I vaguely understand this. Still, the man seems to cheat with the actuality...take this [verbatim] quote...
"Suppose that I have probability 
of landing heads and you have probability 
of landing heads."
Does that strike you as odd? Does it worry you that p2 is nowhere defined? As a mathematician I suspect a trick. Um, when did I become a mathematician? New quote...
be the first times 
sees three heads in a row. Now obviously you know that ![\mathbb{E}[T_X]\leq \mathbb{E}[T_Y]](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cmathbb%7BE%7D%5BT_X%5D%5Cleq+%5Cmathbb%7BE%7D%5BT_Y%5D&bg=ffffff&fg=545454&s=0 "\mathbb{E}[T_X]\leq \mathbb{E}[T_Y]")
, but can you prove it?
Well we know what that's all about: utter shash-headed fuck wittage, sloppy tripe that leaves the poor, math loving peons on their shaking-own.
I know wat Z is, I know what n means, I have could look up inf if I could be bothered; the rest, bottom in the wind territory. And I dislike that assumption that I obviously know your lazy shite.
Doubtless better mathos than I are laughing at me, but it is what it is, the point of a proof is to complel belief. And if you can't be even be bothered to explain the axioms/symbols then...
I will wait for correction.
