Think I missed the last one D: but it seems to me that P(M_6 | E + "unfair") we're asserting that the probabilities of each state are not evenly distributed, so we can only say that the probability of any state is equal to 1 minus the sum of probabilities of all the other states. I can't think of a way to go any further than that. Am I missing something?
Literal shower thought: although previous statement is basically tautological, it led me to think:
All I presently know is that Pr(M_i | E + "unfair") is between 0 and 1. I've no further information on any of the states. Even though we've asserted that Pr(M_i ...) != Pr(M_j), at least not for all i and j, it seems to me each of the states are still functionally equivalent.
So can I still conclude the answer is 1/n? Am I allowed to do that?
Flashbacks
9 years of K-8
Think I missed the last one D: but it seems to me that P(M_6 | E + "unfair") we're asserting that the probabilities of each state are not evenly distributed, so we can only say that the probability of any state is equal to 1 minus the sum of probabilities of all the other states. I can't think of a way to go any further than that. Am I missing something?
Literal shower thought: although previous statement is basically tautological, it led me to think:
All I presently know is that Pr(M_i | E + "unfair") is between 0 and 1. I've no further information on any of the states. Even though we've asserted that Pr(M_i ...) != Pr(M_j), at least not for all i and j, it seems to me each of the states are still functionally equivalent.
So can I still conclude the answer is 1/n? Am I allowed to do that?
Is it just me or does that nun look a lot like Briggs?
She does look like my high school nemesis, Sister Dorothy. "Why aren't you working, Matthew."
So maybe that's why I picked her.