SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: D. Long who wrote (100222)2/13/2005 2:57:26 PM
From: carranza2   of 793916
 
Since you posted that very interesting article, I have read a couple of statistical critiques of the GCP's hypothesis that they picked up anomalies in the random number generators immediately before and after the events of 9/11 took place.

I don't entirely understand the math, but it was clear that the authors didn't think much of the way the data was interpreted.

Besides, from a physical and mechanical standpoint, the GCP folks do nothing to suggest a means of causation for the anomalies they say they find. Without that, it seems impossible to validate the results, even if some anomalies, such as the bonded pair effect, have any statistical validity. Without a explanation as to cause, finding statistical anomalies to me is meaningless. In view of these considerations, and the critiques of the way the 9/11 data was treated, I am most skeptical.

An interesting aside on a Sunday morning. I'm still going to keep the current data page bookmarked just for grins and see if I notice any change in patterns as significant events occur.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News