probability

# Coulds, Musts and Rathers

First, there are no musts, only rathers with a very high probability. Still we will use must as an abbreviation for a highly probable rather (even 1.0 probable if there are any such), because everybody is used to. I’ll give you an example how this works.

Say, that I have just moved my chess king.

1. it must be my at least second move in the game
2. it is rather at least my third move in the game
3. it is rather late in the game
4. I rather have white pieces
5. I am rather losing
6. it is rather not a checkmate for my opponent
7. it must not be a checkmate for myself
8. I am rather not a Chinese
9. I am rather an Armenian
10. I am rather alive
11. my opponent must not have a chance to en passant in his next move
12. my opponent and me, are rather males

There are certainly thousands or even millions more such rathers nobody is aware of, in the above case, alone.

The number 8, what does it mean? I am rather not Chinese anyway, they are a minority in this world. But the fact, that I moved a chess piece decreases the probability of being Chinese from 1/5 to 1/10 or even less, since the game of chess isn’t very popular in China.

I am rather not an Armenian, it is 1/1400 that I was. But that was before I made this king move. Now it is at least 1/1000 that I am in fact an Armenian. Perhaps even 1/100, due to the popularity of chess there. The probability just went up, hence the rather qualificatior now.

What about 5? Apparently I am not attacking my opponent with a rook and at least one white queen on a nearly empty board, when there is little need for me to move my king. King is not very often an attacking piece when it moves it is rather under some pressure. Not always, only the probability for such a situation is bigger. Hence the rather qualificator.

In my comment to the msjr’s comment in the previous post, I gave an example, where it will rather be two, than an ace at the river at poker.

Whatever happens, at every corner, in any situation in this world, the vast cloud of rathers, updates itself with every new bit of information coming in. Actually it doesn’t update automatically, you have to do it yourself, just like a true detective or a true scientist. You have to calculate the rathers cloud on the premise of everything you know at any moment. This way, you will function just as a true scientist should. It is impossible, I know, but you have to try it sometimes.

There are always a lot of breathtaking rathers, in almost every possible situation. Some are quite useful.

Standard

## 5 thoughts on “Coulds, Musts and Rathers”

1. msjr says:

Thinking of your last sentences, I remembered a conversation I had while ago.

One explained to me that his code is good, because it’s the only right solution and there is an infinite number of wrong solutions. I argued that there is no infinite number of wrong solutions, because there is one right and infinity stops there. Maybee that was a false argument, but if system is complex enough, the number of right solutions is raised. So in a very complex system, the possibility of a right solution is almost 1.

In short, long live entropy.

• > So in a very complex system, the possibility of a right solution is almost 1.

Is there someone out there, who is already milking that cow? Yes, there is.

The most impressive one might be Parrondo. He proved in 1996, that even three loosing strategies can (sometimes) be combined into a winning strategy just by using the first one in the first case of possible circumstances, the second one in the second possible case and the third strategy otherwise.

Unfortunately, no casino (as far as I know) can be exploited this way. Since they have failed to have such rules that a Parrondo game strategy could be applied. Were they too smart or too stupid, I don’t know.

But how would it work from the player’s point of view? I would play the roulette until I have had an odd number of coins. Then I would go to the slot machine in the corner until the number of coins would be quadratic and then move to a card guessing until the number of coins isn’t a prime number.

Despite the fact that every game is a sure win for the casino, this combined strategy destroys the casino in the long run!

In real life, outside the casinos, there may be some Parrondo style opportunities. Even not limited to the zero-sum games only. Thanks to the complexity of our world, it’s a lot of Parrondic situations, but mainly thanks to the complexity of our world.

As the Terminator said to Sarah Connor: “If you want to remain complex, go with me!”

In a world too simple, not complex enough, we all die. We need complexity to play our games, Parrondics are just a small example of what the complexity has to offer.

• msjr says:

The only problem with the gambling is that [usually] one is playing against the opponent with [a lot] more money and therefore losing is imminent. Sadly, the same rule applies to so called “business as usual” of today’s economy.

2. > the same rule applies to so called “business as usual” of today’s economy.

Can one turn this to his own advantage? This is the important question!

• msjr says:

True. This would lead to a kind of “new deal” – a [r]evolution – a new proticol (2020). Very interesting indeed.