I tried to get rid of it (I really did, it's embarrassing to be seen
with) but it won't bugger off so I'm dumping it here, it's yours
now, do with it what you will.

Ok, everyone says yanks are dumb right & everyone says it so
it must be true, but they
all think they're brilliant & after all
no one knows them better so they must be right.

I was musing on this little dichotomy when it came to me.

"All stereotypes are true"

If you just look long enough you can always find someone to fit
whatever stereotype you like, so yanks can be both stupid and
brilliant at the same time.

Sort of like Schrodinger's cat every yank is both stupid and
brilliant.. until you meet one, and the wave form collapses
into stupidity or brilliance.

Bayesian Analysishttp://mathworld.wo...yesianAnalysis.html The mathematics of beleif [zen_tom, Jun 28 2016]

Bayesian Inferencehttps://en.wikipedi.../Bayesian_inference A bit more gumpf on the process by which you "collapse" the posterior waveform based upon observation [zen_tom, Jun 28 2016]

He's no dummy.color_20shifting_20sticky_20notes Or if he is, he took a break for this idea. [doctorremulac3, Jul 02 2016]

all known stereotypes of x (where x can be anything, your mum. my mum, dogs, welsh sheep... cabbages) are simultaneously true for each and every sample of x (regardless of how contradictory this may be) until it (x) is observed.

it's not really an idea, it needs an idea to hide behind.

I also need to find it a category but I'm off to bed now so later.

.....and the idea is what? This is simply an observation and not an idea, so unless the author can explain what the actual idea is, then I suggest he or she deletes it, before it gets an mfd tag.

Aspects of this have already been documented - if you have a belief that say, all X=Y, then you can represent that belief as a probability curve. If you're sure, that X=Y, then that curve will be higher, and pointier, and centered about Y than if you're less sure. If you're not sure at all, then the curve will be flat and all values of X will have equal (or near equal) probability.

Then you go out and get a couple of data points and their X's are indeed Y. As a result, your belief is strengthened, and your belief-curve becomes narrower and more certain about Y. Or, conversely, you find some data-points that show that X is waaaay off Y, so the resulting shift in the belief curve should be skewed appropriately in that direction, and perhaps flattened a little to reflect the loss of certainty that follows from a belief not fitting the facts presented.

If you're equally sure of lots of things at once, that can be modelled by a near flat, or multi-modal curve. The maths are more tricky for that, but not impossible, it's just a case of defining the curves.

I'm sure it deserves that, it's just a silly idea I found amusing & hoped someone else might find something suitably daft to wrap around it, I'll probably knock it on the head after a bit myself

// that can be modelled by a near flat, or multi-modal curve //

that would be flat not near flat, all probabilities are all equally valid until observed

// This is more about set theory though. //

a venn diagram of this would be a big circle with all possible outcomes written inside it

Interestingly, the problem with the assertion that "Anything is true" is that it excludes the ability to perform any kind of inference or deduction - and without that, any fact or piece of information is isolated and disconnected from everything else and its utility drops to zero. It's like filling out a soduku puzzle with a dollop of porridge.

//Ok, everyone says yanks are dumb right &
everyone says it so it must be true, but they all
think they're brilliant & after all no one knows
them better so they must be right.//

I'm assuming from your atrocious punctuation and
sentence
structure that you're about 4 or 5 years old so I'll
be kind.

Although it's fun write, sometimes you can
write nasty things about large groups of
people that make you look very ignorant. You
wouldn't want somebody to write nasty ignorant
things about the group of people that you belong
to would you?

So keep up the work on your writing skills but put
a little thought into what you're writing.

I used to think women would take bathroom breaks in flocks because they were on friendly terms. I now think that its more because they don't want to be the one that all the other ladies are gossiping about. Sort of how locusts plagues form cohesive groups from a simple algorithm of trying to eat the one in front, without getting eaten by the one behind.

the composite nature of of lengthy thoughts as compared with a double slit causes this to be illusory, sort of like "although you could do a version of the schrodinger equation for every airplane, and airplane seat, sometimes the RMS averages would cause nonobservability of p=.5ness of the entire system.

you might be able to do something with the MWI, where anything you could ever say is instantly occurring at a particular universe. like these "yanks" you write of are simultaneously mentally amplified with an AI.

//the composite nature of of lengthy thoughts as
compared with a double slit causes this to be illusory//

Admit it Beansie, you're an AI program written by a very
clever computer programmer. The algorithm takes a
general concept, scans various articles on the internet
containing phrases associated with that
concept then pastes them together in a pretty
grammatically sophisticated, although completely
random fashion. I'll try one.

"the application of ballistics and celestial mechanics"
"gravitational lensing and the amount of bending" "Twin
Quasar's two images are separated by 6 arcseconds"
"Thus the SI unit is: m2·s−1."

The first few sentences are tied together, then
juxtaposed to the last sentences written as a possible
divergent view forming a third concept which is
purported to be the idea, then a mathematical formula is
thrown in, sort of like seasoning.

So you get:

"The application of ballistics and celestial mechanics with
respect to gravitational lensing and the amount of
bending, but in contradiction to formulas postulating
twin Quasar's two images are separated by 6 arcseconds,
thus the SI unit is: m2·s−1."

Am I right?

My other theory is that you're just really smart and I can't
understand you being that I'm kind of dumb by
comparison. Unfortunately, if that's the case I have no
way of knowing it. I do know this, you're not dumb having
come up with color changing sticky notes, which is
absolutely brilliant. (see link)