopes, but only one contains the black or white photo(whichever you can feel strongest about), the other 4 contain the opposite color photo. That would be a 1 in five chance, or 20% as opposed to the 50% chance per pair, meaning less runs. I would be really interested in seeing what your success with that protocol is, I'm sure one of our number crunchers will come up with how many runs you would have to do to meet the odds, assuming that you are sticking to the 75% accuracy claim...
Click to expand...

The odds of getting 7 correct out of 10 would be 0.00086, about 1:1157.
At a 60% accuracy rate, the odds of getting 9 correct out of 15 would be 0.00078, about 1:1274.
 
Protocol under consideration

There are a large number of statistical designs that can be used for these tests, as well as a large number of experimental procedures. Forumites have made a number of helpful suggestions along both lines that Pavel has used in coming up with a protocol.

As of right now, there is a specific proposed protocol that was emailed to JREF just over a week ago. It was also posted here in the forum. While waiting for JREF to respond, it would be most helpful for folks here to comment on the current draft protocol.

Remember that:

(1) Pavel's claimed ability is to "see" the content of envelopes that will be opened after his identification. He "sees" the envelopes being opened. He does not claim to see into the sealed envelopes. This is a claim of clairvoyance, as opposed to "x-ray vision."

(2) Pavel has always said his that his ability is imperfect.

(3) JREF wants to hold down the number of envelopes involved, and has expressed some preference for the test to be done in pairs of envelopes.
 
Startz said:
There are a large number of statistical designs that can be used for these tests, as well as a large number of experimental procedures. Forumites have made a number of helpful suggestions along both lines that Pavel has used in coming up with a protocol.

As of right now, there is a specific proposed protocol that was emailed to JREF just over a week ago. It was also posted here in the forum. While waiting for JREF to respond, it would be most helpful for folks here to comment on the current draft protocol.

Remember that:

(1) Pavel's claimed ability is to "see" the content of envelopes that will be opened after his identification. He "sees" the envelopes being opened. He does not claim to see into the sealed envelopes. This is a claim of clairvoyance, as opposed to "x-ray vision."

(2) Pavel has always said his that his ability is imperfect.

(3) JREF wants to hold down the number of envelopes involved, and has expressed some preference for the test to be done in pairs of envelopes.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the summary! I might have missed it in my skimming, or it might have gotten a bit obfuscated in translation, but it wasn't until this thread that I realized the claimed ability was clairvoyance rather than some flavor of remote viewing. That makes it greatly more clear why the post-selection reveal might impact performance.

The following have probably already been suggested but...
It would seem likely that with an ability like this, testing several differentation classes would be much easier (one would be less likely to confuse the results of multiple trials). For example, do one trial with six envelopes containing pictures of zenner cards. Pavel points the one out from a list that will be chosen, then a die is rolled and that number envelope opened and the item shown to Pavel. A second trial is then done with pictures of six different colors of full-page rectangles. Another trial might use pictures of numerical digits, etc.

Perhaps he has more difficulty picking out one item from among a similar class of items though, so his own testing will have to guide the protocol. I was just hoping to offer a helpful suggestion based on my recent new understanding of the described ability.
 
petre said:
Thanks for the summary! I might have missed it in my skimming, or it might have gotten a bit obfuscated in translation, but it wasn't until this thread that I realized the claimed ability was clairvoyance rather than some flavor of remote viewing. That makes it greatly more clear why the post-selection reveal might impact performance.

The following have probably already been suggested but...
It would seem likely that with an ability like this, testing several differentation classes would be much easier (one would be less likely to confuse the results of multiple trials). For example, do one trial with six envelopes containing pictures of zenner cards. Pavel points the one out from a list that will be chosen, then a die is rolled and that number envelope opened and the item shown to Pavel. A second trial is then done with pictures of six different colors of full-page rectangles. Another trial might use pictures of numerical digits, etc.

Perhaps he has more difficulty picking out one item from among a similar class of items though, so his own testing will have to guide the protocol. I was just hoping to offer a helpful suggestion based on my recent new understanding of the described ability.
Click to expand...

Thank you, good advise.. But I think for JREF such test will be too complicated as it will again involve allot of different pictures etc... and they are not research team that interested in researching and testing.. it is a challenge..
 
I know it is out of topic.. but still would like to post it..
There is a web site offering a phone readings to there clients.. and there is a top pay “psychic” that charges 20$ per MINUTE… I am shocked.. Nevertheless.. here is one of the comments.. from the client.. that made me laugh so I would like to share it with you.

“He started by saying things were really good for me & he was going to tell me why they were. He repeated that statement 3 times and then it sounded like he turned on the water and stepped into the shower--while still trying to talk to me. When I told him I could no longer hear him he said he would speak louder. Louder wasn't the problem--he sounded all garbled like he was drowning. Total waste of $$$$. If you don't have the time to do a proper reading don't be available for calls.”
 
pavel_do said:
I know it is out of topic.. but still would like to post it..
There is a web site offering a phone readings to there clients.. and there is a top pay “psychic” that charges 20$ per MINUTE… I am shocked.. Nevertheless.. here is one of the comments.. from the client.. that made me laugh so I would like to share it with you.

“He started by saying things were really good for me & he was going to tell me why they were. He repeated that statement 3 times and then it sounded like he turned on the water and stepped into the shower--while still trying to talk to me. When I told him I could no longer hear him he said he would speak louder. Louder wasn't the problem--he sounded all garbled like he was drowning. Total waste of $$$$. If you don't have the time to do a proper reading don't be available for calls.”
Click to expand...


Good one :)

Reminds me of those sex lines which are staffed by all kinds of people -- grannies, guys with feminine sounding voices, and so on. I guess it's a living.


M.
 
At this point, I'm going to need to have some discussions with other JREF staff members.

They are trickling back from the Galapagos trip. I'll update soon.
 
The following would appear to address most if not all of the various issues and objections:

There are 27 trials.

There are 3 opaquely lined envelopes per trial.

There is 1 photograph with an image and 2 blank photographs in each trial's set of envelopes.

Pavel chooses one envelope per trial after examining all three as he desires (if necessary, within a pre-set time limit).

A successful trial (hit) is choosing the photograph with an image.

The result of each trial is revealed immediately after each trial.

The image(s) can be the same for all the trials, or different for each trial, whatever Pavel thinks would be most helpful. He may be shown a copy of the trial's image or told in words what the image depicts at the start of each trial if that would be helpful.

18 hits in the 27 trials (2/3 or better correct) is a successful test. The probability of success by chance is well under 1 in 1000 (.000407). The probability of 17 hits or better by chance is .00154.

The success rate needed for success corresponds to getting 27 or more hits out of 40, something that appears to be more comfortably within Pavel's claimed success rate than 30 out of 40.

Note that the total number of envelopes involved is only one more than in the 40-trials protocol currently under consideration.

(If I'm interpreting Pavel's comments correctly, he suggests failures occur when he is unable to perceive the future opening of an envelope showing a target picture when the envelope does in fact contain the target picture -- in other words, false negatives. If that's the case, then the presence of the two blanks instead of one in each trial set should not decrease the probability of success per trial, given that the examination time he would have available per envelope would be the same.)

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
The following would appear to address most if not all of the various issues and objections:

There are 27 trials.

There are 3 opaquely lined envelopes per trial.

There is 1 photograph with an image and 2 blank photographs in each trial's set of envelopes.

Pavel chooses one envelope per trial after examining all three as he desires (if necessary, within a pre-set time limit).

A successful trial (hit) is choosing the photograph with an image.

>snip
Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

I rather like this. It greatly reduces the probability of a false negative, down to about 40 percent. I think this is better than the revised protocol that Pavel (with a minor assist from me) submitted.

Pavel:

If you like this, perhaps you should send it in to Remie.
-Dick
 
Rodney said:
So, under your proposal, would 17 out of 27 be a failure or would the preliminary test be extended?
Click to expand...

The applicant may submit the protocol design. The JREF will decide if 17 out of 27, or 18 out of 27, or some other result will satisfy their statistical requirements. In any case, there are two possible outcomes: a) the applicant is successful, or: b) the applicant is unsuccessful. Giving the applicant a do-over for being kinda close is not provided for in the rules.

But why am I wasting my time writing this all out, Rodney? You already know this. You're just being deliberately obtuse for trolling purposes.
 
Rodney said:
So, under your proposal, would 17 out of 27 be a failure or would the preliminary test be extended?
Click to expand...

Please note that my proposal is a suggestion from a third party, not an offer from JREF.

Pavel (with Startz's continued help) must negotiate these things. I would suggest -- still as a bystander -- that he choose ONE of the following possiblities, whichever he feels is most important to him, to negotiate for:

1. Explicit provision for a guaranteed extension of the test, within a set range of future dates, should a certain number of hits short of the requirement be made.

2. Allowance for a chance probability value for success somewhat over .001, such as allowing 17 of 27 to be counted as a success.

3. Slightly increased number of trials. With the trials as I suggested them, if there were 30 trials instead of 27 (that's ten more envelopes total than the 40-trial protocol, but fewer steps for the testers to go through during the test than the 40-trial protocol), 19 hits would be sufficient for p < .001 (.000737). That's essentially three more chances to make one more hit. (That seems surprising, but it's how the math works out.) Overall 19 out of 30 is approximately the same hit expectation per trial as 25 out of 40.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
The following would appear to address most if not all of the various issues and objections:

There are 27 trials.

There are 3 opaquely lined envelopes per trial.

There is 1 photograph with an image and 2 blank photographs in each trial's set of envelopes.

Pavel chooses one envelope per trial after examining all three as he desires (if necessary, within a pre-set time limit).

A successful trial (hit) is choosing the photograph with an image.

The result of each trial is revealed immediately after each trial.

The image(s) can be the same for all the trials, or different for each trial, whatever Pavel thinks would be most helpful. He may be shown a copy of the trial's image or told in words what the image depicts at the start of each trial if that would be helpful.

18 hits in the 27 trials (2/3 or better correct) is a successful test. The probability of success by chance is well under 1 in 1000 (.000407). The probability of 17 hits or better by chance is .00154.

The success rate needed for success corresponds to getting 27 or more hits out of 40, something that appears to be more comfortably within Pavel's claimed success rate than 30 out of 40.

Note that the total number of envelopes involved is only one more than in the 40-trials protocol currently under consideration.

(If I'm interpreting Pavel's comments correctly, he suggests failures occur when he is unable to perceive the future opening of an envelope showing a target picture when the envelope does in fact contain the target picture -- in other words, false negatives. If that's the case, then the presence of the two blanks instead of one in each trial set should not decrease the probability of success per trial, given that the examination time he would have available per envelope would be the same.)

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Thank you very much!
Sounds good.. as even the results would be more evident than 50/50 chance in pairs... For that reason before I was offering also 1 out of 3.. and even 2 out of 5.. I can try this one tomorrow or Saturday.. and It still might be better for me if there will be 3 photos.. not 2 blank.. But sound “easy” and I done things like this before.. just that there was 3 photos.. not 2 blank and 1 photo.. But I think it does not matter at all for the odds..:)
So we could prepare with Startz a new proposal for JREF and see what they would say..
 
Hi, Pavel --

Play around with different combinations of regular photos and blank photos and see what works best. In the end, it doesn't really matter, as long as there's some kind of target image (or non-image) that you can identify out of two other images or non-images (which need not necessarily be the same as each other).

I love the idea of three photos. This thread has inspired me to take a stats & probabilities class this next term. What a cool collaborative effort!
 
pavel_do said:
Thank you very much!
Sounds good.. as even the results would be more evident than 50/50 chance in pairs... For that reason before I was offering also 1 out of 3.. and even 2 out of 5.. I can try this one tomorrow or Saturday.. and It still might be better for me if there will be 3 photos.. not 2 blank.. But sound “easy” and I done things like this before.. just that there was 3 photos.. not 2 blank and 1 photo.. But I think it does not matter at all for the odds..:)
So we could prepare with Startz a new proposal for JREF and see what they would say..
Click to expand...

Pavel:

This sounds good. I think that to keep the negotiations on track you should put some weight on keeping things simple. You might do well to stick exactly to Myriad's suggestion, perhaps using 3 photos if that is really important.
 
Im not sure if I am the only person who noticied this or if it is something that has been covered before, or if im wong on this, but the statistics most of you have been posting seem faulty...

10 sets of two envelopes: probability of getting them in two distinct piles... 50%. Every time you start a new pair the probability of getting it right goes back to one out of two... (i.e. 1 out of 2, 2, out of 4, 3 out of 6), it's a constant 50% probability. It would be different if a stack of 20 was handed to them and they picked the correct one of 20 each time, but 1 of 2 each time stays at 50%.

Same goes for the three envelopes at a time method only its a 33.3% chance of getting them correct.

Each time a new one is done the number correct or incorrect goes up, but so does the total number of envelopes taken in to consideration.

EDIT:

PS: I would suggest making it so the envelopes cannot be picked up, ie, they are taped to the table or are fastened down, allowing them to be tuched but not held.
 
Last edited:
gibsonbaud said:
Im not sure if I am the only person who noticied this or if it is something that has been covered before, or if im wong on this, but the statistics most of you have been posting seem faulty...

10 sets of two envelopes: probability of getting them in two distinct piles... 50%. Every time you start a new pair the probability of getting it right goes back to one out of two... (i.e. 1 out of 2, 2, out of 4, 3 out of 6), it's a constant 50% probability. It would be different if a stack of 20 was handed to them and they picked the correct one of 20 each time, but 1 of 2 each time stays at 50%.

Same goes for the three envelopes at a time method only its a 33.3% chance of getting them correct.

Each time a new one is done the number correct or incorrect goes up, but so does the total number of envelopes taken in to consideration.
Click to expand...

Yes, but...

My chances of success in the first pair is 50%. My chances of success in the second pair is 50%. However, my chances of getting both right are only 25%.
 
Not true, you have a 50% chance on envelopes 1 and 2, and a 50% chance on envelopes 3 and 4. No matter how many times you do it, if you are choosing between a correct and an incorrect it will always be 50%.

You could do it 500 times. The chance of getting them all correct is always 50%. It would be different if you had 4 cards, chose a correct one from the 4, then chose a correct one from the remaining 3... Then the overall probability would change, but as long as the total number of envelopes increases at a rate of 2 for each one attempt, the probability does not change.

Like I said... I could be wrong... Just how it appears to me...
 
Last edited:
gibsonbaud said:
Not true, you have a 50% chance on envelopes 1 and 2, and a 50% chance on envelopes 3 and 4. No matter how many times you do it, if you are choosing between a correct and an incorrect it will always be 50%.

You could do it 500 times. The chance of getting them all correct is always 50%. It would be different if you had 4 cards, chose a correct one from the 4, then chose a correct one from the remaining 3... Then the overall probability would change, but as long as the total number of envelopes increases at a rate of 2 for each one attempt, the probability does not change.

Like I said... I could be wrong... Just how it appears to me...
Click to expand...

What Gr8wight said is right. This very easy for you to check. Take a coin, guess heads or tails. Do it again. If you're right both times, score it as a success. Now run this two-toss experiment a few dozen times. You'll see that you get both tosses right about one time in four.

More formally, the joint probability of a sequence of independent events is the product of the individual probabilities.
 
Folks, I'm going to step in here.

This protocol has been going on forever. It seems like Pavel keeps trying things and then failing, and people are trying to modify the test so that he has a chance of winning. This is NOT what the challenge is about. The claimant should have a clear claim and confidence that he can accomplish what he claims before he applies.

RemieV recently went over a protocol with me that looked like it might be workable, and then I see here that ANOTHER one has been proposed and Pavel likes it. Now we're essentially back to square one.

It is now incumbent upon Pavel, who I admit seems sincere, to state what he can do and allow us to test it. It seems that he applied way before he was ready, and now the JREF is expending too many resources to try to make something work.

There are other applicants waiting.

The JREF will accept one more full protocol from Pavel (with Startz's kind help, if he's willing) and then we will move on to another candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom