These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

High sec cargo gank... Whats the hate? Solutions?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#141 - 2012-11-05 03:53:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
so in your insane universe, the fact that equations for things with masses work even with the mass at zero, means that things with zero mass are 'masses', because they can be put into the formula as a mass?
No. They are objects of zero mass, just like in this case, they would be events with zero probability. We can still see them as risks if we like, which becomes important since, if we're dealing with a compound risk, they can have consequences on the total risk involving other events. The same will not be the case with masses (at least not in any way I can think of off the top of my head… well, maybe when we start dealing with momentum of massless particles and all that).

For instance, let's look at the risk of the loot drop.

It'll look like ∑ [probability of item dropping] × [value of item], but that assumes that a drop event actually takes place to begin with and we have to compensate for this. Now, we could include that probability in the [probability of item dropping] parameter, but that would mean a lot of needless repetition of something that must be the same for all items involved. So it's far neater to extract that as its own parameter: risk = [probability of drop event] × ∑ [probability of item dropping] × [value of item]

…and then when we debug our code or process every detail in the scenario, we notice that, oops, the probability of the drop event is zero for some reason. Thus, even though the risk for the items being dropped is some interesting value, the total risk turns out to be zero. A non-zero risk is compounded with a zero risk to make our prognosis very bleak.


your own formula was risk = probability * cost. now you're saying we can compound risks? risk = riskA*riskB = probabilityA*probB *costA*costB? So now our risk is in units of dollars-squared. That's totally insane. WTF is a dollar-squared? Or you yourself are using different definitions of risk, despite saying that there's only one? Please, seek help. stop responding to me, and find someone who's qualified to help you with whatever is causing this instead :(
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#142 - 2012-11-05 04:00:39 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
your own formula was risk = probability * cost. now you're saying we can compound risks?
It's been there all along, and the example shows how. It really shouldn't be confusing you at this point unless you are actively trying to misunderstand and hope to rely on ad hominems and straw men instead.

…oh wait…
Fieriy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#143 - 2012-11-05 04:02:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Fieriy
Elliot Vodka wrote:
Things are getting crazy now, so im going to put in something... less complicated... Try to ease the minds of... whoever.


Ok lets create a scenario.

I have 1 dallar. And look, there is a grabber machine that i can play for 25 cents.
I have decided i want to play this game, and spend 25 cents, i know there is no getting this quarter back... no chance... no risk?

Now in this game there are balls... with prizes inside them, most look alike, all contents are hidden. BUT, you know in all of these balls have either, money, objects, or nothing at all.

Up to the point of spending the 25 cents there is no risk because i know its going to happen.

So at least we have established there is no risk up to this point...

Does risk become a factor when the ball could slip out of the grabbers hand? Resulting in nothing gained?

Is it a risk or is it simply a bonus if i get it? Is it perspective?

It seems like this is become about perspective more than anything.

One guy may think, ive lost 0.25 for this opportunity. The worst that can happen is that i walk away without that 25 cents.

Someone else may think. I spent 25 cents to win something better... I risked 25 cent for this opportunity...

Im alone starting to lose the point of the whole argument with people trying to prove what a risk is?

(I missed a few post while writing this, dont hate.)



If you can't win that same quarter back you're not risking that quarter, it's gone for sure. Monetary value of the quarter is risked unless guaranteed to get more monetary value back. It's risked because you may or may not get more back(as the gankers risk monetary value of ship if there plan is to get monetary value from other ship).
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#144 - 2012-11-05 04:08:37 UTC
Fieriy wrote:
If you can't win that same quarter back you're not risking that quarter, it's gone for sure. Monetary value of the quarter is risked unless guaranteed to get more monetary value back(as the gankers risk monetary value of ship if there plan is to get monetary value from other ship).
…and thus we arrive at the 2009-standard version of risk, which makes it a risk regardless: even if you're guaranteed to earn the value back, it's still a risk.

As for the actual quarter, that's the beauty of fungible goods. Blink
Fieriy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#145 - 2012-11-05 04:14:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Fieriy wrote:
If you can't win that same quarter back you're not risking that quarter, it's gone for sure. Monetary value of the quarter is risked unless guaranteed to get more monetary value back(as the gankers risk monetary value of ship if there plan is to get monetary value from other ship).
…and thus we arrive at the 2009-standard version of risk, which makes it a risk regardless: even if you're guaranteed to earn the value back, it's still a risk.

As for the actual quarter, that's the beauty of fungible goods. Blink


If it is a certainty there is by definition no risk.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#146 - 2012-11-05 04:19:35 UTC
Fieriy wrote:
If it is a certainty there is by definition no risk.
If there is certainty (p=1), by definition, the risk = cost.

But the point here was more that guaranteed returns don't make it a non-risk.
Fieriy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#147 - 2012-11-05 04:32:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Fieriy wrote:
If it is a certainty there is by definition no risk.
If there is certainty (p=1), by definition, the risk = cost.

But the point here was more that guaranteed returns don't make it a non-risk.


That formula doesn't apply when certainty is involved, you used it incorrectly
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#148 - 2012-11-05 04:35:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
your own formula was risk = probability * cost. now you're saying we can compound risks?
It's been there all along, and the example shows how. It really shouldn't be confusing you at this point unless you are actively trying to misunderstand and hope to rely on ad hominems and straw men instead.

…oh wait…


Oh, you mean when I make a mathematical objection you realize that quoting ISO won't work anymore, as you won't be able to find a quote of anyone mangling the math the way your example above did, and so instead you have to resort to ad hominems and straw men by accusing me of hoping to rely on ad hominems and straw men

:)


Well, go on, I say that taking risk = probability * value, and distributing out into

risk = probability{dropevent} * summation [dropprobability * value], means that you have

zero-risk = zero-probability * nonzerorisk...and that you have referred to zero-probability as "zero-risk", which constitutes a new definition of risk specific to this example that contradicts your earlier statements about risk.

To argue otherwise would be to refer to compounding two risks when one risk is wholly and completely already contained in the first risk ,which is a horribly confusing way to refer to that situation. (i.e., in the equation A = B*C, compounding A with C...but I don't think you can coherently argue that with the way your last post was structured) If ISO does have that as standard terminology I would be very surprised, as that would lower my opinion of their standards even further. If they don't , then you have again made provably false statements and should just retreat in shame. Kinda a no -win situation for you, so I would predict you'll just throw up more ad hominems and straw men instead of addressing the math.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#149 - 2012-11-05 04:41:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Fieriy wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Fieriy wrote:
If it is a certainty there is by definition no risk.
If there is certainty (p=1), by definition, the risk = cost.

But the point here was more that guaranteed returns don't make it a non-risk.


That formula doesn't apply when certainty is involved, you used it incorrectly



I think the fact that formulas do not apply in certain situations is a little over her head, sadly :( Certain people find formulas so attractively simple, they believe in them more strongly than they believe in the physical universe itself. The universe is just so dang complicated, and formulas are so much better!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#150 - 2012-11-05 04:45:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Oh, you mean when I make a mathematical objection you realize that quoting ISO won't work anymore
…except of course, that I'm still using the same formula as ever.

Quote:
zero-risk = zero-probability * nonzerorisk...and that you have referred to zero-probability as "zero-risk", which constitutes a new definition of risk specific to this example that contradicts your earlier statements about risk.
No. I've referred to a risk with zero probability as zero-risk, which contradicts nothing, especially since, at that point, it doesn't matter what the the other factor is. In this case, that factor is another risk equation, which turns out to be non-zero.

The risk R₁ = P₁×R₂ is compounded with the risk R₂=P₂×C₂. R₁ is a zero risk; R₂ is not.

Vanyr Andrard wrote:
The universe is just so dang complicated, and formulas are so much better!
You're confusing me with you. It is horribly complicated, which is why these risk assessment standards spend so little time on the calculation and so much time on defining methods to evaluate the parameters.

The formula itself is deceptively simple: risk = probability × cost. Its applicability is where things get complicated and where people get confused about things such as events that turn out to be guaranteed to happen… and yet count as risks that need to go into the formula.
Shederov Blood
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#151 - 2012-11-05 04:51:30 UTC
Did anyone know that you can do the same thing to gankers that they do to others using the exact same tools the gankers use? Shocked

Who put the goat in there?
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#152 - 2012-11-05 04:52:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Oh, you mean when I make a mathematical objection you realize that quoting ISO won't work anymore
…except of course, that I'm still using the same formula as ever.

Quote:
zero-risk = zero-probability * nonzerorisk...and that you have referred to zero-probability as "zero-risk", which constitutes a new definition of risk specific to this example that contradicts your earlier statements about risk.
No. I've referred to a risk with zero probability as zero-risk, which contradicts nothing since at that point, it doesn't matter what the the other factor is. In this case, that factor is another risk equation, which turns out to be non-zero.

The risk R₁ = P₁×R₂ is compounded with the risk R₂=P₂×C₂. R₁ is a zero risk; R₂ is not.



Is that definition of compounded risks ISO-approved, or not? Simple question.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#153 - 2012-11-05 04:57:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Is that definition of compounded risks ISO-approved, or not? Simple question.
Yes. It's not magic — just maths. The distributive rule still applies.
This is just a very simple case since the “outer” risk has no additional costs.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#154 - 2012-11-05 05:30:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Is that definition of compounded risks ISO-approved, or not? Simple question.
Yes. It's not magic — just maths. The distributive rule still applies.
This is just a very simple case since the “outer” risk has no additional costs.



yes, it's just maths. It's just that in maths, compounding usually refers to composition of functions, or applying one function repeatedly. I.e., compound interest, where interest is applied repeatedly to principal, so A = R^(n)*P

In your definition, these two risks aren't compounded in this traditional way.

"R₁ = P₁×R₂ is compounded with the risk R₂=P₂×C₂."

So, R₁ = P₁× P₂×C₂...to a mathematician, this looks like you've compounded probabilities, not risks. I suppose you can provide a link showing that in the strange world of risk management, referring to this situation as "compounded risks" is standard practice?

If I google "compounded risks", I get 2250 results..with this thread being #5.

All of the results that I've looked up use compounded risks either in the sense

risk = (probabilityfactor1 + probabilityfactor2) * (cost), or

risk = (probability)*(costfactor1 + costfactor2).

where (+) can be a somewhat complex interaction, either canceling out or synergistically increasing depending on the real world factors at work.

I've yet to find any that use it in the sense you describe. Since you're in the field, I'm sure you'll have no problem linking examples and reasoning as for why risk management uses the term 'compounded' in such a nonstandard way...and while you're at it, finding examples of prominent risk management professionals using the term 'risk' to refer to situations of probability 0 and 1 ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#155 - 2012-11-05 05:36:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
All of the results that I've looked up use compounded risks either in the sense

risk = (probabilityfactor1 + probabilityfactor2) * (cost), or

risk = (probability)*(costfactor1 + costfactor2).
…and this is more of the latter (and can be expressed in the former form as well, although that makes it less clear what's going on), except that the cost factors are themselves risks. But sure, if you want to throw in a red herring about the use of “compound”, do so. It doesn't particularly change anything (what with being a red herring and all).

Actually, read the first one wrong.

Quote:
I've yet to find any that use it in the sense you describe.
Then you've already dismissed the forms you quoted as not being compounded, or you've simply not read my posts.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#156 - 2012-11-05 05:39:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
All of the results that I've looked up use compounded risks either in the sense

risk = (probabilityfactor1 + probabilityfactor2) * (cost), or

risk = (probability)*(costfactor1 + costfactor2).
…and this is more of the latter (and can be expressed in the former form as well, although that makes it less clear what's going on), except that the cost factors are themselves risks. But sure, if you want to throw in a red herring about the use of “compound”, do so. It doesn't particularly change anything (what with being a red herring and all).




So, your method of admitting that you can't provide said quotes, is to make a red herring post distracting from that fact, which itself consists of nothing but accusing me of making a red herring post? It's quite amusing how every time you accuse me of a fallacy, you're actually committing that exact fallacy.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#157 - 2012-11-05 05:43:36 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
So, your method of admitting that you can't provide said quotes, is to make a red herring post distracting from that fact, which itself consists of nothing but accusing me of making a red herring post?
So your method of using red herrings is to ignore the fact that the example discussed conform to one of the compound forms you posted.

Note the use of a period over a question mark.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#158 - 2012-11-05 05:45:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
So, your method of admitting that you can't provide said quotes, is to make a red herring post distracting from that fact, which itself consists of nothing but accusing me of making a red herring post?
So your method of using red herrings is to ignore the fact that the example discussed conform to one of the compound forms you posted.

Note the use of a period over a question mark.



Ok, you concede the argument and refuse to back up your wild claims with evidence.

(Note the use of a period instead of a question mark.)
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
#159 - 2012-11-05 05:48:05 UTC
Shederov Blood wrote:
Did anyone know that you can do the same thing to gankers that they do to others using the exact same tools the gankers use? Shocked



That would involve effort/learning how to do something and we can't have that.

Everyone know that gankers use some mystical exploit anyway. Can't compete with that. Lol
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#160 - 2012-11-05 05:50:53 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Ok, you concede the argument and refuse to back up your wild claims with evidence.
Nope. You already provided the evidence.

Or are you now saying that the uses of compound risk you found and quoted do not denote compound risks?