A basic course in statistics will inform you of why a 99.99% accurate test should be looked at with skepticism when diagnosing a rare disease. Yet we see the fancy 9s and think somehow this many 9s is enough.
If 1 in 10,000 people have a disease, then a "test" which always reports the patient doesn't have the disease will be correct 99.99% of the time. "99.99% accuracy" should be "looked at with skepticism" in that it doesn't tell you what you need to know to understand the quality of a a test for a rare disease (a classifier under conditions of severe class imbalance); at a minimum, you would want to understand it's false positive and false negative rate, not (just) it's overall error rate.
You appear not to have understood probability theory my friend. You will never get 100% in this universe for anything. What if "its a simulation" or "a dream" arguments ensures you never acheive 100%.
Bayes probability theory will be a good start for you.
Well, I do agree that all measurements contain error, but the point wasn't that the error rate would be greater than 0% but that a single headline summary of error can't always distinguish between good and bad tests.
Every breath you take, there is a 99.99% chance that everything is normal, and a 0.01% chance that you breathe mild acid which horribly burns and causes a massive coughing fit.
It probably don’t cause long term damage unless that breath happened to be more important than normal, like while driving right as a child runs into the road.
Would you act differently knowing that you had one of these occasional acid breaths? Even if it only happened once per day on average (0.001%)
And your point is? Laws of probability doesn't discriminate.
There is always a probability a planet killer GRB hits us and we all die. Should we take precautions in our everyday life. Or should we wear helmet while walking on the road pray a coconut not falling on our head is just 99.999%.
