Do not answer Mxsmanic

Bob Noel wrote:
His actions are typical of trolls that are out to pollute a newsgroup to the
point of making is useless.

That is nowhere near happening here.

yeah, right.



Every day a new adventure...



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Well it's clearly the bottom line for me but it comes at a cost
differential. And I'm not sure that I really know the answer to that
question, but I think I do. I think that in the piney woods of
Arkansas, a single is in big trouble.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
swag wrote:
Although my friends
who are still in singles argue (with some validity) that my chance of
an engine failure in a turbocharged twin in much higher than theirs in
a non turbocharged single.


Of course you have twice as much chance of suffering an engine failure in a
twin; you have twice as many engines. But that's neither here nor there. The
real issue is who suffers the higher injury/death rate after an engine failure.
That should be the bottom line.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

swag writes:

I wrestled with many of these
arguments for a long time before changing from single to twin. I had
my MEL for 8 years before changing from single to twin.

What finally motivated you to change to a twin?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:

Of course you have twice as much chance of suffering an engine failure in a
twin; you have twice as many engines.

Not quite twice the chance, but close.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Randall,


His actions are typical of trolls that are out to pollute a newsgroup to the
point of making is useless.


That is nowhere near happening here.


I disagree.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:

Of course you have twice as much chance of suffering an engine failure
in a
twin; you have twice as many engines.

Not quite twice the chance, but close.

Basic arithmetic is beyond you too?

1 + 1 = 2.

Greg Farris wrote:
His only intention here is to provoke, then watch the show as well
meaning people fall victim to his vicarious game, and to their own good
intentions.

Two words: kill file. My r.a.p is blissfully Mxsmanic-free. Let those who
want to deal with him deal with him, for the rest, there's the filter.

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:b_pXg.2662$lj2.229@trndny01...
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:

Of course you have twice as much chance of suffering an engine failure
in a
twin; you have twice as many engines.

Not quite twice the chance, but close.

Basic arithmetic is beyond you too?

1 + 1 = 2.

No, he's right. It's not basic arithmetic, it's basic probability theory. If
events A and B are independent, then P(A or B) is not P(A)+P(B). Rather,
it's P(A)+P(B)-P(A and B).

For example, consider the probability that at least one of two coin flips
will come up heads. It's not .5+.5=1; rather, it's .5+.5-.5*.5=0.75.

As he said, though, it's close. If the probability of each of the events is
very small, then the probability of their conjunction is comparatively
negligible, and the simple sum of the probabilities is a close approximation
to the probability of the disjunction.

--Gary

Anno v. Heimburg wrote:
Greg Farris wrote:
His only intention here is to provoke, then watch the show as well
meaning people fall victim to his vicarious game, and to their own good
intentions.

Two words: kill file. My r.a.p is blissfully Mxsmanic-free. Let those who
want to deal with him deal with him, for the rest, there's the filter.

////////////

aha!

is it not proof of the success of his evil plot that even tho you
claim to be "blissfully Mxsmaniac-free" you have been successfully
enlisted in aid of his "vicarious game(??!?)" by participating in a
thread where he is the subject and indeed personally typing HIS name on
your very own personal computer while sitting on your own personal home
in your bunny slippers and shorts thus invoking the name of evil
yourownself?

aha indeed sir!!

i've always had a fondness for illiterate censors and book burners who
show up with a weenie-on-a-stick.

actually, the more i read your first paragraph; " His only intention
here is to provoke, then watch the show as well meaning people fall
victim to his vicarious game, and to their own good intentions." the
more i like it except that word "vicarious" seems unfortunate. i may
just steal that one for my epitaph.

you may resume...i rest.

dan

Steve Foley writes:

Basic arithmetic is beyond you too?

1 + 1 = 2.

If the probability of any single engine failing is p, then the
probability of either of two engines failing is 1-(1-p)^2. So if p =
0.001, the probability of a failure with a single is 0.001, and the
probability of a failure with a twin is 0.001999--not twice the
probability of a failure in a single.

If the probability of a failure were one in ten, the probability for a
single would be 10%, and the probability for a twin would be 19%.

If you flip a coin once, the probability that you will get heads at
least once is 50%. If you flip a coin twice, the probability that you
will get heads at least once is 75%--not 100%.

It requires slightly more than basic arithmetic, as you can see.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.