Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.bio,net.origins,net.sci
Subject: Re: The missing step -- self-reproducing organisms
Message-ID: <474@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Nov-84 09:57:46 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.474
Posted: Tue Nov 20 09:57:46 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Nov-84 06:29:20 EST
References: gatech.10770 <3469@ecsvax.UUCP> <10810@gatech.UUCP> <1262@hao.UUCP>
Organization: UW Primate Center
Lines: 18

> 
>    I think the concept that everyone is trying to get at here is this:
> 
> If an event has a probability of occuring that is greater than zero, and there
> are an infinite number of attempts at it, then the probability that it will
> eventually occur is indeed 1, no matter how small the probability that it will
> happen on a given attempt. The only assumption needed here is that time
> goes on forever (and I'm not going to debate that here, I take that as a given).

This argument is an example of the gambler's fallacy:  if I lose
*this* time, then it's more likely I'll win *next* time.  The outcome
of event i does not affect the outcome of event j in any way, for
independent events.  (If the events are not independent, then the
above argument doesn't apply anyway.)

The event could occur the first time; it might never occur.
-- 
Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois