Subject | Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby |
From | PeterN |
Date | 04/20/2014 21:13 (04/20/2014 15:13) |
Message-ID | <lj167k02fk2@news4.newsguy.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Tony Cooper |
Tony CooperWhy do you bother. You know here will not be a logical answer, unless you consider a diversionary comment, logical.I
On 20 Apr 2014 12:08:55 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:Tony CooperEric StevensSandmanEric StevensYou haven't studied statistics or probability have you?That one body part had a headache at the time of your one visit does not mean that it always has has a headache (or 'malfunctioning' as you describe it).Sandman
That's *EXACTLY* my point, Eric! The data is worthless as statistics.
Rubbish.
Tony found one anomaly when checking 24 items one time, and treated it as statistics - you just agreed with me that it doesn't mean anything since it says nothing about the state of anomalies in a statistical manner.
An "anomaly"? Where do you get that? An anomaly is something that is unusual or unexpected. One non-working camera out of 24 cameras on display would not be considered to be something unusual or unexpected in a Best Buy. In fact, nospam is vigorously arguing that non-functional display models *would be* expected.
If there is an anomaly, it is that *only* one out of 24 were non-working.
I did not treat it as a statistic, by the way. I treated it as a report of what was observed. Because I do understand the meaning of "statistic", I wouldn't offer the observation as a statistic.
To turn the tables on you, please cite where I said that the observation was a statistic. Or, even "treated" it (whatever that means) as a statistic.