Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #116194
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. |
| Date | 2012-06-25 21:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CC0E8CED.3FC0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (13 earlier) <54c0a0e1-7e47-4cb0-b150-6c4d4ac48fed@googlegroups.com> <CC09D082.3D08%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <CC0A33F1.3D45%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <a656ecb6-6c62-4faa-b613-31ebbe28a176@googlegroups.com> <dd976c83-fa9f-4fa9-9167-4a30e60c8420@googlegroups.com> |
On 6/25/12 6:45 AM, in article
dd976c83-fa9f-4fa9-9167-4a30e60c8420@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 25, 2012 8:31:13 AM UTC-4, cc wrote:
>>
>>
>> when your problem is that all six were outliers to begin with. Four of the
>> six deviate markedly from other members of the sample, where the sample is
>> all the data we have, not what small subset you choose it to be.
>>
>
> Err, sorry. All six are not outliers. I believe I have posted something
> similar before. Those six points are mostly made up of outliers, with 4 of the
> six being outliers. Sorry for the confusion.
Ah, so now only four of the six. Which of the four? And why do the four
"outliers" fit such a strong pattern? And why not respond to other data on
how wrong you were? I have gone into more detail elsewhere (look for posts
with this subject line - you ran from most), but this is a decent summary:
The full set of data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
The top is 12 months of data - I was asked to show 24 so I did.
I used a linear trend line - though the data is pretty clearly not linear.
In any case, the data for the second half of 2011 (seen in the above, but
focused on there):
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>
Those data points were deemed "outliers" or as "erroneous" by cc - though he
has gone from calling all six of them outliers to reducing his claim to it
being only four of the data points. But from Wikipedia:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier>
-----
An outlying observation, or outlier, is one that appears to
deviate markedly from other members of the sample in which it
occurs.
...
Caution: Unless it can be ascertained that the deviation is
not significant, it is ill-advised to ignore the presence of
outliers.
-----
There is no reason to think any 4 of the 6 points in the latter half of 2011
are without significance (in fact, they fit a vague prediction, though the
data of 2012 did not). They also fit a very clear trend... and to call six
such data point of 24 "outliers" (25%) or even just four of them (17%), I
think, is rather absurd.
Much more info on this can be found here (a whole lot more - well worth the
read for anyone who wants to understand the issue):
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/8e4942b16ce71056>
I also put the following image together to help cc understand the concept of
outliers and why his claim that those 6 (or even 4) data points are outliers
is not likely:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/outliers.pdf>
With that said, if there are folks who can shed some deeper light on the
subject I am very much open to it. It is clear, though, that cc is not
someone who is going to be able to shed any "deeper light" on this... he is
completely clueless on this topic (as he was on the topic of sigma lines
being based on the distance from the mean to the inflection points, on his
denial of incorrect depictions of same, etc.)
--
The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P>
cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 09:17 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 10:08 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 10:52 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 11:03 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 11:27 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 11:53 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 13:13 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 12:35 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 13:50 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 14:27 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 15:30 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 05:03 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 06:11 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 19:02 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 20:24 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:34 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 08:00 -0700
cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 14:38 -0700
Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:51 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 22:42 -0400
Re: Help with understanding outliers Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:22 +0200
Re: Help with understanding outliers Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-23 14:32 +0000
Re: Help with understanding outliers Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2012-06-23 11:02 -0400
Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:31 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:21 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2012-06-23 16:45 +0100
Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 10:18 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 18:58 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 19:55 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:52 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:52 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-23 22:48 -0400
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 19:04 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 20:22 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:20 +0200
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:12 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-24 14:59 -0500
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-25 22:46 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-26 11:59 -0500
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-26 10:28 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-26 10:34 -0700
Summary of cc's statistical BS Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-26 18:27 -0700
Re: Summary of cc's statistical BS cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-27 05:39 -0700
Re: Summary of cc's statistical BS Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-27 08:55 -0700
Re: Summary of cc's statistical BS Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-27 22:07 -0700
Summary of cc's statistical BS Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-27 12:24 -0700
Re: Summary of cc's statistical BS Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-27 22:01 -0700
Re: Summary of cc's statistical BS Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-28 07:20 -0400
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-26 13:18 -0500
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-25 05:31 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-25 06:45 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-25 21:47 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-26 05:19 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-26 09:46 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-26 10:07 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-26 16:59 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-27 05:28 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-27 08:19 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-27 10:02 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-27 11:49 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-27 11:59 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-27 12:10 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-27 21:49 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-27 22:05 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-28 05:41 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 09:01 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-29 22:04 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 11:03 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-30 21:23 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 23:11 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-27 22:08 -0700
Re: cc's new, weaker claim about "outliers is proved wrong ... cc still in denial Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-25 22:12 -0700
cc self-nukes and admits to being a sock of my stalker Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-07-10 10:38 -0700
Re: cc self-nukes and admits to being a sock of my stalker cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-10 13:09 -0700
Re: cc self-nukes and admits to being a sock of my stalker Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-07-10 14:38 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:58 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-23 09:09 +0200
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2012-06-23 00:25 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:10 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:22 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:59 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-21 22:31 -0400
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 22:23 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 08:04 +0100
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:38 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 07:29 -0400
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 05:04 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:37 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 19:27 -0400
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2012-06-22 09:45 +0100
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 07:30 -0400
csiph-web