|
Re: SCNC link |
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) |
|