Moreover, that’s not how probability works in independent events.
It’d be like saying “I flipped coin A 1 billion times and got half a billion heads, so now that I’m flipping coin B 100 times, I probably won’t get any more heads.”
It should be fairly obvious that you can say the exact same statement about tails, and get a completely contradictory statement.
Say, there exists 2 humans and 98 bacteria. Consider all cells of a human one life.
50% of ALL life doesn’t care which species the life is, and therefore there’s a chance that 50 bacteria die. The probability of that happening is 98C50 / 100C50 = 98! 50! 50! / (100! 50! 48!) = (50)(49) / ((100)(99)) = 0.247
For my previous argument, I did not actually do the math. Now that I have done a little bit, the probability seems to converge at 25%
Obviously, this is based on the interpretation of “all life”. For my interpretation, “all life” includes every life in a single set, and apply the 50% snap to that. For some others however, it may be interpreted as each species in their own set, and the 50% snap is applied on each set individually.
The problem is the ambiguity of the statement. Is it 50% of each species? Or is it 50% of all life as one set?
If it’s the former case, then sure 3.5b humans and n/2 bacteria gets snapped.
But if it’s the latter case, we group all 7b and n bacteria into one set and snap half of them. This 50% can consist of 50% humans + 50% bacteria, but there’s also a chance for it to include 0% humans + 100% bacteria. Therefore, the amount of humans snap is a random variable instead of a constant.
If you include bacteria, then probably no human died from the snap. There are significantly more of them
That’s not how percentages work
Moreover, that’s not how probability works in independent events.
It’d be like saying “I flipped coin A 1 billion times and got half a billion heads, so now that I’m flipping coin B 100 times, I probably won’t get any more heads.”
It should be fairly obvious that you can say the exact same statement about tails, and get a completely contradictory statement.
Say, there exists 2 humans and 98 bacteria. Consider all cells of a human one life.
50% of ALL life doesn’t care which species the life is, and therefore there’s a chance that 50 bacteria die. The probability of that happening is 98C50 / 100C50 = 98! 50! 50! / (100! 50! 48!) = (50)(49) / ((100)(99)) = 0.247
For my previous argument, I did not actually do the math. Now that I have done a little bit, the probability seems to converge at 25%
Obviously, this is based on the interpretation of “all life”. For my interpretation, “all life” includes every life in a single set, and apply the 50% snap to that. For some others however, it may be interpreted as each species in their own set, and the 50% snap is applied on each set individually.
But if there are 7 billion humans and n bacteria, and 50% of them are snapped, wouldn’t approximately 3.5 billion humans and n/2 bacteria be snapped?
The problem is the ambiguity of the statement. Is it 50% of each species? Or is it 50% of all life as one set?
If it’s the former case, then sure 3.5b humans and n/2 bacteria gets snapped.
But if it’s the latter case, we group all 7b and n bacteria into one set and snap half of them. This 50% can consist of 50% humans + 50% bacteria, but there’s also a chance for it to include 0% humans + 100% bacteria. Therefore, the amount of humans snap is a random variable instead of a constant.