Google| Subject | Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/21/2014 02:10 (04/21/2014 02:10) |
| Message-ID | <slrnll8okc.sun.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (10h & 13m) > Sandman |
In article <vei8l9hg9b5s17dh5379agfbpcgp0ln2rh@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
No. Or rather - why not try to falsify my statement, Eric? Why just bloviate about things you don't understand. We have a number: "1/24" - tell me what statistics this is and how it relates to the context to which it was added.Eric StevensSandmanEric StevensSandmanEric Stevens
Nope. Out of the 24 body parts I asked you about on the one visit, you reported a headache, so my statistics show that for Eric Stevens, out of 24 body parts, one is always malfunctioning.
You 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.
It is still a statistic even if it doesn't usefully address the point you want to cover.
-- Sandman[.net]
04/14/2014-
