|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 14, 2019 23:10:11 GMT
In another thread the topic of the normal distribution curve was discussed. A hazard to avoid with that is believing that the data set must match the theoretical normal curve or there is something wrong with the way the data was collected. Almost nothing in real life is going to follow the theoretical curve. One thing, a coin toss, will come very close. There is a good reason for that. A coin toss is almost purely "random" in the sense that all factors that might increase one side turning up more than the other have been eliminated. In most real life scenarios that is impossible. There are numerous factors with very different influences on the outcome that cannot be eliminated. Forcing the data set to comply with the normal curve is often done by mentally deficient people to force a simplicity on reality they find comfortable. In reality there is no "random" event. Every event has a cause and it is some agency. Atheists tend to hope to find non-agency as the guiding principle in anything. When teachers design tests to fit the students' grades into a normal curve, that is different. Teachers understand the impossibility of addressing all the factors. They are using the normal curve as a crude guideline. They do not expect a "perfect" match. Then too, most teachers design and use other tests so that every student has a reasonable chance at minimal success at least. One reason the normal curve is so useful is that it can help spot factors. For example a bump in the data on heights of all people might be the normal height of Japanese people. When the data does not fit the normal curve that means that it was more likely collected properly, not less. Forcing the bumps out loses the clue to factors that could otherwise be identified by further study.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 15, 2019 1:08:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 15, 2019 7:01:40 GMT
Forcing the data set to comply with the normal curve is often done by mentally deficient people to force a simplicity on reality they find comfortable. In reality there is no "random" event. Every event has a cause and it is some agency. Atheists tend to hope to find non-agency as the guiding principle in anything. How would great mathematicians like Moivre, Laplace or Kolmogorov and others who helped develop the Central Limit Theorem feel if they knew that someone with a history of problems with probability calculation called them "mentally deficient"? My guess: They wouldn't care, or they would have a good laugh, or at least a chuckle.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 15, 2019 8:29:46 GMT
Forcing the data set to comply with the normal curve is often done by mentally deficient people to force a simplicity on reality they find comfortable. In reality there is no "random" event. Every event has a cause and it is some agency. Atheists tend to hope to find non-agency as the guiding principle in anything. How would great mathematicians like Moivre, Laplace or Kolmogorov and others who helped develop the Central Limit Theorem feel if they knew that someone with a history of problems with probability calculation called them "mentally deficient"? My guess: They wouldn't care, or they would have a good laugh, or at least a chuckle. Whose "history of problems with probability calculation" do you mean? Yours? I think the fact that their work has been no use to you, their admirer, would not seem very funny to them. My problem with probability mathematics is that it is only useful on things like coin tosses, dice and playing card scenarios, none of which I find interesting. My opinion of probability mathematics is low but I do appreciate those few ways in real life that it can be slightly helpful. People who admire it like a religion can be very annoying. They don't really understand it very well. Eva Yojimbo was very annoying, at least he used it for gambling games though.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 15, 2019 8:33:17 GMT
Have you ever considered that you might be doing medical science a disservice? You might be driving people away from it. Real doctors don't have such a procrustean outlook as you.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 15, 2019 10:06:05 GMT
Whose "history of problems with probability calculation" do you mean? Yours? Do you remember how on the old board, someone asked a quiz question about an airplane seat, to which the answer was 1/2, or 50% ? And do you also remember that one poster refused to accept the answer, pretended it was something else, and even started two more threads displaying his mathematical ignorance? I do remember. And the poster in question wasn't me. My problem with probability mathematics is that it is only useful on things like coin tosses, dice and playing card scenarios, none of which I find interesting. It's also useful in scientific fields like medicine. Or for quizzes like mentioned above. People who admire it like a religion can be very annoying. They don't really understand it very well. Eva Yojimbo was very annoying, at least he used it for gambling games though. I don't agree with Eva Yojimbo on everything, but his posts are often entertaining to read. Pity he doesn't post more.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 15, 2019 11:53:10 GMT
Whose "history of problems with probability calculation" do you mean? Yours? Do you remember how on the old board, someone asked a quiz question about an airplane seat, to which the answer was 1/2, or 50% ? And do you also remember that one poster refused to accept the answer, pretended it was something else, and even started two more threads displaying his mathematical ignorance? I do remember. And the poster in question wasn't me. My problem with probability mathematics is that it is only useful on things like coin tosses, dice and playing card scenarios, none of which I find interesting. It's also useful in scientific fields like medicine. Or for quizzes like mentioned above. People who admire it like a religion can be very annoying. They don't really understand it very well. Eva Yojimbo was very annoying, at least he used it for gambling games though. I don't agree with Eva Yojimbo on everything, but his posts are often entertaining to read. Pity he doesn't post more. No, but this was you ... What I remember about the passenger boarding problem is that @jwtutor got the right answer way ahead of everyone, but his explanation in English did not inspire much confidence. I was able to cause some of the more open minded here to doubt him until I wrote the full solution in clear English. I'm sure several of you will remember it differently. general313 might remember it differently as well, but probably was paying more attention than the rest of you. To me the most important lesson to draw from that is the necessity of writing clear English as well as math.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 15, 2019 15:48:01 GMT
Do you remember how on the old board, someone asked a quiz question about an airplane seat, to which the answer was 1/2, or 50% ? And do you also remember that one poster refused to accept the answer, pretended it was something else, and even started two more threads displaying his mathematical ignorance? I do remember. And the poster in question wasn't me. It's also useful in scientific fields like medicine. Or for quizzes like mentioned above. I don't agree with Eva Yojimbo on everything, but his posts are often entertaining to read. Pity he doesn't post more. No, but this was you ... What I remember about the passenger boarding problem is that @jwtutor got the right answer way ahead of everyone, but his explanation in English did not inspire much confidence. I was able to cause some of the more open minded here to doubt him until I wrote the full solution in clear English. I'm sure several of you will remember it differently. general313 might remember it differently as well, but probably was paying more attention than the rest of you. To me the most important lesson to draw from that is the necessity of writing clear English as well as math. Actually I remember it as phludowin describes.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 15, 2019 16:04:02 GMT
Do you remember how on the old board, someone asked a quiz question about an airplane seat, to which the answer was 1/2, or 50% ? And do you also remember that one poster refused to accept the answer, pretended it was something else, and even started two more threads displaying his mathematical ignorance? I do remember. And the poster in question wasn't me. It's also useful in scientific fields like medicine. Or for quizzes like mentioned above. I don't agree with Eva Yojimbo on everything, but his posts are often entertaining to read. Pity he doesn't post more. No, but this was you ... What I remember about the passenger boarding problem is that @jwtutor got the right answer way ahead of everyone, but his explanation in English did not inspire much confidence. I was able to cause some of the more open minded here to doubt him until I wrote the full solution in clear English. I'm sure several of you will remember it differently. general313 might remember it differently as well, but probably was paying more attention than the rest of you. To me the most important lesson to draw from that is the necessity of writing clear English as well as math. You also got the answer wrong here, Arlon. imdb2.freeforums.net/post/625895/threadThen you also didn't accept your poor understanding of probability theory and complained that others don't know it including the question writers. As I have pointed out before you are not able to realise that you commit mistakes. You almost never have any intention to learn something. You mostly want to teach others.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 15, 2019 17:57:18 GMT
By the way, I do believe that not having an understanding of statistics isn't a great thing. Sometimes people do not understand absolute vs percent stats and consequently have no idea of benchmark value and do not how to make valid comparisons. In finance industry, passing on absolute figures without any reference points could sometimes amount violation of ethical standards.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 15, 2019 20:53:58 GMT
Have you ever considered that you might be doing medical science a disservice? You might be driving people away from it. Real doctors don't have such a procrustean outlook as you. I am re-reading (unwillingly and cringing) your OP and failing to find anything in it that would make your comment to me on this thread relevant.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 15, 2019 21:00:50 GMT
No, but this was you ... What I remember about the passenger boarding problem is that @jwtutor got the right answer way ahead of everyone, but his explanation in English did not inspire much confidence. I was able to cause some of the more open minded here to doubt him until I wrote the full solution in clear English. I'm sure several of you will remember it differently. general313 might remember it differently as well, but probably was paying more attention than the rest of you. To me the most important lesson to draw from that is the necessity of writing clear English as well as math. Actually I remember it as phludowin describes. Actually, I too, I remember it as phludowin describes. That makes is statistically...………… ……. shit..... quite a lot of people against stupid old you. I DO love plain English in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 15, 2019 22:17:33 GMT
One has to wonder what the laws on Planet Arlon say about the Monty Hall problem. . . .
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 15, 2019 22:56:49 GMT
That's why I have a website, so I can remember what the plain English solution to the problem is. Notice the solution there is a complete description of the (annoying, unrealistic) problem with the important three choices at each boarding and the exact probability of each of the three spelled out in correct mathematical notation. I remember neither of you wrote that. Obviously if you had there would be no controversy. Frankly I would forget the solution myself if I didn't have it on the website because it is such a stupid, easily forgettable problem. Yes I do know I make mistakes, Aj_June, and yes I do admit them. I remember using a computer simulation that was always failing for lack of decent modern equipment. I still don't have a modern computer. Windows 7 is the latest I have and I don't use it yet because the Windows XP computers are not burned out yet. This reply is from a Windows XP computer.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 15, 2019 22:58:13 GMT
TFW Arlon thinks his website is in plain English.
Dude your website should be taken down as a crime against language.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 15, 2019 23:19:17 GMT
TFW Arlon thinks his website is in plain English. Dude your website should be taken down as a crime against language. And against maths. First saying that "success" is when the last passenger gets his assigned seat, and "failure" is when the last passenger does not get his assigned seat... and saying that the odds that neither "success" nor "failure" occurs are 9799/9801 (meaning the odds that the last passenger doesn't get any seat are close to 1). Arlon10 , if this is not what you meant, then you should work on your "plain English" skills. Maybe express yourself so that even someone to whom English is third language (like me) can understand it. But your maths are still wrong.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 15, 2019 23:21:09 GMT
One has to wonder what the laws on Planet Arlon say about the Monty Hall problem. . . . Don't ask me...I would always prefer a goat over a car!
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 15, 2019 23:21:22 GMT
That's why I have a website, so I can remember what the plain English solution to the problem is. Notice the solution there is a complete description of the (annoying, unrealistic) problem with the important three choices at each boarding and the exact probability of each of the three spelled out in correct mathematical notation. I remember neither of you wrote that. Obviously if you had there would be no controversy. Frankly I would forget the solution myself if I didn't have it on the website because it is such a stupid, easily forgettable problem. Yes I do know I make mistakes, Aj_June , and yes I do admit them. I remember using a computer simulation that was always failing for lack of decent modern equipment. I still don't have a modern computer. Windows 7 is the latest I have and I don't use it yet because the Windows XP computers are not burned out yet. This reply is from a Windows XP computer. Even before when you got the answers wrong you have blamed the questions themselves. I remember I had posted questions from LSAT. Actual retired questions from LSAT. The most prestigious law school exam and probably one of the most prestigious exams in the world. That was a logical reasoning question, which you and Jw-Tutor had gotten wrong and which Cash had gotten right. But you instantly attacked the question itself instead of realizing your mistake of picking the wrong answer. Jw-Tutor accepted his mistake but you didn't. Same here. Eva, Kiera, Tickingmask and I got the answers correct in the probability question but you kept blaming the question. And even today you are doing the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 15, 2019 23:31:33 GMT
TFW Arlon thinks his website is in plain English. Dude your website should be taken down as a crime against language. Good luck with that. I plan to keep it. Maybe you should check out the new arts section. There is a science fiction story about "Superfetus" an aborted fetus who was accidentally exposed to radiation from the nuclear medicine equipment, came to life and grew to giant proportions. There is also a game to match 20 different personality traits with 20 different animals.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 15, 2019 23:32:52 GMT
TFW Arlon thinks his website is in plain English. Dude your website should be taken down as a crime against language. Good luck with that. I plan to keep it. Maybe you should check out the new arts section. There is a science fiction story about "Superfetus" an aborted fetus who was accidentally exposed to radiation from the nuclear medicine equipment, came to life and grew to giant proportions. There is also a game to match 20 different personality traits with 20 different animals. Wow, your lack of language comprehension is matched only by your lack of imagination.
|
|