>>2529849 in previous bread

Probability of at least one of 5 events being true, when each event has a 80% probability, considers the probability of ALL of them being NOT TRUE.

Probability math always delivers an answer between zero (definitely won't happen) and 1 (definitely will happen)

0.2 ^ 5 is the chance of all five (80% true), being false. Each has a 20% chance of being false. The chance of five in a row being false is 0.2 ^5, or 0.000 32.

The chance that at least one is true is then 1 - 0.000 32, or 0.999 68

The same principle applied to 100 events, each with 5% chance of true: Chance of all (100 in a row) being false is 0.95 ^ 100, or 0.005 920.

The chance that at least one is true is 1 - 0.005 920, or 0.994 079

The odds of getting at least one true is better picking 5 with each 80% probable, than picking 100, each 5% probable.

I think probability match is not a good way to analyze the "validity" of Q (whatever that is). What are the odds of a "not Q" (whatever that is) getting similar "100 statements with 5% odds"? It's easy to make statements with 5% odds. Mostly wrong statements, and that is proof of validity? I think not.

Just criticizing the method of analysis.