Re: SCNC link
Posted by Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande on February 12, 2008 at 11:31:51:

I think Chris jumped from 24-hour probability to cumulative probability (pointing out that what seemed like a small probability, would, in a matter of days, increase to a somewhat significant probability), and I followed right along with him. You are right that the 24-hour probabilies would have increasingly large denominators with the passage of time. If the probabilies did not fall off, then the denominators would remain the same for 24-hour probabilities, and the cumulative probabilities, I think, would simply be the sum of those fractions for X number of 24-hour periods. So, over a 10-day period, the probability would be 10:1000 = 1:100.

But there seems to be something wrong with that: in 1000 days, there would be a certainty . . .

Mike W.


Follow Ups:
     ● No certainty at all...except... - Glen  19:15:40 - 2/12/2008  (73323)  (0)
     ● probability - heartland chris  11:41:46 - 2/12/2008  (73313)  (3)
        ● omori law = inverse time - John Vidale  15:58:45 - 2/12/2008  (73319)  (1)
           ● Re: omori law = inverse time - Glen  17:11:00 - 2/12/2008  (73320)  (1)
              ● swarms - John Vidale  18:30:05 - 2/12/2008  (73321)  (1)
                 ● Got it.... - Glen  19:02:37 - 2/12/2008  (73322)  (1)
                    ● mid-March would be good - John Vidale  19:17:30 - 2/12/2008  (73324)  (1)
                       ● We will all tune in----thanx, n/t - Glen  21:43:34 - 2/12/2008  (73326)  (0)
        ● Re: probability - Canie  12:36:23 - 2/12/2008  (73315)  (0)
        ● Re: probability - Roger Hunter  12:18:22 - 2/12/2008  (73314)  (1)
           ● Re: probability - Cathryn  19:49:48 - 2/12/2008  (73325)  (0)