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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: quentron.com  (Read 1261577 times)

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #570 on: December 17, 2012, 11:53:26 PM »
I'm familiar with numbers and the notion of probability.
Not enough to know that there exists a probability to express your confidence.
Quote
You say I assign P(Feb2003) > 0 - how do you come to this conclusion, particularly given that I've offered several ways I interpret "deliver" ?
Watching you is like watching a high-school debater try to weasel out of a poor argument.   Firstly you're kind of lying.  What you asked for was an event.  Philip producing what he said he would produce by the end of February is an event.
Quote
For more important decisions - those where I have some control over the eventual outcome - I might be inclined to quantify the various probabilities a bit more carefully.
So only events where you have some control over the outcome are worth quantifying?  That's refreshingly naive - reminds me of every bad manager I've met . On the other hand perhaps you're claiming that something you spend your time on is out of your control? or maybe that you time isn't worth very much?
Quote
I am still unable to answer your question, because you aren't being precise enough. It depends.
It's not really so hard.  Philip has claimed that some set of outcomes will be realized by February 2013.  Perhaps you think this is the empty set if so you should say so. If you don't think it's the empty set then you should be able to say if you think the P of all outcomes being realized is > 0.  If you really think what he has said would be realized is so vague and undefinable.  Then why not post here and ask him to be clearer...seemingly he checks here so often I expect to see his breath on the glass.

mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #571 on: December 18, 2012, 12:14:59 AM »
"Not enough to know that there exists a [/size]probability[/size] to express your confidence."

Enough to know that the sort of false precision you seem to seek is pointless from any angle.

"Philip producing what he said he would produce by the end of February is an event."

Explain exactly how you interpret that remark. Be precise.

"So only events where you have some control over the outcome are worth quantifying?."

Lazy strawman. I don't claim that as an exhaustive lists of things I consider worth spending effort to quantify.

"Philip has claimed that some set of outcomes will be realized by February 2013"

By my interpretation, there are several outcomes, some that I've listed, each of which I'd consider differently.

If there's some big decision you need to make, based on the outcome yourself, you should ask. I have no big decision to make on the matter, my opinion won't change events, and there's no penalty for me if I misjudge.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #572 on: December 18, 2012, 01:22:43 AM »
Enough to know that the sort of false precision you seem to seek is pointless from any angle.
Utterly wrong.  Congratulations!  If there's an event there's a probability.  If there's a probability there's a level of precision it can be known to.  If you can't specify any level of precision that's practically equivalent to not knowing what you're talking about wrt probability anyway.  The point is being able to state if that probability changes if in Feb 2013 Philip doesn't deliver - if it goes up or down and if so perhaps some idea as to how much.  Now of course such a statement would be ceteris paribus and if Philip fails then he will probably offer some reason.  Now you may decide then that your P(June2013) or whatever is different than what you give today in fact because P(June2013) is according to Philip "Just around the corner, for sure with even less doubt than ever before" and in your wise and considered opinion you might decide that means your new P(June2013) == P(Feb2013).  In which case, we now know something about how much that information is worth to you probabilistic speaking.

It may surprise someone with your level of knowledge of probability - sufficient to say that such analysis is pointless. There are whole textbooks written by pretty respected mathematicians on analyzing decisions and making decisions using personal probability estimates but perhaps you simply know better than those people.
Quote
Explain exactly how you interpret that remark. Be precise.
Please specify where you need further precision.  Be precise for a change.
Quote
By my interpretation, there are several outcomes, some that I've listed, each of which I'd consider differently.
Wow too bad nobody has ever figured out a way to calculate the probability of more than one event happening at the same time.  If you mean a set of outcomes that you interpret Philip has stated would happen by the end of February.  Then there exists some probability of the set being delivered.
Quote
Lazy strawman. I don't claim that as an exhaustive lists of things I consider worth spending effort to quantify.
Actually if you read carefully I didn't say you did...I gave a few statements which covers all the bases.  Anyway you're kind of missing the point.  You appear to be saying that something where the outcome is beyond your control then there's no need to quantify.  As irrelevant as that is, I find the attitude kind of interesting.
Quote
I have no big decision to make on the matter, my opinion won't change events, and there's no penalty for me if I misjudge.
Always trying to avoid the question.  Finally you at least appear to agree that there exists a series of outcomes which you interpret Philip says will arrive by the end of February 2013...that only took like four posts to reach a rather obvious interpretation.   If you believe that one of them is zero then say so.  Philip will not deliver what he said in Feb 2013.  Man you could have made that easier.  If you believe that all are > 0 then.  I'd like to know if you give me some idea as to how much and if the world-saddening event occurs in Feb 2013 (Philip does not deliver all these things) what that does to your belief about P(June2013).

mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #573 on: December 18, 2012, 01:42:48 AM »
You're the only one with a hard-on for quantifying the probability of events related to PJHs claims in this way (or rather as a hook to troll)

The fact that such analysis is possible has no bearing on the utility of me performing it; my gut feeling is plenty good enough given the level of risk to me (zero).

The effort to be any more precise would be wasted effort for me in this set of circumstances. Your desire for me to give you an answer doesn't change that.

Unfortunately your tiresome attitude means I won't be sharing my opinion with you - if you'd been more straightforward and honest in your approach, maybe I would have done.

Something for you to think about in future.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #574 on: December 18, 2012, 02:15:07 AM »
You're the only one with a hard-on for quantifying the probability of events related to PJHs claims in this way (or rather as a hook to troll)
I'm interested if people can tell me if they think the probability of him delivering on his claims concerning P(Feb2013) changes in one direction or another based on the outcome. The one who actually wanted to discuss - that is focused in on - quantification was..well...YOU.  Essentially you took an example I gave *using* a classically quantified probability as an illustration.  From there you started talking about everything but a rather obvious central point I have been making for days.  My responses to you was just me being polite.  In fact in several places I mention clear enough that one would think a mrsean2k would understand that some particular degree of precision was not necessary (also the obvious consequence that claiming that no degree of precision is probably equivalent to saying you don't know what you're talking about).

But I guess you like to blame others.
Quote
The fact that such analysis is possible has no bearing on the utility of me performing it; my gut feeling is plenty good enough given the level of risk to me (zero).
Risk is often looked at as a product of probability and impact.  It seems a little ingenuous to claim that you have nothing invested. I mean you do spend time here.  You seem to have read Philips posts enough to come up with a probability > 0 that he's going to deliver something useful in February - you can play denial games with this if you like.  So your risk, if you're being honest is probably at least a little above zero.

Also you claimed that quantification was pointless.  Now that argument has been killed all you have left is a "I don't wanna".  It's worth noting that nobody said you had to.
Quote
The effort to be any more precise would be wasted effort for me in this set of circumstances.
If you're talking about being more precise to me then please confine yourself to making statements you can know.  You said a statement of mine was not precise enough, presumably you know where the imprecision lies.  If not, I'd guess this was yet another dishonest dodge.
Quote
Unfortunately your tiresome attitude means I won't be sharing my opinion with you - if you'd been more straightforward and honest in your approach, maybe I would have done.
What about the fort you're building in your backyard?  I won't be invited there either I guess.  What about the super-secret club handshake?  *sigh*  Woe is me.

Seriously?!  Are you fifteen?

Nobody said you had to answer.  I was actually at a mrsean2k level of clarity on this point.  I have no expectation of you answering. I do find it interesting that an incredibly straightforward process, a kind that not only most people do every single day in one way or another but everyone here who has some kind of expectation for Philip on February 2013 has already done in some respect.   Can't be done by anyone here when we change one assumption. Similarly the incredible amount of twisting and turning people e.g. YOU go through to avoid answering is interesting too.

Yes feel free to blame me.  I mean you've been pushing hard for an excuse not to answer ever since I got you trapped on the subject.   This should make you all feel off the hook now.  Bruce can chime in with one of his backpatting posts ("Good one Mrsean2k.  I've felt that in addition to more moderation what this board needs is a rule that says no question needs to be honoured unless the asker pays proper respect to Phil...and me...and we get to define 'proper'") .  If all y'all needed was an excuse there are easier ways.

Also you're kind of lying again.  I've been completely straightforward and honest.  You on the other hand had tried to pull a few fast ones in this discussion.
Quote
Something for you to think about in future.
That's you're silly and condescending?

Bruce_TPU

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1437
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #575 on: December 18, 2012, 02:28:48 AM »
I'm interested if people can tell me if they think the probability of him delivering on his claims concerning P(Feb2013) changes in one direction or another based on the outcome. You were actually the one who wanted to discuss - that is focused in on - an example I gave *using* a classically quantified probability as an illustration.  From there you started looking at everything but this central point.  I was just being polite by responding.  In fact in several places I mention clear enough that one would think a mrsean2k would understand that some particular degree of precision was not necessary but claiming that no degree of precision is probably equivalent to saying you don't know what you're talking about.

But I guess you like to blame others.Risk is often looked at as a product of probability and impact.  It seems a little ingenuous to claim that you have nothing invested. I mean you do spend time here.  You seem to have read Philips posts enough to come up with a probability > 0 that he's going to deliver something useful in February - you can play denial games with this if you like.  So your risk, if you're being honest is probably at least a little above zero.

Also you claimed that quantification was pointless.  Now that argument has been killed all you have left is a "I don't wanna".  Nobody said you had to.If you're talking about being more precise to me then please confine yourself to making statements you can know.  You said a statement was not precise enough, presumably you know where the imprecision lies.  If not, I'd guess this was yet another dishonest dodge.What about the fort you're building in your backyard?  I won't be invited there either I guess.  What about the super-secret club handshake?  *sigh*  Woe is me.

Seriously?!  Are you fifteen?

Nobody said you had to answer.  I was actually at a mrsean2k level of clarity on this point.  I have no expectation of you answering. I do find it interesting that an incredibly simple process, a kind that not only most people do every single day in one way or another but everyone here who has some kind of expectation for Philip on February 2013 has done in some respect.   Can't be done by anyone here when we change one assumption likewise the incredible amount of twisting and turning people e.g. YOU go through to avoid answering is interesting too.

Yes feel free to blame me.  I mean you've been pushing hard for an excuse not to answer ever since I got you trapped on the subject.   This should make you all feel off the hook now.  Bruce can chime in with one of his backpatting posts ("Good one Mrsean2k.  I've felt that in addition to more moderation what this board needs is a rule that says no question needs to be honoured unless the asker pays proper respect to Phil...and me...and we get to define 'proper'") .  If all y'all needed was an excuse there are easier ways.

Also you're kind of lying again.  I've been completely straightforward and honest.  You on the other hand had tried to pull a few fast ones in this discussion.That's you're silly and condescending?
A NEW record~ !  27 Posts to say absolutely NOTHING of consequence!

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #576 on: December 18, 2012, 02:59:55 AM »
HHMMMmmm
Definately Looped it,probably 10 ways to hades......
I had no idea you could beat a horse for that long.
  some guys have to talk to the wife, watch jeopardy reruns or hide on the putor.
 
Personally I think he should go knit or build something.
 
 
 

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #577 on: December 18, 2012, 03:25:40 AM »
A NEW record~ !  27 Posts to say absolutely NOTHING of consequence!
I find it a bit ironic that someone who's last few posts are primarily back-patting and pleas for moderation would balk at the idea that knowing something about the probabilities people assign to Philip's potential failure in February 2013 is useful.  As I said before what I'm talking about isn't exactly without precedent among mathematicians.

@ramset - I just don't watch that much TV.  On average someone in the US watches about 2.5 hours a day.   That's more than enough time to spank poor arguments from people who should know better (and criticize the occasional cheerleader like Bruce).   I think I put in a full day of work today - despite having a cold, commuted home, read to my kids and tucked them in.   Worked a bit on the NYT saturday crossword too.

Quote from: Bruce_TPU
NOW THAT WAS...
Ever get the feeling you're trying way too hard?

Quote from: tagor
yes I am getting sick and tired of the badgering !
You and me both sister.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 01:33:11 PM by sarkeizen »

Bruce_TPU

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1437
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #578 on: December 18, 2012, 03:40:03 AM »
HHMMMmmm
Definately Looped it,probably 10 ways to hades......
I had no idea you could beat a horse for that long.
  some guys have to talk to the wife, watch jeopardy reruns or hide on the putor.
 
Personally I think he should go knit or build something.

Now THAT was funny! 

tagor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #579 on: December 18, 2012, 07:25:41 AM »
Is there a moderator for this board, or almost ANY board?  We should change the name of our forum perhaps to "Overpester.com".
 
If you too are getting sick and tired of the badgering, and pestering of and by the trolls, both former and recent ones, please comment until we can get some moderation back on this forum, please, for the love of God.

yes I am getting sick and tired of the badgering !

lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #580 on: December 18, 2012, 07:15:28 PM »
I type fast! So I can buy more crack! So I can type fast....To buy more crack.....To type faster...........
Anyone know this guy?
 

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #581 on: December 18, 2012, 08:41:36 PM »
I type fast! So I can buy more crack! So I can type fast....To buy more crack.....To type faster...........
Anyone know this guy?
...and lumen gives a good example of badgering.  Considering how much time is spent by Bruce_TPU, lumen and mrsean2k in their own badgering and other forms of aggressive behavior.  Don't you think your pleas for moderation exceed some kind of irony limit?

On the other hand lumen didn't explicitly *say* s/he was against badgering so maybe s/he's for it.

Quote from: What would Bruce_TPU say?
Now THAT was funny!

Madebymonkeys

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #582 on: December 19, 2012, 09:30:54 PM »
...and lumen gives a good example of badgering.  Considering how much time is spent by Bruce_TPU, lumen and mrsean2k in their own badgering and other forms of aggressive behavior.  Don't you think your pleas for moderation exceed some kind of irony limit?

On the other hand lumen didn't explicitly *say* s/he was against badgering so maybe s/he's for it.

How about we keep the topic on the subject of why this wont work (or even, why it will).
Lots of talk right now about it working and 'believe in PJH' but no sane reason why it will work! Lots of reasons why it won't.

How about a debate?!

doublehelix

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #583 on: December 22, 2012, 06:57:52 AM »
OK, You take the side of YES Quenco is True, and I will debate that it is FALSE

onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1336
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #584 on: December 22, 2012, 07:07:12 AM »
don't make me go there.