How many coins will I find?

[Jean310]

How many coins will I find?​

Well that depends on how you are going about the task of finding them. Since your wife is in the house, and it's just you and the inverted cups out in the back yard.

1.) I suppose you could just go look under each cup until you find where she hid it.

2.) You walk in front of the cups, while holding your dowsing wand, and just wait for your subconscious mind to notice which cup is out of place from the last time you looked, then wait for the ideomotor response to move the rod tip over to that particular cup. Then go over, lift up the cup and retrieve the target.

or.........

3.) You could just stand in front of all the cups, and without moving, guess at which one has the target hidden under it. Then go over and check out all the cups to verify your guess.

If you execute your search according to 1.) or 2.), it is more than likely that you will find the target almost every time. And, that would be 100% success. Yippee!

However, if you execute your search according to 3.), and if you repeat the test several times, you could expect to get only Zero, One or Two Hits, about 93% of the time.

To check the math for condition 3.), just plug the variables into this standard equation, and crank away:

P = C(n,k) pk (1-p)n-k

Given 10 cups, 1 target in one of the 10 cups and you will execute the test 10 times (10 trials) then, here is what you can expect to see as results:

The Probability of Zero Hits is 0.348
The Probability of One Hit is 0.387
The Probability of Two Hits is 0.193
The Probability of Four Hits is 0.011
The Probability of Seven Hits is 8.748E-06
The Probability of Ten Hits is 1E-10

Oh, I almost forgot.... if you ever submit to a real d-b test, using your dowsing wand and your dowsing talent, you will get the same results as in condition 3.)

Jean

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

How many coins will I find?​

Well that depends on how you are going about the task of finding them. Since your wife is in the house, and it's just you and the inverted cups out in the back yard.

1.) I suppose you could just go look under each cup until you find where she hid it.

2.) You walk in front of the cups, while holding your dowsing wand, and just wait for your subconscious mind to notice which cup is out of place from the last time you looked, then wait for the ideomotor response to move the rod tip over to that particular cup. Then go over, lift up the cup and retrieve the target.

or.........

3.) You could just stand in front of all the cups, and without moving, guess at which one has the target hidden under it. Then go over and check out all the cups to verify your guess.

If you execute your search according to 1.) or 2.), it is more than likely that you will find the target almost every time. And, that would be 100% success. Yippee!

However, if you execute your search according to 3.), and if you repeat the test several times, you could expect to get only Zero, One or Two Hits, about 93% of the time.

To check the math for condition 3.), just plug the variables into this standard equation, and crank away:

P = C(n,k) pk (1-p)n-k

Given 10 cups, 1 target in one of the 10 cups and you will execute the test 10 times (10 trials) then, here is what you can expect to see as results:

The Probability of Zero Hits is 0.348
The Probability of One Hit is 0.387
The Probability of Two Hits is 0.193
The Probability of Four Hits is 0.011
The Probability of Seven Hits is 8.748E-06
The Probability of Ten Hits is 1E-10

Oh, I almost forgot.... if you ever submit to a real d-b test, using your dowsing wand and your dowsing talent, you will get the same results as in condition 3.)

Jean

How about it, Art? Sounds like pretty good odds to me. You get it perfect everytime you have your wife hide the gold, so this should be a cakewalk, right? If you disagree, then please tell us why.

 

[xupz]

My table was prettier

 

[Jean310]

My table was prettier

Yes, it was.

He asked the question and several of us gave him, what I believe to be excellent, and accurate answers.

Now it is up to him to do something with the information.

Jean

 

[xupz]

My table was prettier

Yes, it was.

He asked the question and several of us gave him, what I believe to be excellent, and accurate answers.

Now it is up to him to do something with the information.

Jean

Yep, unfortunately we all made the mistake that it mattered or poorly assumed that perhaps a dowser or two can plug & chug an equation....

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=Jean310 link=He asked the question and several of us gave him, what I believe to be excellent, and accurate answers.Jean
************
Sigh, a wonderful example of a mind that is so narrowly educated that it is incapable of assimilating any new knowedge or even to modify it's test protocol in light of new definitions or facts, because of ego or simply inability to understand any data that does not fit it's former parameters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
*****************


Tropical Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[Thank goodness I've still got me boots on
\\\\\\\\\\\\\
No kidding... :P....now we don't have to worry about it running down on the floor....
\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Oh my...you've been peeking!! Not to worry..."it" stays in my pants just fine, thank-you-very-much :::wink wink:::
***************
Depends eh swr?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
*****************


Tropical Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=SWR link=Oh my...you've been peeking!! Not to worry..."it" stays in my pants just fine, thank-you-very-much :::wink wink:::
***************
Depends eh swr?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Sure...depends on if I'm commando, or not
***************
Hmm I have never heard of your brand swr? I try to keep track of them for our statistic group.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
*****************


Tropical Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=JudyH Yep, unfortunately we all made the mistake that it mattered or poorly assumed that perhaps a dowser or two can plug & chug an equation...
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
....or maybe they have figured out that your numerator and your denominator were related, resulting in a tree structured analysis with no branches.....
**************
and not enough roots for a firm base
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
*****************


Tropical Tramp

 

[xupz]

Yep, unfortunately we all made the mistake that it mattered or poorly assumed that perhaps a dowser or two can plug & chug an equation....

....or maybe they have figured out that your numerator and your denominator were related, resulting in a tree structured analysis with no branches.....

Well Judy, at least no will confuse you with being funny.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI ROOM
isn't it about time to discuss Dowsing rationally and try to suggest ways to improve it instead of just mocking, ridiculing it and some of it's posters.etc ?

Even Carl, one of the most devoted attackers, has admitted to dowsing, so since there is no longer a question of it's existence, why don't we start on ways to improve it.

As to how it works , that is outside of any of our indvidual expertise, so put that aside, and discuss dowsing rationally

Tropical Tramp