**fundamental**lack of math knowledge. Wow.

- MMO News & Info
- Dark Age of Camelot
- EverQuest
- EverQuest II
- Final Fantasy XI
- Final Fantasy XIV
- FreeRealms
- Lord of the Rings Online
- World of Warcraft
- Cube World Forum
- Cube World Forum Wiki
- DayZDB
- Diablo 3 Database
- Dota Outpost
- Dragon Nest Armory
- Guildhead
- Hearthhead
- LolKing
- MMOUI
- NoobMeter
- Rifthead
- SC2 Ranks
- TankSpot
- Tera Tome
- TF2 Outpost
- Thottbot
- Torchlight Armory
- Torhead
- Vindictus DB
- Wowhead
- XIVDB

**Forums**- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Final Stretch Election Thread

Sage

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.

Almalieque wrote:

I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr

Worst. Title. Ever!

14,035 posts

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.

8,812 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.

Nope, I'll just sit back and wait till someone figures it out.

Demea wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics

9,529 posts

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

Worst. Title. Ever!

14,035 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.

Sage

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.

Nope, I'll just sit back and wait till someone figures it out.

Almalieque wrote:

I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr

Repressed Memories

20,540 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.

8,812 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

9,529 posts

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

8,812 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

Repressed Memories

20,540 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?

9,529 posts

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.

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

Muggle@#%^er

19,350 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.

8,812 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

Repressed Memories

20,540 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.

9,529 posts

You get a rateup for that alma.

@al, true.

You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain

Forum FAQ

8,812 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.

---------

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

Lunatic

28,585 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.

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 whore. 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.

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.

41,289 posts

Bardalicious wrote:

I'm waiting for the "it was all intentional! I'm just trolling you!"

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

8,812 posts

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%.

Demea wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics

Sage

5,684 posts

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.

Almalieque wrote:

I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

"Guarantee" is a strawman. No one guarantees polling results.

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#225**Almalieque**,
**Posted:** Nov 03 2012 at 8:00 PM, **Rating:** Sub-Default, (**Expand Post**) That number isn't a constant, it varies for each situation.

Tracer Bullet

12,529 posts

Yeah, a "guarantee" requires asking 100% of the population. That's not a

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.

Na Zdrowie

8,812 posts

trickybeck wrote:

Yeah, a "guarantee" requires asking 100% of the population. That's not a

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.

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

Demea wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics

Tracer Bullet

12,529 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.

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.

Na Zdrowie

Sage

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?

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

8,812 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.

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.

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

Tracer Bullet

12,529 posts

Holy sh

Na Zdrowie

8,812 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?

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

8,812 posts

trickybeck wrote:

Holy sh

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

Sage

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?

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

8,812 posts

Bardalicious wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

Bardalicious wrote:

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

7,778 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?

Care to make a wager & put your $ where your mouth is?

8,812 posts

Missed this post on accident.

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.

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.

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

Scholar

7,427 posts

for christs sake why do you guys reply to him more than once per topic.

2,405 posts

Almalieque wrote:

nothing that is accurate enough for me be wager anything.

.

Dandruffshampoo wrote:

Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:

Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.

Tracer Bullet

12,529 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

7,209 posts

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".

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

gbaji wrote:

I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

2,405 posts

Almalieque wrote:

but they are one in the same butt...mine!

Dandruffshampoo wrote:

Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:

Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.

Skelly Poker Since 2008

14,829 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Missed this post on accident.

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.

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.

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.

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.

LOOK here.

Soulless Internet Tiger

34,614 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

Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

8,812 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".

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

8,812 posts

Elinda wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

Missed this post on accident.

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. **

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.

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,

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.

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

Skelly Poker Since 2008

14,829 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Elinda wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

Allegory wrote:

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,

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.

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.

What 'exactly' did you say again?

LOOK here.

8,812 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.

Demea wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

crazylegz1975 wrote:

Michigan now in a dead heat.

Obama's falling fast. Pa also d

Obama's falling fast. Pa also d

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

Needs More Smut

19,496 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.

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.

**B***i*__U__~~S~~
Smileys

**Post**

cynyck, IDrownFish, Kaolian, Kastigir, Nadenu, Samira, Spoonless, TirithRR, WindChimes, Anonymous Guests (38)

**Forums**- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Final Stretch Election Thread