Where did she get the ball from? Looks to be the box. So she would maybe go back to the box if she forgot she put it in her basket? Probably overthinking this.
>Sally doesn't know that, she still believes the ball is in the basket
these are all assumptions, nowhere does it say what sally knows or doesn't know. maybe she was watching from afar. maybe she has a security camera. maybe she noticed the bulge is missing. you assume too much and then you call "autistic" the ones who have a contrary opinion. i'd rather be an autist than an NPC.
>Looking through someone's belongings because you think they might've stolen from you is not socially acceptable behavior.
It says "the box" not "Ann"s box" so I assume it's a shared box which would make it OK to look.
>Looking through someone's belongings because you think they might've stolen from you is not socially acceptable behavior.
where exactly does it say that the box belongs to ann? please, take your time.
>The correct response to the 'Belief Question' is to indicate Sally's basket. This will show that the child knows that Sally believes the marble is in her basket. The incorrect response is to point to Anne's box (Sally doesn't know that Anne hid her marble in the box).
This is likely to demonstrate to the viewer that the ball is indeed inside the basket and then that it isn't. Good on you for finding this minute detail, but Sally will probably still look inside her own basket first because that's where she left her ball.
Not mention that Sally may not be able to see the form of the ball under the blanket anyway. You can see it, but she may not.
they should account for this in the test as there is indeed no bump - indicating to anyone (perhaps anyone who isn't autistic at the very least) that the basket no longer contains the ball
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, but the test isn't to see what the viewer can spot but how they interpret the minds of the characters.
The question isn't "where is the ball" but "where would Sally probably look for her ball?"
>Not mention that Sally may not be able to see the form of the ball under the blanket anyway. You can see it, but she may not.
how that's possible? Sally puts ball in the basket, then turns around and tries to cover it with hands behind her back while looking in another direction!?? why she would do that?
if she covers the ball with the blanket normally then she will see the ball being under the blanket
1st off all, it's not your call to determine that, 2nd you don't need to see the pictures to understand that sally left and thus quite clearly implies that she has no knowledge about Ann's relocation of the ball.
I don't know if you are being facetious or legit mentally handicapped
8 months ago
Anonymous
thats not what facetious means
8 months ago
Anonymous
Playing dumb for the sake of a joke/trolling is being facetious.
Says who, tism bro? >Selective attention, as a filter to help prioritize information according to its importance, is adaptive. If attention is too selective, however, it is maladaptive.Excessively selective attention has become known as “stimulus overselectivity,” which is prevalent in autism.
Even without the drawings you wouldn’t just assume she knows the ball is in the box. Basing the entire thing off the text in the image still doesn’t tell us she knows the ball was moved AT ALL which means she’d look in the basket first. What is so confusing about this? If I moved your toothbrush into the closet while you were at work, where’s the first place you’d look for it? Probably in your bathroom.
8 months ago
Anonymous
But it’s in the closet? So that’s where I’d look for it? Why would I look for it somewhere it isn’t?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Well yeah no shit, we’re talking about the FIRST place you’d look. AFTER you see it’s not in the bathroom then you’d look elsewhere. Sally just came back and doesn’t know yet the ball has been moved.
Where did she get the ball from? Looks to be the box. So she would maybe go back to the box if she forgot she put it in her basket? Probably overthinking this.
I don't need to witness the act to know that it could have been tampered with when I leave it in direct vicinity of another person that may have an interest in it. Obviously, it is the less likely scenario, but that's all assuming I really can not tell that something about my basket has changed.
The irony here being you’re too autistic to realize that the ball was very blatantly not in the basket based off the illustration. If you enter your home and something is off, you immediately notice the difference. But perhaps I’m being too critical, you might not be autistic, you just very likely lack general awareness, like the vast majority of NPCs.
>you have to assume that Sally is a dumb idiot that can not differentiate between a full and empty basket
should have made it less obvious that the ball is CLEARLY not in the basket anymore.
if you are pedantic than at least do it right.
Sally would probably be startled by the basket being clearly empty. just to make sure her ball really isnt there anymore she would lift the blanket. at that point she would almost certainly be aware that she would not find her ball underneath.
so depending on the kid, yes, Sally would possibly not even look underneath the blanket and into her basket, but into the closest by container, which is the box.
It should be called the niglet test. White kids learn this at 6mo while niglets can't solve the problem until they're teenagers, if ever.
re >but I did have breakfast
This is actually a legit flaw with the test. With a clear visual indicator that the ball is gone, it's not that autistic to think Sally would figure out it's not in there.
Not a proper test of perspective because Sally could clearly see that the ball is not in the basket, therefore she could make a logical conclusion that it's in the box. It would've been a better constructed test if we had 2 cardboard boxes from the start.
Sally will look in the basket, then ask that Black person Ann wtf happened to the ball.
When Ann goes "what ball?" she'll look in the box. . .
Ann will then ape out playing the victim until Sally slaps the shit out of her for going into hysterics instead of accepting the harmless reality she's been caught, and that just maybe she has rightfully lost a friend, if not for stealing the ball, but for refusing to own up to her actions that ultimately define her character more than any verbal argument she could ever make to the contrary.
Then ultimately some moronic subhuman teacher, that gets paid 50k a year plus 3 months vacation whilst simultaneous pretending to be underpaid after getting one of the easiest 4 year degrees possible if not any 4 year degree regardless or relevance, will call Sally's parents for a 3 hour lecture about how underprivileged Ann is for having darker hair and how "borrowing" is part of her culture.
Seriously, to all us non autistic anons that both understand which posters are joking, are pedantic, are genuinely autistic, and are just autistic enough to realize the point of the original test but not get the jokes of other anons, this whole thread is pure gold.
tell that dumb fricking c**t to get her own ball and stop using mine seriously does she not realise I'm moving it every day and trying to hide it stop stealing my FRICKING BALL
Autists in this thread is fantastic.
They literally cannot understand the simple context that the person will look in the original position first.
It's human nature to return to the original position in which you left something.
You don't expect it to move, you didn't witness the act. You have no reason to even entertain checking the box.
Black person I.Q
I don't need to witness the act to know that it could have been tampered with when I leave it in direct vicinity of another person that may have an interest in it. Obviously, it is the less likely scenario, but that's all assuming I really can not tell that something about my basket has changed.
The irony here being you’re too autistic to realize that the ball was very blatantly not in the basket based off the illustration. If you enter your home and something is off, you immediately notice the difference. But perhaps I’m being too critical, you might not be autistic, you just very likely lack general awareness, like the vast majority of NPCs.
>woah this basket is slightly less bumpy which is not visible at all from directly above it, better just never look in there and immediately start searching other places
You've got autism bro.
Even if you think you're smart and not autistic, it's literally just not about you, it's about what a little girl would do. Your inability to understand what other people do and why is why you are autistic.
See, you're so autistic you can't even tell different posters apart, and think abandoning the argument to spam buzzwords "u mad" does anything other than make you look furious even if that was the case. Low emotional intelligence, tragic.
You'll respond to this post with more seething while trying to insincerely pretend to be laughing which will be obvious to everyone who is not autistic.
And you’re so autistic that you think a simple trick will hide the fact that your typing style is identical in all posts, but of course you’re too autistic to realize that too. Not to mention the severe autism required to frontload like a third grader. >y-you’re gonna s-say you’re not m-mad but you are!!!
>you have to assume that Sally is a dumb idiot that can not differentiate between a full and empty basket
should have made it less obvious that the ball is CLEARLY not in the basket anymore.
if you are pedantic than at least do it right.
Sally would probably be startled by the basket being clearly empty. just to make sure her ball really isnt there anymore she would lift the blanket. at that point she would almost certainly be aware that she would not find her ball underneath.
so depending on the kid, yes, Sally would possibly not even look underneath the blanket and into her basket, but into the closest by container, which is the box.
my gf admitted to me she's genuinely fascinated with the idea that I have a dick and balls that just "hang out"
whenever we're lying around she'll just cup my balls out of curiosity or some shit
Mine keeps touching mine while I'm trying to work or focus on something, because she doesn't know what it's like she ends up moving them around or trying to roll each one between her fingers which is incredibly distracting at best and pretty god damn uncomfortable at worse
Only a man knows how to handle my balls no homo
my gf admitted to me she's genuinely fascinated with the idea that I have a dick and balls that just "hang out"
whenever we're lying around she'll just cup my balls out of curiosity or some shit
Now imagine flipping the situation around and just fondling her breasts without asking all the time
That's generally how relationships work. My wife does the same to me and I constantly fondle her breasts and slap her pussy without asking, since there is implicit consent in a healthy relationship
This question is so childish and obvious that anyone can answer it correctly. People answering incorrectly are either trolling or think that this is some sort of an overcomplicated trick question so they overthink. People feeling superior over this trivial question are people who have never achieved anything in their lives need some basic puzzle to make them feel special.
>This question is so childish and obvious that anyone can answer it correctly. People answering incorrectly are either trolling or think that this is some sort of an overcomplicated trick question so they overthink. People feeling superior over this trivial question are people who have never achieved anything in their lives need some basic puzzle to make them feel special.
And you might lack in self awareness.
It is so crazy to think that choosing to kill an innocent person does not make you a complete psychopath when you at the same time save five of them. It's like saying you either let the robber kill five people or you shoot him, but at the same time you also kill one of the five people.
there's a 2/3 probability you picked box 1 and 1/3 probability you picked box 2, in the case of 1 the probability to pick silver is 0 and in the case of 2 the probability is 100%, therefore 1/3 in total.
If you randomly pick a box and pick up a random golden ball then the chances of that radom golden ball coming from the box with 2 golden balls is 66.66% while the chances of picking the golden ball that shared box with a silver ball is 33.33%, is not that hard.
Welcome to Camp moron. You’ll be having lukewarm soup tonight, so here are your floaties. >verification not required
I know.
Lol if there’s two boxes, one has 500 red balls and one gold. The other box has only gold. Given you picked a gold ball what are the odds it’s from box 1?
I just can’t with you morons anymore. This is the fall of the education system playing out right before us. It’s 50%. The end. I’m out. Reply or don’t, I won’t be here to see it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
If you are presented with the same boxes, then someone hands you a golden ball and asks you to guess from which box he took it out, what would your answer be?
8 months ago
Anonymous
66% chance it's from A and 33% chance it's from B
HOWEVER
once a gold ball has been drawn, there are only 2 boxes. There is a...
god damn it 1/3 actually kinda makes sense...
The chance of picking any box in the first place is 1/3, if you pick a box with a golden ball then that means box 3 is out of the question, now only 3 balls are in question and only 1 is silver.
1/3rd is the chance of the second ball being silver.
The answer is 50%. It cannot be anything else. Anyone saying otherwise is moronic. If your dumb ass can’t figure out why, you’re in the moronic camp.
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
Actual 100% pure autism
[...]
50% it either is or it isn't.
Morons
There are 3 golden balls, the hances of finding a golden ball in each box are the following:
Box 1: 100%
Box 2: 50%
Box 3: 0%
If you found a golden ball, then there is a 2/3 chance that you found it in box 1 and 1/3 that you found it in box 2, so the chances of the second ball being silver is the same as the chances of finding a golden ball in box 2, so 1/3.
If you randomly pick a box and pick up a random golden ball then the chances of that radom golden ball coming from the box with 2 golden balls is 66.66% while the chances of picking the golden ball that shared box with a silver ball is 33.33%, is not that hard.
People picking 50% only imagine 2 scenarios, you either pick a golden ball from box 1 meaning that your next ball is also golden, or you pick the golden ball from box thow, which makes the next ball silver.
What they fail to understand is that scenario 1 is twice as likely than scenario 2, but if even that is hard to understand, lets make it simpler
Scenario 1: you pick golden ball #1 from the first box, chances of the next ball being silver is 0%
Scenario 2: you pick golden ball #2 from the first box, chances of the next ball being silver is 0%
Scenario 3: you pick golden ball #3 from the second box, chances of the nex ball being silver is 100%
Overall chances of the next ball being silver is 1/3
Alright so the chance that you pick a golden ball is 1/1 + 1/2 + 0/1 = 1/2
But what is important is where I find the ball.
Because there are only three golden balls, if I assume that I find it, the chances of it being in the first box is higher than the general chance of finding it. Since I found a golden ball and there are three golden balls my chances of being in the first box are 2/3.
What are the chances of finding a silver ball if I already drew a golden ball? Silver box falls away and silver-gold box becomes silver box, so 0/1 + 1/1 = 1/2
If we do 2/3*1/2 we get 2/6 so in total 1/3.
Wait I messed up at the end. It should have been like the first equation just considering the prior 2/3 and 1/3 scenario. So 2/3 I'm in box one and get the golden ball 0/1 and the second option is I'm in box 2 1/3 and get the silver ball 1/1.
2/3*0+1/3*1=1/3
It does because at that point, you only have the option of either getting the silver ball or getting the gold ball.
And 2 options mean 50%, just like I said.
Since you are trolling, I will not reply to you anymore.
If you play russian roullette you either have a nice day or not, that doesn't mean the odds are 50%, it depends on the number of bullets loaded.
You can't be that dumb to assume that just because there are only two oucomes their chances have to be equal.
If there are 3 golden balls and 2 are in the same box then the chances of picking the one that shares box with the silver ball is 1/3.
And 2 options mean 50%, just like I said.
Since you are trolling, I will not reply to you anymore.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>And 2 options mean 50%, just like I said.
Huh, if you have a sexual encounter with another person is there a 50% chance you will be having sex with a man because that's one of the 2 options?
8 months ago
Anonymous
After choosing one, what possible universes exist afterwards?
There are only tow boxes in this problem.
The box with 2 gold balls and the box with a gold and silver ball. Being unable to select a second box you've safely identified that the box with 2 silver balls is not a part of this equation.
As it stands, you first have to calculate the odds of pulling one golden ball out of these two boxes.
Which would be 75% I think.
I don't know how math works but you should add that to the second calculation.
There is one box in front of you, with either a gold or silver ball inside.
That would appear to be 50/50 odds
50% chance
If you multiply the 75% chance to the 50% chance it becomes 38% chance of a golden ball, which sounds a little low seeing that there are more golden balls than silver in the original relevant equation.
I think you have to divide that 50% chance by 75% which would give you 66%chance of a second golden ball.
[...]
Debatably not infinite since if you get there in less than a 30 seconds it would round down from sig figs.
In order to average 30mph over a two mile trip the car will have to needed to travel exactly 4 minutes. In order for a car the car in the problem to average the needed 30mph, after the trip has already taken the required 4 minutes it will need to travel to it's destination instantly. Frick vectors.
https://i.imgur.com/9d0wJ2L.png
For it to average 30mph it has to have gone that 2 miles in 4 minutes. At 15 mph it used the whole 4 minutes in the first mile already. There's no answer to this.
https://i.imgur.com/bR3YyMQ.png
The correct answer is instant teleportation aka infinite miles per hour. You travelled at 15mph and you're already halfway there. So just teleport there at the halfway point and viola, you've doubled your distance without adding any more time, which is the only way to reach 30mph. Any slower and you can't make it. Also here's an illustration for the 50-50 gays
Ok I thought long and hard about how to solve this with extreme anomalies. Mostly trying to move earth or taking earths rotation into account but we define mph as traveling across the earth's surface so those can't be factored in. And I think a black hole would make the second mile take an infinite amount of time not make it go infinite mph?
The answer is 53, for moronic reasons that I’ll overexplain without actually saying anything to make myself sound smart but is really just ignoring the simplest true answer. Oh also, when countered, I’ll call you an autistic incel because that’s all I have.
In order to average 30mph over a two mile trip the car will have to needed to travel exactly 4 minutes. In order for a car the car in the problem to average the needed 30mph, after the trip has already taken the required 4 minutes it will need to travel to it's destination instantly. Frick vectors.
For it to average 30mph it has to have gone that 2 miles in 4 minutes. At 15 mph it used the whole 4 minutes in the first mile already. There's no answer to this.
The correct answer is instant teleportation aka infinite miles per hour. You travelled at 15mph and you're already halfway there. So just teleport there at the halfway point and viola, you've doubled your distance without adding any more time, which is the only way to reach 30mph. Any slower and you can't make it. Also here's an illustration for the 50-50 gays
Ok I thought long and hard about how to solve this with extreme anomalies. Mostly trying to move earth or taking earths rotation into account but we define mph as traveling across the earth's surface so those can't be factored in. And I think a black hole would make the second mile take an infinite amount of time not make it go infinite mph?
The idea behind this test is that autists are self absorbed and won't empathize with Sally's perspective. Obviously Sally should look in the box for the ball because the autist observer is already privy to the fact that Ann moved the ball into the box.
This test doesn't work on adults. Autistic adults will have learned to judge a scenario from multiple perspectives so as to predict someone's behavior.
I have delivered this test to plenty of adults like you and they still fail. It's not a 100% rate, however, and the ones who do pass tend to not only be substantially older (in their 30's and higher), but also many have been told they were previously known as having Asperger's syndrome, so they display markedly higher functionality.
They might be moronic. Any high functioning autists is, by definition, an autistic individual who has learned how to interact socially, even if they consider it unintuitive. Autists aren't oblivious, they're mostly the opposite, being distracted by any minute detail, often obsessively. It's very strange to think that an autistic adult would not have learned to analyze Sally's perspective on the situation before delivering an answer. It borders on ridiculous that any adult would not realize that they're examining Sally's perspective.
>unable to transfer the same logic to the fact that the question are asking about the chances AFTER the gold ball was removed.
Not at all. What the other ball would be is decided at the point the first one is pulled, because that's when a box is chosen, and the chosen box is twice as likely to be the first one as the second one, while the last one is never chosen at all. If you did the experiment yourself you would empirically see that it's 1/3.
Why are you able to comprehend that the probability of it being the third box is 0 but unable to comprehend that the other 2 boxes also aren't equally likely?
Then why does your logic fail to replicate when the exact scenario is run for a million attempts? Excuse phone screenshot, not going on 4chinz on work laptop
[...]
Your problem is that you're thinking about balls (I'm sure this is a regular problem with you) rather than boxes. It's not about the chance another ball is silver or gold, it's about the chance you stuck your hand into a box where the other ball is gold. It's subtractive, not additive.
I am literally only thinking about boxes, the 1/3 answer is based on thinking about balls. The answer can be brokwn down into
>picking one of 2 possible boxes at random, what is the chance you picked box B?
Everything else you fricking mongrels are fixating on is extraneous and leading you astray. The odds of getting the silver ball are the same as the odds that you chose box 2. There are 2 boxes. Therefore 1/2 = 50%
You sound like moronic bots that can only see lines of code with 0 knowledge and intuition of what it is like to actually exist in the physical world.
>. The odds of getting the silver ball are the same as the odds that you chose box 2.
So 1/3, because of all the times you pick out a golden ball, only 1/3 of those were from box 2 due to box 1 having twice as many gold balls.
Now run it again, but do it correctly. At the time the question is posed, 1 gold ball has already been removed. Therefore box1 contains {gold}, not {gold, gold} and box 2 contains {silver}, not {gold, silver}. You are focusing on variables that are no longer part of the problem. If you run the program corrrctly you will see that over as many millions of runs as you want to put it through, the odds are 0.5
The code choses the other marble in the originally picked box, as is written on the question. The other item in the box has no impact, as it's picking the only other item to evaluate
one of 2 possible boxes at random
It's not at random, and you know it's not at random because you already excluded one of the boxes. If having 2 silver balls reduces the occurrences of that being the box you picked gold out of by 100%, why would having 1 not reduce the number of occurrences by 50%?
>If having 2 silver balls reduces the occurrences of that being the box you picked gold out of by 100%, why would having 1 not reduce the number of occurrences by 50%?
Because it is not a part of the problem. It's like if I added a sentence saying "a warehouse containing 50,000 gold and 8,000 silver balls packaged the three boxes" and you people start assuming that that extraneous information that has absolutely no bearing on the problem at the time it is posed is a crucial component to the odds of choosing <box 1> vs <box 2>. It blows my mind how a fully developed human mind can bot understand so simple a concept. Are you just zoomers or what the frick is going on here?
>Because it is not a part of the problem
It is. You keep saying this with no basis for it. No matter how many times you repeat it it's still just wrong, and you have no logic at all justifying this line of thought. Just because there are 2 boxes doesn't make them equally likely to have been chosen, just like how there being 3 boxes at first they weren't equally likely to be chosen.
Honestly if this is some sort of falseflag to make antivaxxers look like morons you're doing really well.
Your problem is that you're thinking about balls (I'm sure this is a regular problem with you) rather than boxes. It's not about the chance another ball is silver or gold, it's about the chance you stuck your hand into a box where the other ball is gold. It's subtractive, not additive.
the box
Unironically confirmed autists ITT. These are the people calling you DYEL, manlet, etc..
Sorry you're stupid Anon. It literally shows her putting it in the box
Sally doesn't know that, she still believes the ball is in the basket. Why would she look in the box first?
Where did she get the ball from? Looks to be the box. So she would maybe go back to the box if she forgot she put it in her basket? Probably overthinking this.
>Sally doesn't know that, she still believes the ball is in the basket
these are all assumptions, nowhere does it say what sally knows or doesn't know. maybe she was watching from afar. maybe she has a security camera. maybe she noticed the bulge is missing. you assume too much and then you call "autistic" the ones who have a contrary opinion. i'd rather be an autist than an NPC.
You are aware that this comic is an autism test and that you're a confirmed moron now?
>Trusting Ann
You're going to feel really stupid when you get back from your walk.
Unironically moronic.
Obviously in the box because Ann is a b***h
Looking through someone's belongings because you think they might've stolen from you is not socially acceptable behavior.
The question isn't "does she have reason to look in the box?" it's "where will she look?".
>Looking through someone's belongings because you think they might've stolen from you is not socially acceptable behavior.
It says "the box" not "Ann"s box" so I assume it's a shared box which would make it OK to look.
Just accept you're autistic bro
Damn, he's strong.
>Looking through someone's belongings because you think they might've stolen from you is not socially acceptable behavior.
where exactly does it say that the box belongs to ann? please, take your time.
She'll look in the basket first then the box.
Are you moronic? You can see the ball is gone from the blanket even in the pic
>The correct response to the 'Belief Question' is to indicate Sally's basket. This will show that the child knows that Sally believes the marble is in her basket. The incorrect response is to point to Anne's box (Sally doesn't know that Anne hid her marble in the box).
https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Sally-Anne_test#:~:text=The%20correct%20response%20to%20the,her%20marble%20in%20the%20box).
In the fourth panel she puts the ball in the box
Why wouldn't she still look in the basket?
This is likely to demonstrate to the viewer that the ball is indeed inside the basket and then that it isn't. Good on you for finding this minute detail, but Sally will probably still look inside her own basket first because that's where she left her ball.
Not mention that Sally may not be able to see the form of the ball under the blanket anyway. You can see it, but she may not.
they should account for this in the test as there is indeed no bump - indicating to anyone (perhaps anyone who isn't autistic at the very least) that the basket no longer contains the ball
Yes, but the test isn't to see what the viewer can spot but how they interpret the minds of the characters.
The question isn't "where is the ball" but "where would Sally probably look for her ball?"
>Not mention that Sally may not be able to see the form of the ball under the blanket anyway. You can see it, but she may not.
how that's possible? Sally puts ball in the basket, then turns around and tries to cover it with hands behind her back while looking in another direction!?? why she would do that?
if she covers the ball with the blanket normally then she will see the ball being under the blanket
The drawings are not authoritative, just the text is.
Then the whole thought experiment lacks accuracy and can be easily disregarded
1st off all, it's not your call to determine that, 2nd you don't need to see the pictures to understand that sally left and thus quite clearly implies that she has no knowledge about Ann's relocation of the ball.
I don't know if you are being facetious or legit mentally handicapped
thats not what facetious means
Playing dumb for the sake of a joke/trolling is being facetious.
Says who, tism bro?
>Selective attention, as a filter to help prioritize information according to its importance, is adaptive. If attention is too selective, however, it is maladaptive.Excessively selective attention has become known as “stimulus overselectivity,” which is prevalent in autism.
Your post isn't authoritative either, go frick yourself
Even without the drawings you wouldn’t just assume she knows the ball is in the box. Basing the entire thing off the text in the image still doesn’t tell us she knows the ball was moved AT ALL which means she’d look in the basket first. What is so confusing about this? If I moved your toothbrush into the closet while you were at work, where’s the first place you’d look for it? Probably in your bathroom.
But it’s in the closet? So that’s where I’d look for it? Why would I look for it somewhere it isn’t?
Well yeah no shit, we’re talking about the FIRST place you’d look. AFTER you see it’s not in the bathroom then you’d look elsewhere. Sally just came back and doesn’t know yet the ball has been moved.
You have room temp IQ, dude.
Actual 100% pure autism
50% it either is or it isn't.
Pictures are just pictures and are never relevant in any problem unless explicitly stated otherwise.
kek
"I can see the ball is gone!!!" gays are the kind of morons that would pull out a ruler for this.
Basket unless Ann is a known c**t, in which case Sally will still check the basket
Very much so
50/50, 1/3 gays are morons
Please Billy, let me in
Show me a math problem that wasn't drawn by a moron that looks like that
I would go looking for Ann after seeing that deflated basket. b***h took off with my ball
you are overestimating the intelligence of women
It should be called the niglet test. White kids learn this at 6mo while niglets can't solve the problem until they're teenagers, if ever.
re
>but I did have breakfast
I'll try this test on my 6 and 8 years old white, blond and blue-eyed children today.
They're both female, though. So the result might not be significant.
Report back bro
snowBlack person spawns failed the test
It's over?
This is actually a legit flaw with the test. With a clear visual indicator that the ball is gone, it's not that autistic to think Sally would figure out it's not in there.
She'll look in the box because women can't be trusted.
She would look in the box dumbass we literally see her put it there. What a stupid question
oh this is a fricking autism test frick off
Why does taking an autism test offend you, anon?
Not a proper test of perspective because Sally could clearly see that the ball is not in the basket, therefore she could make a logical conclusion that it's in the box. It would've been a better constructed test if we had 2 cardboard boxes from the start.
Probably the basket
Sally will look in the basket, then ask that Black person Ann wtf happened to the ball.
When Ann goes "what ball?" she'll look in the box. . .
Ann will then ape out playing the victim until Sally slaps the shit out of her for going into hysterics instead of accepting the harmless reality she's been caught, and that just maybe she has rightfully lost a friend, if not for stealing the ball, but for refusing to own up to her actions that ultimately define her character more than any verbal argument she could ever make to the contrary.
Then ultimately some moronic subhuman teacher, that gets paid 50k a year plus 3 months vacation whilst simultaneous pretending to be underpaid after getting one of the easiest 4 year degrees possible if not any 4 year degree regardless or relevance, will call Sally's parents for a 3 hour lecture about how underprivileged Ann is for having darker hair and how "borrowing" is part of her culture.
You sound pretty mad, champ. Did somebody get a referral?
pretty much the same scenario I envisioned
So it is an assburgers test
this thread has given me the will to continue living. only thing that made me genuinely chuckle in a while. also Ann is a trickster b***h
Seriously, to all us non autistic anons that both understand which posters are joking, are pedantic, are genuinely autistic, and are just autistic enough to realize the point of the original test but not get the jokes of other anons, this whole thread is pure gold.
tell that dumb fricking c**t to get her own ball and stop using mine seriously does she not realise I'm moving it every day and trying to hide it stop stealing my FRICKING BALL
Autists in this thread is fantastic.
They literally cannot understand the simple context that the person will look in the original position first.
It's human nature to return to the original position in which you left something.
You don't expect it to move, you didn't witness the act. You have no reason to even entertain checking the box.
Black person I.Q
I don't need to witness the act to know that it could have been tampered with when I leave it in direct vicinity of another person that may have an interest in it. Obviously, it is the less likely scenario, but that's all assuming I really can not tell that something about my basket has changed.
Only a Black person kid would check under the blanket on the basket where the ball very obviously can't be hidden.
The irony here being you’re too autistic to realize that the ball was very blatantly not in the basket based off the illustration. If you enter your home and something is off, you immediately notice the difference. But perhaps I’m being too critical, you might not be autistic, you just very likely lack general awareness, like the vast majority of NPCs.
>woah this basket is slightly less bumpy which is not visible at all from directly above it, better just never look in there and immediately start searching other places
You've got autism bro.
Even if you think you're smart and not autistic, it's literally just not about you, it's about what a little girl would do. Your inability to understand what other people do and why is why you are autistic.
I understood that you would keep refreshing and immediately respond with autistic coping, so I guess I do understand what other people do :^)
See, you're so autistic you can't even tell different posters apart, and think abandoning the argument to spam buzzwords "u mad" does anything other than make you look furious even if that was the case. Low emotional intelligence, tragic.
You'll respond to this post with more seething while trying to insincerely pretend to be laughing which will be obvious to everyone who is not autistic.
And you’re so autistic that you think a simple trick will hide the fact that your typing style is identical in all posts, but of course you’re too autistic to realize that too. Not to mention the severe autism required to frontload like a third grader.
>y-you’re gonna s-say you’re not m-mad but you are!!!
Bro, you are a window licking, glue eating, crayon minching autist, get over it.
>you have to assume that Sally is a dumb idiot that can not differentiate between a full and empty basket
should have made it less obvious that the ball is CLEARLY not in the basket anymore.
if you are pedantic than at least do it right.
Sally would probably be startled by the basket being clearly empty. just to make sure her ball really isnt there anymore she would lift the blanket. at that point she would almost certainly be aware that she would not find her ball underneath.
so depending on the kid, yes, Sally would possibly not even look underneath the blanket and into her basket, but into the closest by container, which is the box.
> watching tv
> hand in my pants idly cupping my balls
> ultimate fricking comfort
> mfw gf asks me why I keep doing that
my gf admitted to me she's genuinely fascinated with the idea that I have a dick and balls that just "hang out"
whenever we're lying around she'll just cup my balls out of curiosity or some shit
Mine keeps touching mine while I'm trying to work or focus on something, because she doesn't know what it's like she ends up moving them around or trying to roll each one between her fingers which is incredibly distracting at best and pretty god damn uncomfortable at worse
Only a man knows how to handle my balls no homo
She knows, she's teasing you
Now imagine flipping the situation around and just fondling her breasts without asking all the time
That's generally how relationships work. My wife does the same to me and I constantly fondle her breasts and slap her pussy without asking, since there is implicit consent in a healthy relationship
this depends, is Sally aware of Ann's israeli ancesry?
This question is so childish and obvious that anyone can answer it correctly. People answering incorrectly are either trolling or think that this is some sort of an overcomplicated trick question so they overthink. People feeling superior over this trivial question are people who have never achieved anything in their lives need some basic puzzle to make them feel special.
>This question is so childish and obvious that anyone can answer it correctly. People answering incorrectly are either trolling or think that this is some sort of an overcomplicated trick question so they overthink. People feeling superior over this trivial question are people who have never achieved anything in their lives need some basic puzzle to make them feel special.
And you might lack in self awareness.
>anyone can answer it correctly
How would you have felt if you hadn't eaten breakfast?
Hungry, moron. Stop jerking off to these basic questions.
THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF FIT
I hope all of you lads that answered "the box" are trolling, for your own sake
Whats the answer IST?
multi track drifting
Sally will look in the basket and I would not switch tracks because that bich Ann deserves the trolley
45mph
unless it's trick queston taking in the fact that velocity cannot be a non-continous function
Debatably not infinite since if you get there in less than a 30 seconds it would round down from sig figs.
It is so crazy to think that choosing to kill an innocent person does not make you a complete psychopath when you at the same time save five of them. It's like saying you either let the robber kill five people or you shoot him, but at the same time you also kill one of the five people.
what the frick are you talking about
it's more like kill five robbers or kill one innocent perosn
IST should be smart enough to solve this
100%
t.Midas
The question was about the chances of finding silver, what kind of bootleg midas are you?
1/2
frick no it was 2/3 Im so fricking dumb i swear
it's 1/3
there's a 2/3 probability you picked box 1 and 1/3 probability you picked box 2, in the case of 1 the probability to pick silver is 0 and in the case of 2 the probability is 100%, therefore 1/3 in total.
50%
33%
The answer is 50%. It cannot be anything else. Anyone saying otherwise is moronic. If your dumb ass can’t figure out why, you’re in the moronic camp.
Ur the moron friend. Given that you already have a gold ball in hand it’s more likely you’ve picked box 1.
Welcome to Camp moron. You’ll be having lukewarm soup tonight, so here are your floaties.
>verification not required
I know.
Lol if there’s two boxes, one has 500 red balls and one gold. The other box has only gold. Given you picked a gold ball what are the odds it’s from box 1?
Holy shit the sheer ignorance on this moron.
I just can’t with you morons anymore. This is the fall of the education system playing out right before us. It’s 50%. The end. I’m out. Reply or don’t, I won’t be here to see it.
If you are presented with the same boxes, then someone hands you a golden ball and asks you to guess from which box he took it out, what would your answer be?
66% chance it's from A and 33% chance it's from B
HOWEVER
once a gold ball has been drawn, there are only 2 boxes. There is a...
god damn it 1/3 actually kinda makes sense...
The chance of picking any box in the first place is 1/3, if you pick a box with a golden ball then that means box 3 is out of the question, now only 3 balls are in question and only 1 is silver.
1/3rd is the chance of the second ball being silver.
the question states that the next ball is to be taken from the same box that you already drew your golden ball from.
Morons
There are 3 golden balls, the hances of finding a golden ball in each box are the following:
Box 1: 100%
Box 2: 50%
Box 3: 0%
If you found a golden ball, then there is a 2/3 chance that you found it in box 1 and 1/3 that you found it in box 2, so the chances of the second ball being silver is the same as the chances of finding a golden ball in box 2, so 1/3.
Welcome to Camp moron.
Prove me wrong
Already went over that. If I do it again, you’ll just kick and scream autistically again. None are so blind as those who will not see.
If you randomly pick a box and pick up a random golden ball then the chances of that radom golden ball coming from the box with 2 golden balls is 66.66% while the chances of picking the golden ball that shared box with a silver ball is 33.33%, is not that hard.
>the next ball you take from the same box
0%
1/3
People picking 50% only imagine 2 scenarios, you either pick a golden ball from box 1 meaning that your next ball is also golden, or you pick the golden ball from box thow, which makes the next ball silver.
What they fail to understand is that scenario 1 is twice as likely than scenario 2, but if even that is hard to understand, lets make it simpler
Scenario 1: you pick golden ball #1 from the first box, chances of the next ball being silver is 0%
Scenario 2: you pick golden ball #2 from the first box, chances of the next ball being silver is 0%
Scenario 3: you pick golden ball #3 from the second box, chances of the nex ball being silver is 100%
Overall chances of the next ball being silver is 1/3
Alright so the chance that you pick a golden ball is 1/1 + 1/2 + 0/1 = 1/2
But what is important is where I find the ball.
Because there are only three golden balls, if I assume that I find it, the chances of it being in the first box is higher than the general chance of finding it. Since I found a golden ball and there are three golden balls my chances of being in the first box are 2/3.
What are the chances of finding a silver ball if I already drew a golden ball? Silver box falls away and silver-gold box becomes silver box, so 0/1 + 1/1 = 1/2
If we do 2/3*1/2 we get 2/6 so in total 1/3.
Wait I messed up at the end. It should have been like the first equation just considering the prior 2/3 and 1/3 scenario. So 2/3 I'm in box one and get the golden ball 0/1 and the second option is I'm in box 2 1/3 and get the silver ball 1/1.
2/3*0+1/3*1=1/3
It is 50% because only the runs where a golden ball is picked are counted towards the statistic.
That doesn't explain why it's 50%
You either pick the box or you don't
If you play russian roullette you either have a nice day or not, that doesn't mean the odds are 50%, it depends on the number of bullets loaded.
You can't be that dumb to assume that just because there are only two oucomes their chances have to be equal.
If there are 3 golden balls and 2 are in the same box then the chances of picking the one that shares box with the silver ball is 1/3.
russian roullette
first is a empty
you know have 1/5 of dying
box thing
you picked a gold ball
you now have 1/2 chance of picking another gold ball
It does because at that point, you only have the option of either getting the silver ball or getting the gold ball.
Those have always been the only two options? Your presupposition implies three equiprobably runs are counted so the divisor should be 3
And 2 options mean 50%, just like I said.
Since you are trolling, I will not reply to you anymore.
>And 2 options mean 50%, just like I said.
Huh, if you have a sexual encounter with another person is there a 50% chance you will be having sex with a man because that's one of the 2 options?
After choosing one, what possible universes exist afterwards?
it's 1/3
>3 balls with equal likelihood of having been the one that was picked
>only 1 is in the same box as a silver
>1 divided by 3, simple as
P(G|S) = (P(S|G)*P(G))/P(S) = (1/3)(1/2)/1/2 = 1/3
There are only tow boxes in this problem.
The box with 2 gold balls and the box with a gold and silver ball. Being unable to select a second box you've safely identified that the box with 2 silver balls is not a part of this equation.
As it stands, you first have to calculate the odds of pulling one golden ball out of these two boxes.
Which would be 75% I think.
I don't know how math works but you should add that to the second calculation.
There is one box in front of you, with either a gold or silver ball inside.
That would appear to be 50/50 odds
50% chance
If you multiply the 75% chance to the 50% chance it becomes 38% chance of a golden ball, which sounds a little low seeing that there are more golden balls than silver in the original relevant equation.
I think you have to divide that 50% chance by 75% which would give you 66%chance of a second golden ball.
>inb4 morons whine that the question asked for the odds of a silver ball being pulled
Frick you always aim for gold.
AAAAAA WHAT'S IN THE BOOOOOOOXXXX
Snake.
bepis
Ok but can IST solve this?
Frick I meant infinitely fast
>Newtonian plebs
lol
120, because you have to stop along the way for your GF to use the bathroom.
The answer is 53, for moronic reasons that I’ll overexplain without actually saying anything to make myself sound smart but is really just ignoring the simplest true answer. Oh also, when countered, I’ll call you an autistic incel because that’s all I have.
60mph. You're welcome IST
If it's a Miata it won't even average 30 ever
In order to average 30mph over a two mile trip the car will have to needed to travel exactly 4 minutes. In order for a car the car in the problem to average the needed 30mph, after the trip has already taken the required 4 minutes it will need to travel to it's destination instantly. Frick vectors.
For it to average 30mph it has to have gone that 2 miles in 4 minutes. At 15 mph it used the whole 4 minutes in the first mile already. There's no answer to this.
The correct answer is instant teleportation aka infinite miles per hour. You travelled at 15mph and you're already halfway there. So just teleport there at the halfway point and viola, you've doubled your distance without adding any more time, which is the only way to reach 30mph. Any slower and you can't make it. Also here's an illustration for the 50-50 gays
Ok I thought long and hard about how to solve this with extreme anomalies. Mostly trying to move earth or taking earths rotation into account but we define mph as traveling across the earth's surface so those can't be factored in. And I think a black hole would make the second mile take an infinite amount of time not make it go infinite mph?
But I had breakfast?
Looking at the basket and seeing the bulge is missing still counts as looking in the basket first.
Imagine them getting BLACKED!
Ann has black hair
Sally took note of this before leaving so she knows to look in the box
Sally has bleached blond hair. So she forgot what container the ball was in and looked in the box first.
Only if those balls each weight a minimum 20kg
Sally outsmarted ann and predicted the ball switch thus she will look in the box like a total stacy ez
Where did Ann go?
I would look in the box since that’s where it is
The idea behind this test is that autists are self absorbed and won't empathize with Sally's perspective. Obviously Sally should look in the box for the ball because the autist observer is already privy to the fact that Ann moved the ball into the box.
This test doesn't work on adults. Autistic adults will have learned to judge a scenario from multiple perspectives so as to predict someone's behavior.
I wonder if there's a harder version of the test that would work on adults
I have delivered this test to plenty of adults like you and they still fail. It's not a 100% rate, however, and the ones who do pass tend to not only be substantially older (in their 30's and higher), but also many have been told they were previously known as having Asperger's syndrome, so they display markedly higher functionality.
They might be moronic. Any high functioning autists is, by definition, an autistic individual who has learned how to interact socially, even if they consider it unintuitive. Autists aren't oblivious, they're mostly the opposite, being distracted by any minute detail, often obsessively. It's very strange to think that an autistic adult would not have learned to analyze Sally's perspective on the situation before delivering an answer. It borders on ridiculous that any adult would not realize that they're examining Sally's perspective.
It's in the box, so the box
The question is where sally would look for it, not where she should look for it.
No, but gaining access to goat tower is a different story. Digits gets you in the door.
Allow me entry ere the thread dies!
Oh, I thought this had the number of posts another thread had. But it doesn’t. Carry on, good sir goat. I will try again perhaps another day.
The real autism test is whether or not you realize the intentionally wrong replies are fricking with you
I don't get it
>Is playing with balls IST?
God I hope so
Well, IST?
Damn is it 2011 already?
It's obviously A because the teleported object doesn't move at the moment it is teleported
>unable to transfer the same logic to the fact that the question are asking about the chances AFTER the gold ball was removed.
Not at all. What the other ball would be is decided at the point the first one is pulled, because that's when a box is chosen, and the chosen box is twice as likely to be the first one as the second one, while the last one is never chosen at all. If you did the experiment yourself you would empirically see that it's 1/3.
Why are you able to comprehend that the probability of it being the third box is 0 but unable to comprehend that the other 2 boxes also aren't equally likely?
Then why does your logic fail to replicate when the exact scenario is run for a million attempts? Excuse phone screenshot, not going on 4chinz on work laptop
>Runs=0, gold =0, silver=0
You never ran it moron.
I am literally only thinking about boxes, the 1/3 answer is based on thinking about balls. The answer can be brokwn down into
>picking one of 2 possible boxes at random, what is the chance you picked box B?
Everything else you fricking mongrels are fixating on is extraneous and leading you astray. The odds of getting the silver ball are the same as the odds that you chose box 2. There are 2 boxes. Therefore 1/2 = 50%
You sound like moronic bots that can only see lines of code with 0 knowledge and intuition of what it is like to actually exist in the physical world.
Vaxxoid hands typed this comment
>. The odds of getting the silver ball are the same as the odds that you chose box 2.
So 1/3, because of all the times you pick out a golden ball, only 1/3 of those were from box 2 due to box 1 having twice as many gold balls.
I added a red arrow pointing to where the results are at the bottom. That's a declaration of variables.
Now run it again, but do it correctly. At the time the question is posed, 1 gold ball has already been removed. Therefore box1 contains {gold}, not {gold, gold} and box 2 contains {silver}, not {gold, silver}. You are focusing on variables that are no longer part of the problem. If you run the program corrrctly you will see that over as many millions of runs as you want to put it through, the odds are 0.5
fricking kek dude
if removing those would change the outcome then they're not irrelevant
do you know what an experiment actually is?
>1 gold ball has been removed
>describes the boxes as if 2 different balls have been removed
The code choses the other marble in the originally picked box, as is written on the question. The other item in the box has no impact, as it's picking the only other item to evaluate
one of 2 possible boxes at random
It's not at random, and you know it's not at random because you already excluded one of the boxes. If having 2 silver balls reduces the occurrences of that being the box you picked gold out of by 100%, why would having 1 not reduce the number of occurrences by 50%?
>If having 2 silver balls reduces the occurrences of that being the box you picked gold out of by 100%, why would having 1 not reduce the number of occurrences by 50%?
Because it is not a part of the problem. It's like if I added a sentence saying "a warehouse containing 50,000 gold and 8,000 silver balls packaged the three boxes" and you people start assuming that that extraneous information that has absolutely no bearing on the problem at the time it is posed is a crucial component to the odds of choosing <box 1> vs <box 2>. It blows my mind how a fully developed human mind can bot understand so simple a concept. Are you just zoomers or what the frick is going on here?
>Because it is not a part of the problem
It is. You keep saying this with no basis for it. No matter how many times you repeat it it's still just wrong, and you have no logic at all justifying this line of thought. Just because there are 2 boxes doesn't make them equally likely to have been chosen, just like how there being 3 boxes at first they weren't equally likely to be chosen.
Honestly if this is some sort of falseflag to make antivaxxers look like morons you're doing really well.
>if this is some sort of falseflag to make antivaxxers look like morons you're doing really well.
That's exactly what it is
You're either right or you're wrong right now so there's a 50/50 chance of both.
>Because it is not a part of the problem.
Then why aren't we taking box 3 into account? If the fact that it has less gold is not relevant.
>microsoft java
NGMI
Your problem is that you're thinking about balls (I'm sure this is a regular problem with you) rather than boxes. It's not about the chance another ball is silver or gold, it's about the chance you stuck your hand into a box where the other ball is gold. It's subtractive, not additive.
average ifunnytard
Hilariously OP, Black folks never pass the test in the OP. Not even as adults. Yet you WILL pay a large bulk of your taxes to support them.
Hell in 1969 ALONE more money was spent on keeping Black folks alive in the United States than the entire Apollo program.
Femanons, don't even deny that you like balls.
If sally had no premonition that Ann had moved her ball, then it would only be natural for Sally to look in the basket
>autistic, or just Third Eye?
Both
two b***hs