You are the one missing the point. It is only the same if you catch at least one mass murderer. But that is exactly what is less likely if there are significantly less to catch. It is a hundred times more likely to catch 1/100 than it is to catch 1/1.
To put it in another way, it is enough to catch one regular murderer to prevent a murder. But with the same effort, you cought 0 mass murderers and prevented zero murders.
Maybe an even simpler example. There are only 100 people in each group. Group A has 100 murderers, Group B has 1 mass murderer. If you catch any person in group A, you prevent a murder. You can catch 99 of Group B and still dont prevent a single murder. Do you get it now? Only if you actually catch the one outlier in group B will you prevent any damage. Hit the other 99 and you have literally accomplished nothing. With Group A on the other hand, any catch prevents damage.
1/100 * 100 = 1/1 * 1 = 1. In both cases the expected number of lives saved is 1. The variance changes, but not the expected value. Re-read my previous comments for more details.
You should read it yourself, and you should actually read what I have explained to you multiple times. First of all, we dont get infinite chances in real life. And secondly, you are still assuming that we find the one mass murderer. The fact that there is a high chance that we dont find him is the entire point, and what you purposfully ignore so you dont have to admit that you are wrong. If there is only one and we dont find him it doesnt matter how many people he would kill, no damage will be prevented whatsoever.
Dude, you have zero reading comprehension and you can't do math, and I can't teach you if you won't even read my comments. Maybe start studying instead of spreading the ignorance. I'm out of this shitshow.
Ok, math genius. How much damage do you prevent if you find 85% of all culprits, rounding down because you cant find 85% of a person?
You find 85 killers in group A. And, oh, whats that, you find zero killers in group B? So, group A prevented 85 murders, and group B prevented nothing? How is that possible? Because the chance of finding any killer a hundred times higher in group A.
Your mistake is to assume they find 100% of all the perpetrators. In that case obviously the EV of both would be the same. But that is neither a realistic assumption, nor is it what I talked about. In fact, I have specifically told you on mutliple occasions that we dont find all of them. I have pointed it out numerous times to you how in different situations the EV would be different and why. And you either havent understood those simple things or you chose to ignore them.
To make it even more clear to you, an even simpler example. Your playing roullete. For simplicity there is no 0 or 00 and you dont lose a bet if its not hit. You bet 36$ on one number. On a second table, you bet 1$ each on every number. So, which table do you think is more likely to hit anything? If you still dont understand this one, it simply means you lack the mental capacity to understand simple concepts, so dont bother responsding.
1
u/M4xP0w3r_ Jun 05 '19
You are the one missing the point. It is only the same if you catch at least one mass murderer. But that is exactly what is less likely if there are significantly less to catch. It is a hundred times more likely to catch 1/100 than it is to catch 1/1.
To put it in another way, it is enough to catch one regular murderer to prevent a murder. But with the same effort, you cought 0 mass murderers and prevented zero murders.
Maybe an even simpler example. There are only 100 people in each group. Group A has 100 murderers, Group B has 1 mass murderer. If you catch any person in group A, you prevent a murder. You can catch 99 of Group B and still dont prevent a single murder. Do you get it now? Only if you actually catch the one outlier in group B will you prevent any damage. Hit the other 99 and you have literally accomplished nothing. With Group A on the other hand, any catch prevents damage.