tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4313142402149985813.post3124635510800017794..comments2007-11-26T21:24:05.310+05:30The Minking Thanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14813413262232300793noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4313142402149985813.post-17978067272250084002007-11-26T21:24:00.000+05:302007-11-26T21:24:00.000+05:30If probability of success can be increased through a parameter that you can control through hard work and persistence then 'luck' as such does not have to play a role. For example if somebody runs a 100m race in 9.5s you don't need to bring luck into the picture and it wouldn't make sense. Now let us consider something as impartial as tossing a coin. Suppose a person is asked to make a selection - either heads or tails and the coin is tossed a large number of times, then it shouldn't theoretically matter whether a 'so called lucky' person makes the call or a 'so called unlucky' person makes the call. The number of positive outcomes would only depend on the bias of the coin and should be independent of the person making the call.The Minking Thanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14813413262232300793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4313142402149985813.post-10509682525679423192007-11-26T19:34:00.000+05:302007-11-26T19:34:00.000+05:30lucky ,could also be a person (defined as), when in the process of having experimented multiple times and having landed the coin in his favour more no: of times than those who tried lesser no: of times.... though it would be attributed to luck by all else, it could be sheer persistance and hardwork which worked in the favour of the so called 'lucky'!!!wellwisher : )noreply@blogger.com