Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

### Author Topic: quentron.com  (Read 1268926 times)

#### sarkeizen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1923
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2370 on: May 20, 2014, 09:18:01 PM »
No I just proved that sarkeizen is dancing around my statement and not on it @mark E
Dude you said...
Quote from: least educated person on overunity - and that says a lot l
if I point to one item and declare it a 2lot violation people might laugh,a handful might take it serious.if I point to over 100 different combinaton of items and declare them a 2lot violation,you'd better
That is exactly what we were talking about.  Clearly you think there's a significant difference between one thing you hope is a 2LOT violation and 100.  I predicted that you don't know why 1 or 100 or 100 000 don't matter.

and it's pretty clear that you don't

HINT: You can't just combine any two probabilities.

#### profitis

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3952
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2371 on: May 20, 2014, 09:19:40 PM »
Because the 100 combos are realife combos not theoretical mr sarkeizen.you're arguing probabilities on the significance of engaging a statement on real experiments when you should be adressing it direct.one realife combo eg. Karpen pile is going to spark massive debate.100 realife combos is going to hammer it down to a rule.ie.your arguing with the child about where the remote is when its in your pocket the whole time.you're dancing around a statement on realife combos instead of addressing it.

#### sarkeizen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1923
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2372 on: May 20, 2014, 09:29:00 PM »
you're arguing probabilities
No YOU'RE arguing probabilities.  You said that if I can't determine that some statement is FALSE then (by some virtue of the statement) it is massively likely to be TRUE.  That is arguing that the PROBABILITY of it being true is HIGH.

I just happen to know considerably more about statistics than you likely ever will.

You also probably don't realize how you are weakening your own argument by pursuing this line of reasoning....but please continue...because I always use anecdotes like this to demonstrate how people's instinctive ideas about statistics are incorrect and in your case batshit insane.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2373 on: May 20, 2014, 10:33:22 PM »
There's no math required.just plain logic.if I point to one item and declare it a 2lot violation people might laugh,a handful might take it serious.if I point to over 100 different combinaton of items and declare them a 2lot violation,you'd better be damn well prepared to offer a counterexplanation otherwise your going to trip people up @sarkeizen.the statements seriousness is proportional to its broadness in this case.
Three men step up to the roulette wheel at an honest .  The wheel is a USA type:  00, 0, 1-36.  The house pays 35:1 for a win.  The first man declares 4 winning numbers by placing \$1. bets on each.  The second man declares 10 winning numbers by placing \$1. bets on each.  The third man declares 20 winning numbers by placing \$1. bets on each.  Each man plays 100 spins.  How much money is each man likely to win or lose based on his betting scheme? What are the winnings / losses of each man as a percentage of the total bets each man placed?  What would happen if each man played 1000 spins, or 10,000 spins?

#### profitis

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3952
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2374 on: May 20, 2014, 11:50:04 PM »
You forgot that I included people in the above statement highlighted by markE.You're neglecting the 3dimensionality of the probability factor mr sarkeizen.your correct on a calculator but incorrect when you take into account human perception and emotion.the perceptions being sight,hearing,smell,touch.if humans see a statement on 100 existing combos giving energy from 'somewhere' and no counterstatement,they are going to take it serious.thus a broad-based statement on something that exists requires urgent address.a statement on   100existences is going to have much more impact than a statement on one existence.unless it is countered successfully.now you see how statisticaly the statement becomes more important.

#### profitis

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3952
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2375 on: May 21, 2014, 12:07:00 AM »
The wheel itself is under scrutiny here markE not the numbers and figures around it. Over a hundred wheels actually..

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2376 on: May 21, 2014, 12:36:27 AM »
Such a response betrays that you do not understand the relevance of the problem as stated.  It suggests that as Sarkeizen asserts, and your prior statements suggest, that you do not understand probability theory.  Here is a hint for you:  In order for something to impact the likelihood of a second thing, there must be a causal relationship between the first thing and the second thing.

#### profitis

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3952
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2377 on: May 21, 2014, 01:16:08 AM »
Yet you cannot deny that the human element makes it statisticaly much much more important @markE.at least we now have importance,if not evidence.the question is: now that we have human importance,will that be sufficient to prompt mr sarkeizen to engage my statement directly? We wait and see..

#### sarkeizen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1923
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2378 on: May 21, 2014, 03:17:25 AM »
Yet you cannot deny that the human element makes it statisticaly much much more important
LOL!

Apparently you've never read any cognitive science.  Paper after paper and book after book.  People's instincts suck at data analysis.  For example a group of 83 human legal EXPERTS attempted to analyze supreme court decisions and their consequent reversals and attempted to predict future cases if your very, very, very, very stupid beliefs were correct they would have been highly accurate and much better than any calculation.

Sadly, the lawyers were only barely (9%) more right than wrong.  A simple regression analysis was correct 75% of the time.  Just to put it in perspective a linear regression is one of the most primitive tools available for correlation.  83 humans with all their senses and centuries of collective experience were absolutely no match for something that could be done with my cellphone.

There was another study that looked at something like seventy different professions which required human judgement.  The majority of them were also outperformed by a regression analysis. Which is why we have branches of math like decision theory.

People's internal pattern matching has evolved to stop them from getting eaten by raptors and eagles.  It's no accident that human progress correlates with computational power and data supply.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2379 on: May 21, 2014, 05:00:53 AM »
Yet you cannot deny that the human element makes it statisticaly much much more important @markE.at least we now have importance,if not evidence.the question is: now that we have human importance,will that be sufficient to prompt mr sarkeizen to engage my statement directly? We wait and see..
I can and I do.  Nature does not behave differently because of anything some person or some people think or want.

#### profitis

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3952
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2380 on: May 21, 2014, 11:23:24 AM »
Lol are you kidding me markE and mr sarkeizen.human thought didn't affect progress in science?politics didn't effect scientific progress?where did you get this idea from?the political importance of my statement remains at an all time high unless it is countered guys.I'm sorry but thats just the way the cookie crumbles in the real world.there is a huge political pressure and need to counter my statement.

#### sarkeizen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1923
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2381 on: May 21, 2014, 12:57:17 PM »
human thought didn't affect progress in science?
MarkE's point appears to be that human thought is irrelevant to matters of fact (e.g. does your battery actually run eternally or is it just your imagination) and mine is that human opinion, thought and intuition are regularly demonstrated to be inferior to even simple data analysis.

Your opinion appears to be that humans believing that a battery lasts eternally somehow makes that highly likely.  I get that this is a blow to your ego but understanding that you are going to be wrong more often than right is an important step in becoming less stupid.  Rationality is a discipline, it's something that has to be worked at.

Let me know when you get there.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2382 on: May 21, 2014, 01:15:37 PM »
Lol are you kidding me markE and mr sarkeizen.human thought didn't affect progress in science?politics didn't effect scientific progress?where did you get this idea from?the political importance of my statement remains at an all time high unless it is countered guys.I'm sorry but thats just the way the cookie crumbles in the real world.there is a huge political pressure and need to counter my statement.
LOL.

#### profitis

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3952
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2383 on: May 21, 2014, 01:44:38 PM »
Rationality? Lol @sarkeizen so its more rational to ignore a sweeping statement on over 100 batteries of the same class than to tackle it headon? I mean either it is a)true or b)false.you want to enlarge the political vaccuum by not showing b or even attempting to show b? You want to let it hang further?what are you afraid of child..you are the 2lot representative lawyer here yet you're delaying the trial date but I gues that's what your supposed to do..

#### profitis

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3952
##### Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2384 on: May 21, 2014, 02:25:44 PM »
Instead of standing there and laughing why don't you help me disprove my sweeping statement @markE.help me to crash my own statement mr fellow scientist.