|
Dear G- As humorous as you were attempting to be, I still think you are confused by
the issue of negative numbers, and their effect on the equation given. Without further reference to your level of education or use of sarcasm, let me
try to explain .. The hypothetical was a suicide bomber carrying an explosive jacket. >> as is, IF you are carrying a bomb the likelihood of death is very high which
>> you suggested a negative life saving value, Yes, the probability of dying when you triggered the bomb is quite
high. Around 97% in Israel I believe. That is, the probability of
taking your life is around 0.97. This can be interpreted as -0.97 in the
equation **. >> I am presuming if I understand this
>> pointless argument, the negative number would be quite high? (Please do correct
>> me if I am wrong), The argument is not pointless. The equation works even in the case of suicide
bombers. I wouldn't call a number of 0.97 high - though some would call it a
high probability. >> Now, if you are paid for such a task then the monetary cost to you for this
>> device would also be negative? Now I am sure if you work this into you little
>> equation we will find a simple result. In this case the equations comes out negative, which gives a negative value
for VOYL. In other words, the suicide bomber has a negative value for
his/her life. That is, they are willing to pay to die. Most of them would probably be willing to pay the cost of the explosive
jacket, but I think that other members of the Religion of Peace normally
do that for them. >> The most obvious error in a formula such as this is the unpredictable nature of
>> having an accident, the probabilities of any accident occurring are silly at
>> best. The probability of what will save someone in each situation is very, very
>> hard to define as there are no controls or relevant tests applicable. This is
>> life, what will save who, in what, next crash? The fact that the values may be hard to determine objectively does not make the
formula in 'error'. For instance Newton's second law of motion (F=ma) is now
wrong just because of your inability to measure the variables. The equation
still holds - it is a natural law. In fact, as I stated in another post, the probability is the individual's
perception of that probability - not any objective measure you try to impose
upon it. In fact I don't believe you can even define probability in the sense
that you mean (no-one else I have ever talked to has been able to). I hope this clears it up for you. -------------
** The pedants will jump on this one and insist that probabilities must be
always between 0.0 and 1.0. Strictly they are right, but the probability
can be replaced by an expectation value, and that issue goes away. I didn't
want to confuse people by using 'expectation value' instead of 'probability',
particularly when people are still struggling with the concept of negative
numbers.
| 
