Melvyn Bragg radio 4 discussion on mathematical probability and randomness

[Black Swan]

Random and Pseudorandom

on now...fascinating stuff, may be available on i-player or through the r4 website..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x9xjb

 

[0007]

Random and Pseudorandom

on now...fascinating stuff, may be available on i-player or through the r4 website..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x9xjb

Yes - excellent stuff. (Prof.) Marcus de Sautoy (on the prog) has written a lot about this sort of thing and it's well worth reading.

 

[Black Swan]

Yes - excellent stuff. (Prof.) Marcus de Sautoy (on the prog) has written a lot about this sort of thing and it's well worth reading.

Bloody brilliant radio isn't it? For us....weirdos...

 

[0007]

Bloody brilliant radio isn't it? For us....weirdos...

Absolutely! I resent paying £145 for the (mostly) cr*p on TV. If only they devoted the resources to higher intellectual quality rather than HD/3D etc.

 

[TheBramble]

It's on again tonight at 21:30 GMT

 

[Jason101]

Thanks, it was good.

 

[trendie]

It's on again tonight at 21:30 GMT

It is most certainly on again!
However, you could hear the program at a purely random point in the day, from the BBC iPlayer. (one of the greatest inventions in modern history. you can stop it when you want, replay bits you didn't quite get, plan your own schedule, etc)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00x9xjb/In_Our_Time_Random_and_Pseudorandom/

PS: great find, BS. (you weirdo!)

 

[0007]

It is most certainly on again!
However, you could hear the program at a purely random point in the day, from the BBC iPlayer. (one of the greatest inventions in modern history. you can stop it when you want, replay bits you didn't quite get, plan your own schedule, etc)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00x9xjb/In_Our_Time_Random_and_Pseudorandom/

PS: great find, BS. (you weirdo!)

Only problem with I-Player is they only keep it for a week. If it's worthwhile, you can record to file for archival use/replay. [this applies to TV progs as well -yet ITV save for 30 days].

 

[intradaybill]

Any summary or conclusions regarding the markets?

 

[shadowninja]

Most people don't get randomness (or can even use the word "random" correctly let alone get randomness). If you say you flipped a coin 10 times and got heads the last 8 times, they will confidently predict the next flip will be tails.

PS Sandi Toksvig really knows her maths!!

 

[TheBramble]

Any summary or conclusions regarding the markets?

Haven’t listened to it yet, but the outcome of any discussion of this nature in relation to randomness and trading the markets normally comes out as being almost certainly probable to be either deterministic, but unknowable, or non-deterministic. Either way, luck clusters.

To the extent you believe randomness plays a part in the markets is the degree to which your success will cluster.

 

[shadowninja]

There is mention of patterns in randomness, pseudo-randomness/computer seeds and so on. Nothing new (I did Maths at uni) but it's a Radio 4 programme not a lecture.

 

[the hare]

To the extent you believe randomness plays a part in the markets is the degree to which your success will cluster.

I'm not sure I fully agree, but I have noticed that the point at which people finally conclude that markets are random, or not random (it doesnt matter which) is often the point where things finally start to fall into place for them.

Until they've resolved that dilema in their own minds they are unable to formulate the required mental models for trading success.

 

[bbmac]

Black swan: Thanks for posting the link, good programme.

If true randomness is dedcribed as something that cannot be determined by what went before, then perhaps markets are not truly random as we can at least know what the higher probability is of what might happen next based on the repitition of a pattern that has gone before. In some cases the very high probability, (but not certainty.)

The programme gives examples of why true randomness is hard to find/prove and an interesting aside from the above is the assertion that for example the lottery, each number has a theoretical 1/49 chance of being drwan, and if say numbers 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 were drawn this is theoretically as possible as say 1,23,45,34,7, and 41 for example...yet it just feels as though it isn't ?

G/L

 

[the hare]

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2001-10-25/

 

[Black Swan]

It's on again tonight at 21:30 GMT

Just as well, wife came in chirping on about *stuff* spoilt it a bit for me, although she has always noticed that 6 and 1 come up on the dice when she's playing games with the kids and that 6 and 1 was mentioned in the prog.

Fascinating to learn that as far back as recorded there's been guys trying to 'beat the odds' with games, dice, just about anything by using the math..Maybe the boy Jesus kicked over the tables in the temple 'cos he went long on wheat futures and the drought killed it..

Relevance for trading? Dunno? We accept how random it is, it is all a punt (unless you're close to the masters of universe decision makers). We're betting on a two horse race in which you can; pull up early (get some of your stake back), change jockeys, add other horses into the race for your own benefit, change horses at any point during the race...?

Quite like The Hare's comment re. acceptance that we're not 'dead clever like' which then actually leads to the personal epiphany...or doesn't for some (or most?)

 

[TheBramble]

I'm not sure I fully agree, but I have noticed that the point at which people finally conclude that markets are random, or not random (it doesnt matter which) is often the point where things finally start to fall into place for them.

Until they've resolved that dilema in their own minds they are unable to formulate the required mental models for trading success.

I agree. And I rather thought that was my point, but obviously badly made. Yours on the other hand is quite excellently put.

 

[Scotty2Cues]

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-the-specials/4od#2918270

think this is worth a look

 

[Scotty2Cues]

How about a poll for this (but dont answer if you already know the correct solution)

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is the star prize; behind each of the others, a booby prize. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a booby prize He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch, stick or it doesnt matter; your choice?

A) Switch
B) Stick
C) dosen't matter

 

[bbmac]

How about a poll for this (but dont answer if you already know the correct solution)

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is the star prize; behind each of the others, a booby prize. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a booby prize He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch, stick or it doesnt matter; your choice?

A) Switch
B) Stick
C) dosen't matter

I won't spoil the suspense over the answer, but I wonder whether a hidden agenda is at play by the host to maximise on theatrical effect and so boost the ratings for next show ?

G/L