Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About derpdederp

  • Rank


  • MBTI
  • Brain Dominance


  • Biography
    "Gedanken ohne Inhalt sind leer, Anschauungen ohne Begriffe sind blind." ~Kant
  • Interests
    Math, physics, history, languages, philosophy, music/guitar, running, hiking, biking, etc.
  • Gender
  1. I'm late to the party, but basically since I just knew that the density of a sum of N i.i.d. random variables with density p is simply the N-fold convolution of p with itself, I tackled this one with Laplace transforms. You can transform that convolution to the Laplace domain to get 1/(s^N). Next, you do the inverse transform to get the density of the sum on [0,1] as q(x) = x^(N-1)/(N-1)!. Now choose alpha in [0,1] and integrate q(x) from 0 to alpha to get P(sum<alpha) = alpha^N/N! Looks like that's what others have as well.
  2. I am not good at probability. I also lack the experience of doing it over more than one variable ... Looks like a nice study topic in waiting list. :)

  3. Glad you're doing okay :)

    I'll post again when Monte posts his next problem! ;)

    I've been doing a lot of probability lately so when I saw that last problem I was like oh I know how to do this lol

  4. Life has been rough but I sail on. :)

    Post more. We need more maths people here to beat Monte.

  5. I pop in every once in a while :)

    How are things?

    And don't worry, we can still party

  6. You're back!!!!!!!!! :throw a party: Oh wait. Forget the party. We're INTJs. :roll eyes:

  7. My solution, though I assumed the formulas for the distributions of min and max of i.i.d. random variables, cuz 2 lazy 2 prove: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7xhmlpaq7xz4dpk/MeanMeanMean.pdf?dl=0
  8. Oh so you're still around!

  9. I'm afraid you will find that most here are ignoramuses, quite obtuse, and definitely mathematically illiterate. Excellent post.

  10. More like assault. The shooting was a justified response to Martin's battery. Anyway, you would have to prove that Zimmerman actually assaulted Martin. The available evidence and testimony suggests otherwise, which is why the trial went the way it did. Team Trayvon just can't seem to accept that Martin probably (according to all available knowledge) struck first.
  11. Yes, my mistake.
  12. Good. The precedent set by the trial is that Zimmerman legally shot Martin in self-defense, i.e. in response to Martin's assault. It is thus established that Zimmerman is a victim of said assault, and by your admission, Zimmerman is NOT responsible for Martin's assault. We can conclude, then, that Zimmerman need not be punished further for the outcome of this sequence of events. Just so that we're on the same page.
  13. If this is true, then any victim of any crime shares responsibility for said crime because somewhere along the line, they did something deliberate which resulted in their being at the wrong place at the wrong time. That is, your argument is absurd.
  14. That's because aggressors of violent crimes are disproportionately black. If you don't understand the implications of this, then "that indicates a failing in your observation and/or cognition".
  15. She perjured herself in court rather spectacularly. Does that mean nothing to you? The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. They haven't done a very good job substantiating their claim, and this is evident also in the fact that they are changing their narrative around and seeking lesser charges. Anyway, your reasoning is horrendously circular. It's clear that you're working from the premise that Zimmerman was stalking Martin, without proving this at all (and indeed you can't, based on the available testimony). Fail.