paradoxes of randomness

[Sarad AV]

hi,

--- Dave Howe <DaveHowe at cmn.sharp-uk.co.uk> wrote:
. (Not
> > saying you do, just quibbling with any claim that
> readily calculated
> > probabilities can be "surprising.")
> I meant surprising for Sarad - Much of this
> discussion pre-assumes that he
> *does* misunderstand probability but is willing to
> substitute our
> collective insanity for his current ignorance :)

No more of that-I will have a good read. I am
basically confused of the fact

> In a perfectly random experiment,how many tails and
> how many heads do we get?
we don't know - or it wouldn't be random :)
>for a sufficiently large sample you *should* see
>roughly equal numbers of heads and tails in the
>average case.

We say that, we-don't know or it wont be random. Then
we say that we must see roughly equal numbers of heads
and tails for large trials. Thats what I fail to
understand.



The idea of a perfect random experiment was taken just
to understand the concept.

Thanks.

Regards Sarath.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com