How long will Godwin's law hold true?

As most, if not all, of you know, Godwin's law states that: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.". He made this law in 1990. The young generations that are getting on the internet are not influenced by WWII as much as the generation that was around in 1990.
So how much longer will Godwin's law hold true? Please provide a formula in your answer.

Your definition of Godwin's law is absolutely meaningless. 

Godwin was literally Hitler.

As an online discussion grows, the probability of someone reciting the entire work of Hamlet approaches 1.

If an infinite number of monkeys type on an infinite keyboard they will eventually type Lord of the Rings?

If an infinite number of monkeys type on an infinite keyboard they will eventually type Lord of the Rings?

With all variables approaching infinity, probability, too, must do so. Therefore, yes.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1

As an online discussion grows, the probability of someone reciting the entire work of Hamlet approaches 1.

That's not how probability works. The probability will not approach 1 at all. If the probability of any post being about Nazis is 1:1,000,000 then after that post has been made the probability is still 1:1,000,000. It does not diminish to 1:999,999.

Godwin's law is codswallop.

That's not how probability works. The probability will not approach 1 at all. If the probability of any post being about Nazis is 1:1,000,000 then after that post has been made the probability is still 1:1,000,000. It does not diminish to 1:999,999.

Godwin's law is codswallop.

That is straight probability. If the odds of Nazis in a post is 1:1,000,000, we can assume that a forum with one million posts has at least one about Nazis. Mathematically the law is stupid, realistically it is correct.

The law states as the discussion grows the probability approaches 1. That is akin to suggesting that after you flipped a coin and got heads, the probability of tails increases. Its wrong.

The law states as the discussion grows the probability approaches 1. That is akin to suggesting that after you flipped a coin and got heads, the probability of tails increases. Its wrong.

It is clear that the law was not meant to be mathematically literal. It is like saying two raindrops equal one raindrop so 1+1=1. It is realistically correct but mathematically stupid. Godwin's Law is true, it just words it incorrectly.

But 1+1 raindrop do equal 2 raindrops. That's Zetetic mathematics.

If an infinite number of monkeys type on an infinite keyboard they will eventually type Lord of the Rings?

I wonder how an infinite keyboard would look

The law states as the discussion grows the probability approaches 1. That is akin to suggesting that after you flipped a coin and got heads, the probability of tails increases. Its wrong.

No, the chances of mentioning Nazis in each individual post would still be 1: 1,000,000 but the chance of one post in a thread of a million posts approaches one.

Same as a game of roulette, the chances of red/ black coming up is (ignoring the zeroes) 50/50 or 1 in 2. every spin gives a chance of 1:2 but if you were to place a bet that in a run of 10 a red would come up, I think we'd both agree, the chances would be far closer to 1 than after one spin.

1 thing is for sure: only 90s kids will get this like if you agree

1 thing is for sure: only 90s kids will get this like if you agree

like

The law doesn't say the probability of the next post being about nazis approaches one, it says the probability that the thread has become about nazis approaches one.

Therefore the probability does change with each post. At least that is the way I've always seen it.

The law doesn't say the probability of the next post being about nazis approaches one, it says the probability that the thread has become about nazis approaches one.

Therefore the probability does change with each post. At least that is the way I've always seen it.

This.  Analogies about coin tosses or roulette don't work because their results are determined by randomness.  Online discussions (most of them, anyway) are not random.  The posts that people make are influenced by the ones that precede them.

Quote from: Raist on October 27, 2012, 07:59:41 PM

The law doesn't say the probability of the next post being about nazis approaches one, it says the probability that the thread has become about nazis approaches one.

Therefore the probability does change with each post. At least that is the way I've always seen it.

This.  Analogies about coin tosses or roulette don't work because their results are determined by randomness.  Online discussions (most of them, anyway) are not random.  The posts that people make are influenced by the ones that precede them.

Not even this. Godwin's law is equivalent to "as the number of times you flip a coin becomes arbitrarily large, the odds that one coin has came up heads approaches 1"


edit: I reread your post and realize you're right. The odds for each post being about hitler are not always the same. Since each post is related to the last post it does change depending on what you are talking about, and if the last post was about nazis the odds of the next post being about nazis are extremely high.

This.  Analogies about coin tosses or roulette don't work because their results are determined by randomness.  Online discussions (most of them, anyway) are not random.  The posts that people make are influenced by the ones that precede them.

It's like saying that as you get older the probability of not living another day approaches 1. I don't see the problem with this.

Tom Bishop's post doesn't make any sense though.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on October 27, 2012, 09:05:54 PM

This.  Analogies about coin tosses or roulette don't work because their results are determined by randomness.  Online discussions (most of them, anyway) are not random.  The posts that people make are influenced by the ones that precede them.

It's like saying that as you get older the probability of not living another day approaches 1. I don't see the problem with this.

Tom Bishop's post doesn't make any sense though.

Godwin's law applies to any subject. Replace nazi's with any other subject and it will still hold true.

The law states as the discussion grows the probability approaches 1. That is akin to suggesting that after you flipped a coin and got heads, the probability of tails increases. Its wrong.

It's like saying that after flipping a coin 2 times, the probability that you flipped a heads approaches 1.

Godwin's law applies to any subject. Replace nazi's with any other subject and it will still hold true.

That's not true. Godwin's law says that the probability that a new post will bring up a comparison with Nazis increases. Not simply that as the sample size grows the probability of the set containing some value increases.

Which isn't always true either.

It's like saying that after flipping a coin 2 times, the probability that you flipped a heads approaches 1.

The analog for Godwin's law would be that the odds of each new coin toss increases in favor of some direction with the number of tosses that preceded it. This isn't true, regardless of how many times it was tails in the past its odds of being heads next time won't change (see gambler's fallacy, and of course this is for pure random perfect systems that don't have some systemic influence)

Coins don't have memory. The tosses are independent. Forum threads do. The posts aren't independent.

Quote from: Raist on October 28, 2012, 11:20:47 AM

Godwin's law applies to any subject. Replace nazi's with any other subject and it will still hold true.

That's not true. Godwin's law says that the probability that a new post will bring up a comparison with Nazis increases. Not simply that as the sample size grows the probability of the set containing some value increases.

Which isn't always true either.

Quote from: Lorddave

It's like saying that after flipping a coin 2 times, the probability that you flipped a heads approaches 1.

The analog for Godwin's law would be that the odds of each new coin toss increases in favor of some direction with the number of tosses that preceded it. This isn't true, regardless of how many times it was tails in the past its odds of being heads next time won't change (see gambler's fallacy, and of course this is for pure random perfect systems that don't have some systemic influence)

Coins don't have memory. The tosses are independent. Forum threads do. The posts aren't independent.

It doesn't say "of the next post."

It says the probability of a comparison reaches one.

You guys don't have to be such pedantic Nazis.

You guys don't have to be such pedantic Nazis.

Keep the low quality posts out of serious discussions.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on November 08, 2012, 04:30:32 PM

You guys don't have to be such pedantic Nazis.

Keep the low quality posts out of serious discussions.

Alright there 

Quote from: Raist on November 08, 2012, 04:33:32 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on November 08, 2012, 04:30:32 PM

You guys don't have to be such pedantic Nazis.

Keep the low quality posts out of serious discussions.

Alright there 

Or keep on trolling in the least contributing ways and derail threads in ways even Tom would be ashamed of. Deuces ichi.

You done yet with your hissyfit Raist?

It doesn't say "of the next post."

It says the probability of a comparison reaches one.

"Probability of a comparison" is ambiguous as to whether that means probability of it happening or probability that it has happened, so it's up to us to decide the intention. What makes more sense to you - a commentary that eventually a thread will get so large it'll contain a nazi reference among any other kinds of content, or a commentary that the longer a thread is open the more heated it'll become until the point where bickering demands a nazi reference?

This isn't just semantics, whoever came up with the "law" was trying to say one thing or the other.. and I think it's pretty obvious which one was intended..

You done yet with your hissyfit Raist?