Forum Settings

Nov 03 2012 at 8:13 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
10,168 posts
trickybeck wrote:

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

Did you read any of what I just wrote? You don't need to 100%, How many times do we count every vote before declaring a president? We only care about states that carry enough delegates to make a difference. Those other votes get counted, but no one cares because they wont change the outcome of the race. Just like pulling the 51st blue marble in my example. The remaining marbles are irrelevant. You can count them if you want, but they wont matter.

No matter what proof you might show, it isn't mathematically possible. I'm referring to a guarantee, not estimation. Even your 99% estimation in this case is false. Anything can happen between today and Tuesday to change the outcome. These polls are literally only good for the moment that they are released and then are no longer good anymore. Hence on why they are pointless.

Jophiel wrote:
"Guarantee" is a strawman. No one guarantees polling results.

Edited, Nov 4th 2012 4:14am by Almalieque
Nov 03 2012 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
12,636 posts
Almalieque wrote:
That number isn't a constant, it varies for each situation.

According to this forum, if presented a bag of 100 marbles that are unevenly distributed between red and blue marbles, by picking 1 marble, you can mathematically tell me if the bag consists of more red or blue marbles. You simply can't.

Statistics use other variables outside of pure numbers to determine outcomes from surveys and polls. For you to statistically determine such outcome, 1% maybe enough with a large enough number; however, mathematically, 1% is 1% is 1%, regardless if it's 1, 10, 100, 1,000 or 1 million.

Wow. Okay.

See, the weird thing is that you apparently understand that a sample size of 1% is good enough for very large populations. But then you contradict yourself by saying that 1% is 1% is 1%. You've just typed out the flaws in your own argument.

You really have to study some statistics. I don't like using that argument tactic, but you can't use 7th grade level arithmetic and apply to college level statistics. Just trust me that population size is part of the equation in determining these things. Sampling 1% of a population of 100 is not the same as sampling 1% of 100 million. You can even sense this intuitively: if I measure the height of 1 adult male from a classroom of 100, that's going to be a poor estimate for their average height. But don't you think that if I measured the height of 10,000 males from 1 million Clevelanders, I'd get a pretty good estimate of the average Cleveland man's height? This makes sense intuitively and it's also true mathematically.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 9:15pm by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
Nov 03 2012 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
5,684 posts
Yeah but we're not talking about a bag with a population of 100, we're talking about the US voting population.

So using the voting population (130 million) what percent would you find to be an appropriate sample to accurately reflect the population?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
Nov 03 2012 at 8:23 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
10,168 posts
TB wrote:
Wow. Okay.

See, the weird thing is that you apparently understand that a sample size of 1% is good enough for very large populations. But then you contradict yourself by saying that 1% is 1% is 1%. You've just typed out the flaws in your own argument.

I didn't at all. Maybe you should reread.

TB wrote:
You really have to study some statistics.

I don't have to [even though I did] because my point is that there is a difference in statistics and math. They aren't the same thing! It's not a difficult concept to understand.

TB wrote:
I don't like using that argument tactic, but you can't use 7th grade level math and apply to college level statistics.

I'm not. I'm using my BS in mathematics and applying it to my two college level stats and two college level proofing classes that I've taken. I'm sorry if you can't differentiate math and statistics, but they are not one in the same!

TB wrote:
Sampling 1% of a population of 100 is not the same as sampling 1% of 100 million.
They are not the same in Statistics, but taking 1% is the same in any scenario in mathematics, because math and statistics are two different subjects!!!!!!

TB wrote:
But don't you think that if I measured the height of 10,000 males from 1 million Clevelanders, I'd get a pretty good estimate of the average Cleveland man's height? This makes sense intuitively and it's also true mathematically.

Ohhhh... soooo close.. it makes a pretty good estimate and intuitively makes sense, but it's not true mathematically because math and statistics have two different applications.
Nov 03 2012 at 8:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
12,636 posts

Holy shit, you have a math degree? Ask for a refund.

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
Nov 03 2012 at 8:25 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
10,168 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Yeah but we're not talking about a bag with a population of 100, we're talking about the US voting population.

So using the voting population (130 million) what percent would you find to be an appropriate sample to accurately reflect the population?

Once the person gets the (270?) electoral votes necessary to win, you can stop counting, polling and guessing. Until then, it isn't accurate.
Nov 03 2012 at 8:26 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
10,168 posts
trickybeck wrote:

Holy shit, you have a math degree? Ask for a refund.

Given that you somehow think math and statistics are the same subject, I don't think I'm the confused one here.
Nov 03 2012 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
5,684 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
Yeah but we're not talking about a bag with a population of 100, we're talking about the US voting population.

So using the voting population (130 million) what percent would you find to be an appropriate sample to accurately reflect the population?

Once the person gets the (270?) electoral votes necessary to win, you can stop counting, polling and guessing. Until then, it isn't accurate.

Way to completely avoid answering the question.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
Nov 03 2012 at 8:35 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
10,168 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
Yeah but we're not talking about a bag with a population of 100, we're talking about the US voting population.

So using the voting population (130 million) what percent would you find to be an appropriate sample to accurately reflect the population?

Once the person gets the (270?) electoral votes necessary to win, you can stop counting, polling and guessing. Until then, it isn't accurate.

Way to completely avoid answering the question.

No, that's seriously the answer... once again that's the difference between math and statistics. The whole benefit of statistics is not having to wait till that point to get an answer. However, you can't claim that's a mathematical proof, because it isn't. It's statistics. No matter what the polls show today,there's no telling what will happen until those 270 delegates are counted. That's why the only guaranteed thing is the 270 delegates (assuming my basic knowledge of the electoral college is accurate). The counting isn't done, but anything more is irrelevant.
Nov 03 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Good
8,235 posts
Really, the only way to prove your theory, Alma, is if Nate Silver is wrong with his most recent odds & Obama loses.

Care to make a wager & put your \$ where your mouth is?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

Nov 03 2012 at 9:07 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
10,168 posts
Missed this post on accident.

Allegory wrote:
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.

That depends on your definition of "throwing them out". I think they represent elements of truth, but nothing that is accurate enough for me be wager anything. There's a reason why these political polls are done so much, because everyday it changes. After events such as the debates, the hurricane, Bengazi, unemployment, etc., the polls will change. So, if they will change every day until the day of the election, why should I even care enough to make a statement of who is going to win?

If that were the case, we wouldn't be polling everyday. We would just ride off our initial predictions, but since they can change at any given moment, they are only good for snapshots of the race. "What if the election were held today". If anything, that helps the candidates more than anyone.

Allegory wrote:

You insisted on this before, and it's so very odd. Why do you think this is supposed to matter?

Because the main benefit of statistics is to get make educated predictions using math, you aren't mathematically proving anything. It's relevant because people are taking these estimations as proof as if it's impossible for the predictions to sway the other way.
Nov 03 2012 at 9:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
7,548 posts
for christs sake why do you guys reply to him more than once per topic.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

Nov 03 2012 at 9:44 PM Rating: Good
3,623 posts
Almalieque wrote:
nothing that is accurate enough for me be wager anything.

.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Nov 03 2012 at 10:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
12,636 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Because the main benefit of statistics is to get make educated predictions using math,

You spent the last two pages saying it was "mathematically impossible to make an accurate prediction." Those were your words. Glad you've been convinced.

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
Nov 03 2012 at 10:31 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
9,511 posts
I'm going to avoid the statistics argument as I'll freely admit I don't know **** about the subject.

Having said that: I DO know about grammer, though, and if you, Alma, type "one in the same" one more ******* time you had best make peace with your dear and fluffy lord as I am growing inclined to hunt you down and beat you to death with an unabridged, omnibus collection of "Useful and Common Phrases".

The phrase is " one and the same".
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
Nov 03 2012 at 11:10 PM Rating: Excellent
3,623 posts
Almalieque wrote:
but they are one in the same ****...mine!

____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Nov 04 2012 at 7:05 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
16,595 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Missed this post on accident.

Allegory wrote:
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.

That depends on your definition of "throwing them out". I think they represent elements of truth, but nothing that is accurate enough for me be wager anything. There's a reason why these political polls are done so much, because everyday it changes. After events such as the debates, the hurricane, Bengazi, unemployment, etc., the polls will change. So, if they will change every day until the day of the election, why should I even care enough to make a statement of who is going to win?

If that were the case, we wouldn't be polling everyday. We would just ride off our initial predictions, but since they can change at any given moment, they are only good for snapshots of the race. "What if the election were held today". If anything, that helps the candidates more than anyone.

Allegory wrote:

You insisted on this before, and it's so very odd. Why do you think this is supposed to matter?

Because the main benefit of statistics is to get make educated predictions using math, you aren't mathematically proving anything. It's relevant because people are taking these estimations as proof as if it's impossible for the predictions to sway the other way.
We poll everyday because the numbers change everyday, not because of the inaccuracy of polls.

You're making it painfully obvious that you don't understand probability. Take a statistics class. I'm sure you can find one for free. One of the magical things you'll learn is how a small, purely random sample of a population can accurately represent the entire population.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Nov 04 2012 at 7:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
35,419 posts
I think responding to Alma should result in a -1 to your post count.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Nov 04 2012 at 7:53 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
10,168 posts
trickybeck wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Because the main benefit of statistics is to get make educated predictions using math,

You spent the last two pages saying it was "mathematically impossible to make an accurate prediction." Those were your words. Glad you've been convinced.

Are you really this dense? There is a difference between Statistics and math. I've been consistent this entire time.

Just because you used math somewhere in your process does not make it a mathematical proof. Crap, countering something wrong using only math isn't even guaranteed to be a mathematical proof. As I figured, you fail to know the difference between statistics and math or proofing for that matter.

Bijou wrote:
I'm going to avoid the statistics argument as I'll freely admit I don't know sh*t about the subject.

Having said that: I DO know about grammer, though, and if you, Alma, type "one in the same" one more @#%^ing time you had best make peace with your dear and fluffy lord as I am growing inclined to hunt you down and beat you to death with an unabridged, omnibus collection of "Useful and Common Phrases".

The phrase is " one and the same".

That is my idiocy.. I apologize. Thank you.
Nov 04 2012 at 8:03 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
10,168 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Missed this post on accident.

Allegory wrote:
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.

That depends on your definition of "throwing them out". I think they represent elements of truth, but nothing that is accurate enough for me be wager anything. There's a reason why these political polls are done so much, because everyday it changes. After events such as the debates, the hurricane, Bengazi, unemployment, etc., the polls will change. So, if they will change every day until the day of the election, why should I even care enough to make a statement of who is going to win?

If that were the case, we wouldn't be polling everyday. We would just ride off our initial predictions, but since they can change at any given moment, they are only good for snapshots of the race. "What if the election were held today". If anything, that helps the candidates more than anyone.

Allegory wrote:

You insisted on this before, and it's so very odd. Why do you think this is supposed to matter?

Because the main benefit of statistics is to get make educated predictions using math, you aren't mathematically proving anything. It's relevant because people are taking these estimations as proof as if it's impossible for the predictions to sway the other way.
We poll everyday because the numbers change everyday, not because of the inaccuracy of polls.

You're making it painfully obvious that you don't understand probability. Take a statistics class. I'm sure you can find one for free. One of the magical things you'll learn is how a small, purely random sample of a population can accurately represent the entire population.

You make it painfully obvious that you have a hard time reading, because that's exactly what I said. Which, ironically was the reason why I said that they are pointless to the population other than to appeal to our curiosity. The only people who benefit are the candidates themselves.

I've taken enough statistics courses (probably more advanced than you) to understand the concept.
Nov 04 2012 at 8:12 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
16,595 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Missed this post on accident.

Allegory wrote:
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.

That depends on your definition of "throwing them out". I think they represent elements of truth, but nothing that is accurate enough for me be wager anything. There's a reason why these political polls are done so much, because everyday it changes. After events such as the debates, the hurricane, Bengazi, unemployment, etc., the polls will change. So, if they will change every day until the day of the election, why should I even care enough to make a statement of who is going to win?

If that were the case, we wouldn't be polling everyday. We would just ride off our initial predictions, but since they can change at any given moment, they are only good for snapshots of the race. "What if the election were held today". If anything, that helps the candidates more than anyone.

Allegory wrote:

You insisted on this before, and it's so very odd. Why do you think this is supposed to matter?

Because the main benefit of statistics is to get make educated predictions using math, you aren't mathematically proving anything. It's relevant because people are taking these estimations as proof as if it's impossible for the predictions to sway the other way.
We poll everyday because the numbers change everyday, not because of the inaccuracy of polls.

You're making it painfully obvious that you don't understand probability. Take a statistics class. I'm sure you can find one for free. One of the magical things you'll learn is how a small, purely random sample of a population can accurately represent the entire population.

You make it painfully obvious that you have a hard time reading, because that's exactly what I said. Which, ironically was the reason why I said that they are pointless to the population other than to appeal to our curiosity. The only people who benefit are the candidates themselves.

I've taken enough statistics courses (probably more advanced than you) to understand the concept.
You've probably taken more advanced math classes than me too, but look how badly you screwed up the whole irrational number thing.

What 'exactly' did you say again?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Nov 04 2012 at 8:20 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
10,168 posts
Elinda wrote:
You've probably taken more advanced math classes than me too, but look how badly you screwed up the whole irrational number thing. Smiley: oyvey

When the highest thing you have done is grade school math, you tend to remember that better. When you start doing PDE's, ODE's etc. you stop solving after the integration. Doing so will put you in the "Use it or lose it" category. Look how quick I was in the correction. I usually look up stuff before I speak to avoid just that. I didn't in that case, I did for statistics. The mere definition of statistics supports what I'm saying.

Elinda wrote:
What 'exactly' did you say again?

I bold and underline it.

Edited, Nov 4th 2012 4:21pm by Almalieque
Nov 04 2012 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
TILT
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Michigan now in a dead heat.

Obama's falling fast. Pa also d

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Nov 04 2012 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
21,262 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
30k at romney rally in ohio......3k at obama rally in ohio.

Context, context....

The Obama rally with 3,000 was held in a high school gymnasium. It was at capacity and no more people were permitted inside. 700 were in an overflow area and others were turned away.

The Romney rally, the largest one they've had in a while, was held in a big empty field. Crowd was indeed estimated to be between 18,000 and 30,000.

In 2008, Obama had a rally that drew 80,000 people. The problem with events that size is that finding a place to hold them can be difficult - hence Romney opting for a big empty field.

Edited, Nov 4th 2012 3:27pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

Recent Visitors: 4 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (4)