Sir Xsarus wrote:
This makes my day. Spend all day saying "the math doesn't allow that" and then demonstrate a fundamental lack of math knowledge. Wow.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Final Stretch Election Thread
Final Stretch Election ThreadFollow
I'm waiting for the "it was all intentional! I'm just trolling you!"
Almalieque wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Pretty sure 1/3 is irrational. But, go ahead, prove me wrong..
You could at least make it hard...
You can get help with that. just sayin.
Start dancing, maybe that will work. Play a little music too.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Bardalicious wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
This makes my day. Spend all day saying "the math doesn't allow that" and then demonstrate a fundamental lack of math knowledge. Wow.
Nope, I'll just sit back and wait till someone figures it out.
On a subject not related to not understanding what an irrational number is, I'm getting very very tired of political adds.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Sir Xsarus wrote:
On a subject not related to not understanding what an irrational number is, I'm getting very very tired of political adds.
Zam Admins, always with the puns.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Almalieque wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
This makes my day. Spend all day saying "the math doesn't allow that" and then demonstrate a fundamental lack of math knowledge. Wow.
Nope, I'll just sit back and wait till someone figures it out.
Almalieque wrote:
Anyone think that this race will be as close as it's being stated? I want to know the who the next president will be before I go to sleep, not find out 3 days later...
It seems like such a silly question to be asking if you don't accept polls as a valid source of information. Anything you would hear in response to the query is derived from polling information.
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Anyone think that this race will be as close as it's being stated? I want to know the who the next president will be before I go to sleep, not find out 3 days later...
It seems like such a silly question to be asking if you don't accept polls as a valid source of information. Anything you would hear in response to the query is derived from polling information.
No, because you all seem to fail to differentiate polling for curiousity and taking results as a fact. In any sense, I didn't say that no surveys are accurate, but there's a difference between statistics and math.
You keep saying that, but haven't shown any math that shows that polls are just randomly accurate or not. Of course, from someone who thinks 1/3 is irrational, I suppose that's asking too much.
The analysis of the polls uses math, so saying it's different then math is a bit... odd
The analysis of the polls uses math, so saying it's different then math is a bit... odd
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Just so people don't think I'm being a douche, I'm not responding to anyone using an Admin account due to previous instances.
Almalieque wrote:
I didn't say that no surveys are accurate
But as a whole, you're thrown them out, which is why it's strange that you'd ask about information which is largely obtained by their aggregate.
Almalieque wrote:
but there's a difference between statistics and math.
You insisted on this before, and it's so very odd. Why do you think this is supposed to matter?
hahahahaha. I did nuke a post once because he attacked me as an admin instead of as a poster and it pissed me off. Stupid response on my part of course, but I did apologize.
I've just been asking questions for the most part alma, why don't you answer them? Besides you've responded to lots of my posts in the past, what's the difference with this thread? Is it just because you don't have any way of showing this math you keep referring to and this is a convenient way of dodging the question?
Here someone copy and paste my post so he answers it.
Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 7:04pm by Xsarus
I've just been asking questions for the most part alma, why don't you answer them? Besides you've responded to lots of my posts in the past, what's the difference with this thread? Is it just because you don't have any way of showing this math you keep referring to and this is a convenient way of dodging the question?
Here someone copy and paste my post so he answers it.
Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 7:04pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
If you make it easy for me to copy and paste them I will. Either way, I have alma on ignore, so...
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Looking up on the irrational vs rational and pretty sure I confused terminology..on fraction form vs decimal form.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I've just been asking questions for the most part alma, why don't you answer them?
TO be fair. Whenever an incidence like this occurs, there's often a a large number of people for him to respond to.
You get a rateup for that alma.
@al, true.
Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 7:11pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Me not talking to admins has to do with me being banned.
---------
I looked up the rules, apparently it has to be BOTH non terminating and non REPEATING in order to be called "irrational". I was referencing .33, but even in that case, since it's repeating, it's rational. If it weren't repeating, such as pi, then it would irrational. The real answer is that they are not equivalent, but approximations.
I say that because once before, I had to run 2 miles on a 1/3 mile track and people didn't understand why they couldn't just run 6 laps, but some extra, not realizing that 6 x .3 is not 2 even though 6 X 1/3 is 2.
---------
I looked up the rules, apparently it has to be BOTH non terminating and non REPEATING in order to be called "irrational". I was referencing .33, but even in that case, since it's repeating, it's rational. If it weren't repeating, such as pi, then it would irrational. The real answer is that they are not equivalent, but approximations.
I say that because once before, I had to run 2 miles on a 1/3 mile track and people didn't understand why they couldn't just run 6 laps, but some extra, not realizing that 6 x .3 is not 2 even though 6 X 1/3 is 2.
The most recent aggregate on RCP for Pennsylvania (including polls taken after Sandy) is +4.6 Obama. The aggregate of polls taken since Oct 10th (post first debate) is +4.75 Obama. There has been no movement in PA for the past month and the idea that Romney will flip the state five points in a weekend is ludicrous.
It's about the Casey/Smith race. They have an (outside 20/80) shot at winning that, so motivating GOP voters there is useful. Romney only wins PA in scenarios where he also wins MI and OH. There's no electoral math reason to campaign there at all.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
PPP literally just released results showing O+6 and Casey +8 in PA. Romney would be better off campaigning there for his own benefit... heh.
Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 7:59pm by Jophiel
Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 7:59pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Bardalicious wrote:
I'm waiting for the "it was all intentional! I'm just trolling you!"
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
I'm waiting for the "it was all intentional! I'm just trolling you!"
It started off that way, but I did mess it up..
In any case, you don't have to poll everyone to mathematically guarantee results, just more than 1/2 of 1%.
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
I'm waiting for the "it was all intentional! I'm just trolling you!"
It started off that way, but I did mess it up..
In any case, you don't have to poll everyone to mathematically guarantee results, just more than 1/2 of 1%.
At what percentage does it become a "mathematical guarantee"?
Please cite sources or show mathematical proof.
"Guarantee" is a strawman. No one guarantees polling results.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#225Almalieque,
Posted: Nov 03 2012 at 8:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That number isn't a constant, it varies for each situation.
Yeah, a "guarantee" requires asking 100% of the population. That's not a sample anymore.
You can get a 99% accurate estimate with a sample size of much less than 1/2 of 1% of a population. Which I already showed. Apparently 99% accuracy isn't an "accurate prediction" according to Almalieque.
Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 9:02pm by trickybeck
Recent Visitors: 336
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (336)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Final Stretch Election Thread
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC