GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1155561234
From: "Alfred A. Aburto Jr." <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] From 34/37 to 42/67
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 06:13:54 -0700
References: <002201c6bd5f$1dfa3f00$6401a8c0@HP> <002c01c6bd71$4e346ad0$0c139a8e@PeterAKincaid> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <002a01c6bee9$d034daa0$01129a8e@PeterAKincaid> <023501c6beed$2e1d0c20$1b02a8c0@DC51YP91> <003901c6bef9$a2cc25e0$01129a8e@PeterAKincaid> <email@example.com> <000301c6bf29$b155ea80$86139a8e@PeterAKincaid> <1EB8F0C1-0762-4694-A727-C6E7A4DF0B01@vizachero.com> <002a01c6bfa0$6e511d00$6400a8c0@Ken1>
But the longer the pattern sequence is, the more likely it is _not_ from
a random process.
HT is likely
HTHT likely too
HTHTHT likely too
but eventually as the pattern presists to very long strings it becomes
less and less likely to be from a random process...
> Ken Nordtvedt wrote:
> Let's assume both your example strings of flips below were made the
> same length (I just cut one back to make them equal). They both are
> equally likely to have occured from a random process. One just
> strikes us as very unusual because we see a pattern in it. Ken
> From: "Vincent Vizachero" <>
>> HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTH is not a random result, for example, but
>> THHTHTTTTTHHTHTTHHHHTHT is.