It's scientifically proven now, specific laughter can, with 100% efficiency make you laugh as well. If you did not laugh or crack a smile, i dont know either
if it is 100% and proven then how could it be that someone doesn´t laugh when watching this? are you perhaps saying that P(Ω) > 1 ??? that would mean that you are using a different system to measure probabilities than the one normally used in the USA and europe and most of the other countries on earth... well, no helping it then. I´m sure someone will find out how to solve this paradoxon...
i wonder who bored enough to research about this.... this kind of thing probably known quite long... since many show hire/put someone to laugh/fake laugh in order cause its audience/watcher to laugh along
I can't watch it, so I can't comment; I'm curious what the postulated scientific mechanism behind it is though.
yeah and 100% = 1 so the probability of all possible outcomes is P(Ω) and if that is higher than 1 then this means he is using another system...
I dont think so.I'm 100% sure if someone laugh at me,instead of laughing too i'll be punching him in the face.
Since there seems to be a misunderstanding. Let us do it this way: A = event that someone laughs upon seeing the video P(A) = 1 according to the 100% efficiency. Then A^c or A complement is the event that someone does not laugh upon seeing the video which has chance P(A^c) = 1 - P(A) = 1-1 = 0 (use complement rule). But since that we've observed (i.e. myself) that someone did not laugh upon seeing the video means that P(A^c) =/= 0 and actually >0. Means that P(A) + P(A^c) > 1 thus leading to /u/Diabolicgod's conclusion of P(Ω)>1. We can thus conclude that the video doesn't have 100% efficiency. But hey, putting "100%" in your post/statements draws attention :^)
the way this is written implies without other possible interpretations that this "specific laughter" can make "you" (=anyone who sees this) laugh the 100% efficiency in this case can be translated into the probability of making "you" laugh of 100% otherwise the efficiency wouldn´t be 100% because you didn´t laugh and this would mean that the post is a scam and if we even begin to assume that this post is a scam then we can forget about interpreting anything into it because we couldn´t even be sure that the one who posted it meant that the laughter of the man in the video is meant with the "specific laughter" he mentioned in his post from all of this we can conclude that you, @chencking , are: a) not really awake or confused b) a bit slow on the uptake but a fast commentor c) trolling d) writing comments without thinking about what you write more than one time (like many people, sometimes including me) e) bored and just wanted me to answer and argue about this topic f) not in possession of enough theoretical knowledge to discuss thie topic you mentioned g) any of the above AND feeling indignant because I just wrote this . Thank you for readin this even though I was too lazy to care for my grammatical errors.
That means he is not doing probability anymore. P: 0 <= P <= 1 Is a fundamental theorem of probability.
Or, you could admit efficiency is not a probability. Details matter. You can't translate English to English, because it's already English.