Statistics for Dummies Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : Statistics for Dummies

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: HighTech who wrote (45)	10/18/2002 12:52:43 PM
From: LPS5	of 66

You've missed the point by miles. Some say that testing a greater number of items taken from a population increases the significance of the results and adds reliability for making predictions. Who? In the first instance, whoever those "[s]ome" are who'd make such a classically innumerate, mathemetically unqualified and altogether oversimplified claim: they're either complete and utter morons or operating under low-barrier-to-entry statistical educations. Possibly both, as I believe the case may be locally. Second, the quote addresses epistemic problems leading to inferential errors; not, as you seem to be suggesting, a problem with the Law of Large Numbers. Which is why I asked what distribution you're using as your basis for "challenging that notion:" off the top of my head, I can think of two classes of generator which would make the quote mathematically sound. There are probably many more than that. Third, and most importantly: it's about time that you properly credited the quote you've cited to the author and book you got it from. Only took you a day and a half... LPS5

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next