I am trying to describe the nature of the following fallacy.
I should buy 100 lottery tickets rather than 1 because I have increased my chances of winning 100 times.
How would one describe this error in math terms. Is the problem that while the statement is literally true, the odds were so bad to start with that even this level of improvement does not make this a rational bet? Or is the problem that buying 100 tickets does not actually make it 100 times more likely I will win?
I am prepping for a technical workshop on the 600 MHz band plan at the FCC tomorrow, because it turns out I am actually an engineer. Which is fine, becuase it turns out I'm <i>also</i> and economist and auction expert. Which is why, unlike everyone else at the workshop who (a) actually has a degree in engineering; and (b) is allowed to bring a team of technical experts to help them out, I will be showing up alone.
Meanwhile, I am scrambling to catch up with the docket because I have spent the last two weeks head down in the PSTN transition, which is wireline and a whole different set of technical issues.
Just to make things fun, I will play a lawyer again this evening at an FCBA event on the Open Internet Order, which it has been at least a year since I looked at.
So instead of frantically boning up for any of these things -- or getting any of the various white paper and blog posts I need to write done. I have decided to draft a My Little Pony style video to explain spectrum issues. I call it: "My Little Pony: Sharing Is Magic." It is all about the importance of new smart radio technologies to enhance spectrum efficiency, but with really gorgeous animation and the most <i>adorable</i> plot lines. I have decided to cast Spike in the role of the TV White Spaces Database. Sparkle is spectrum between 500 MHz and 1 GHz. I'm thinking Flim and Flam as AT&T and Verizon -- with Cisco as Gilda Griffen ("I totally love unlicensed!")