Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Final Stretch Election ThreadFollow

#202 Nov 03 2012 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
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.
I'm waiting for the "it was all intentional! I'm just trolling you!"
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#203 Nov 03 2012 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,946 posts
Almalieque wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Pretty sure 1/3 is irrational. But, go ahead, prove me wrong..Smiley: rolleyes


You could at least make it hard... Smiley: rolleyes


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.
#204 Nov 03 2012 at 5:37 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
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.
I'm waiting for the "it was all intentional! I'm just trolling you!"


Nope, I'll just sit back and wait till someone figures it out.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#205 Nov 03 2012 at 5:40 PM Rating: Excellent
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
#206 Nov 03 2012 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,946 posts
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.
#207 Nov 03 2012 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
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.
I'm waiting for the "it was all intentional! I'm just trolling you!"


Nope, I'll just sit back and wait till someone figures it out.
how can we? you're so much smarter than us
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#208 Nov 03 2012 at 5:50 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,580 posts
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.
#209 Nov 03 2012 at 5:53 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#210 Nov 03 2012 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
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
____________________________
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
#211 Nov 03 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#212 Nov 03 2012 at 6:01 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,580 posts
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?
#213 Nov 03 2012 at 6:02 PM Rating: Excellent
hahahahaha. I did nuke a post once because he attacked me as an admin instead of as a poster and it ****** 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
____________________________
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
#214 Nov 03 2012 at 6:03 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
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.
#215 Nov 03 2012 at 6:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Looking up on the irrational vs rational and pretty sure I confused terminology..on fraction form vs decimal form.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#216 Nov 03 2012 at 6:06 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,580 posts
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.
#217 Nov 03 2012 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Smiley: thumbsup

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
#218 Nov 03 2012 at 6:17 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
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.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#219 Nov 03 2012 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts

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? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#220 Nov 03 2012 at 6:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#221 Nov 03 2012 at 7:01 PM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
I'm waiting for the "it was all intentional! I'm just trolling you!"
This is at least the third time he's used the "those statistics aren't legitimate because you didn't poll everyone in the multiverse" "argument," so yeah it's quite intentional.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#222 Nov 03 2012 at 7:06 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
I'm waiting for the "it was all intentional! I'm just trolling you!"
This is at least the third time he's used the "those statistics aren't legitimate because you didn't poll everyone in the multiverse" "argument," so yeah it's quite intentional.


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%.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#223 Nov 03 2012 at 7:23 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
I'm waiting for the "it was all intentional! I'm just trolling you!"
This is at least the third time he's used the "those statistics aren't legitimate because you didn't poll everyone in the multiverse" "argument," so yeah it's quite intentional.


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%.
how much more?

At what percentage does it become a "mathematical guarantee"?

Please cite sources or show mathematical proof.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#224 Nov 03 2012 at 7:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"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.
#226 Nov 03 2012 at 8:02 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,576 posts

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
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#227 Nov 03 2012 at 8:13 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 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.

Read above

Edited, Nov 4th 2012 4:14am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#228 Nov 03 2012 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,576 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
#229 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
#230 Nov 03 2012 at 8:23 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#231 Nov 03 2012 at 8:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,576 posts

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

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#232 Nov 03 2012 at 8:25 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#233 Nov 03 2012 at 8:26 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#234 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
#235 Nov 03 2012 at 8:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#236 Nov 03 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Good
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


#237 Nov 03 2012 at 9:07 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#238 Nov 03 2012 at 9:31 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 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.

#239 Nov 03 2012 at 9:44 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,576 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.
#240 Nov 03 2012 at 10:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,576 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
#241 Nov 03 2012 at 10:31 PM Rating: Excellent
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".
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#242 Nov 03 2012 at 11:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,576 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.
#243 Nov 04 2012 at 7:05 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,044 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:
Post and be happy!
#244 Nov 04 2012 at 7:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
I think responding to Alma should result in a -1 to your post count.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#245 Nov 04 2012 at 7:53 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,013 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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#246 Nov 04 2012 at 8:03 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#247 Nov 04 2012 at 8:12 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,044 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. Smiley: oyvey

What 'exactly' did you say again?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#248 Nov 04 2012 at 8:20 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 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
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#250 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

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#251 Nov 04 2012 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,426 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. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
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 on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help