Velocity Reviews > What is wrong with this. (files)

# What is wrong with this. (files)

jab3
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-18-2006
Richard Heathfield wrote:

> jab3 said:
>
>> pete wrote:
>>
>>> With trouble shooting in general,
>>> be it either automotive or programming,
>>> when somebody tells you that they've got a problem
>>> and that they know what the problem definitely isn't,
>>> then that's the first place I want to start looking.
>>> My experience is that there is about 50% chance
>>> that that's the problem.

>
> pete - that jibes pretty well with my experience, too, although I'd have
> put the probability somewhat higher.
>
>> Since any given statement either is or is not a problem, any given
>> statement has a 50% chance of being the problem.

>
> If you truly believe that two mutually exclusive possibilities are
> necessarily of equal probability, I offer you the following bet:
>
> Given suitable precautions to prevent cheating, you will put down \$5000
> and I will put down \$10000 - so there's \$15000 on the table - and then a
> trusted third party will put a hundred fair coins (one side heads, the
> other side tails) into a sack, shake 'em around a bit, and then spill them
> onto a tabletop. Either they will all come out heads, or they won't, so
> that's 50-50, right? So - if they all come down heads, you get to keep the
> \$15000, despite only a \$5000 stake. That's good odds for you. If the other
> 50% chance happens, though, I get the \$15000 instead.
>
> Deal?
>

Well, I don't think my statement works given real probability analysis. (It
was late and the 50% chance comment just struck me as funny) However, I
also don't think your bet is strictly analogous to what I said. I didn't
say the whole program is either all right or all wrong. I said any given
line theoretically has a 50% chance of being right or wrong. Your bet, were
it analogous, would be that any given coin has a 50% chance of being either
heads or tails. But I would imagine the actual probability of any given
line of code being right or wrong is based on the person doing the coding,
the language, the complexity of the program, the emotional state of the
person, etc.

pete
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-18-2006
jab3 wrote:
>
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> > jab3 said:
> >
> >> pete wrote:
> >>
> >>> With trouble shooting in general,
> >>> be it either automotive or programming,
> >>> when somebody tells you that they've got a problem
> >>> and that they know what the problem definitely isn't,
> >>> then that's the first place I want to start looking.
> >>> My experience is that there is about 50% chance
> >>> that that's the problem.

> >
> > pete - that jibes pretty well with my experience, too,
> > although I'd have
> > put the probability somewhat higher.

> the 50% chance comment just struck me as funny

Results 1 - 10 of about 76,500 for "it's funny because it's true".

--
pete

Richard Heathfield
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-18-2006
jab3 said:

> Well, I don't think my statement works given real probability analysis.

No, it doesn't.

> (It
> was late and the 50% chance comment just struck me as funny) However, I
> also don't think your bet is strictly analogous to what I said. I didn't
> say the whole program is either all right or all wrong. I said any given
> line theoretically has a 50% chance of being right or wrong.

But in fact, if we know there is one bug in an N-line program, then (if
that's all the information we have to go on) each line has a 1/N
probability of containing that bug. 1/N is only 50% if it's a two-line
program.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)