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!
*****
16,852 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#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!
*****
16,852 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
******
20,908 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#212 Nov 03 2012 at 6:01 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 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
******
20,020 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Looking up on the irrational vs rational and pretty sure I confused terminology..on fraction form vs decimal form.
#216 Nov 03 2012 at 6:06 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.

#219 Nov 03 2012 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 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
******
49,668 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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%.
#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
*****
12,636 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
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 65 All times are in CDT
Jophiel, Anonymous Guests (64)