Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #116250
| 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 | 2012-06-26 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CC0F3562.4028%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (14 earlier) <CC0A33F1.3D45%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <a656ecb6-6c62-4faa-b613-31ebbe28a176@googlegroups.com> <dd976c83-fa9f-4fa9-9167-4a30e60c8420@googlegroups.com> <CC0E8CED.3FC0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <7d1b15a0-cb48-4ed1-ab5d-4e728927e1f6@googlegroups.com> |
On 6/26/12 5:19 AM, in article
7d1b15a0-cb48-4ed1-ab5d-4e728927e1f6@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:47:25 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Do you not know how to find them?
I do not know how to read your mind. Given that, as you have been shown,
what is considered an "outlier" is based on subjective criteria, and when
you consider:
1) Such determinations are subjective (there is no clear definition nor
single "standard" way to determine which points are outliers) -
contrary to your claim that they are "fact".
2) It is rather silly to say 17% of the data are "outliers" - especially
when those data are in a direct series tied to a *very* clear
trend that includes 25% of the data.
3) Outliers are atypical - and it is a stretch to call 17% of the data
"atypical".
4) You have clearly placed a great deal of focus on the correlation
coefficient even though it is unwise to so at the expense of a
focus on the visual graphs.
5) You changed your claims from calling 25% of the data "outliers" to a
lesser number of only 17% of the data... you have had trouble making
up your mind as to which points you want to include in your set of
"outliers".
6) You were wrong to deny that the sigma lines can be correctly drawn
based on the distance from the mean to the inflection points.
7) You were wrong to deny that the poorly done depictions I showed
you were, in fact, poorly done.
8) You repeatedly snip and ignore comments which are contrary to your
claimed views.
I think we can safely say you have no clue what you are talking about in
terms of calling *any* of the data "outliers" or the rest of your claims
statistical knowledge. You simply wanted to be "right" and blew it. Again.
Even you know you *are* lying when you claim to be knowledgeable in these
areas. This, by now, has been absolutely proved.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/outliers.pdf>
And I just love that... so clear and easy to see how clueless you are. :)
> "Fitting a pattern" has nothing to do with whether or not they are anomalies.
<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Outlier.html>
-----
An outlier is an observation that lies outside the overall
pattern of a distribution (Moore and McCabe 1999). ...
Outliers are often easy to spot in histograms. For example,
the point on the far left in the above figure is an outlier.
-----
I have shown you that before... you have offered no counter and just ignore
it. You really show *no* understanding of the concept of "outliers", just
as you show very little understanding of the concept of standard deviations,
even though you are the one who brought up both topics!
But it is four of these six you claim are outliers (though you cannot say
which four!):
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>
Which of those points do *you* find as being a significant deviation? Who
knows... not even you can say, you just ask me to guess. [Above I show the
graph based on the complete set of 24 data points]
> And I've made it clear plenty of times that it was mostly outliers you were
> using, not all of them. But there were several other times where I wasn't as
> clear.
You do realize your ignorance is completely transparent, right?
--
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
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 05:27 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 08:36 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 08:43 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 08:47 -0700
Watch cc run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 09:34 -0700
Watch cc run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 09:59 -0700
OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 10:57 -0700
Re: OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 11:10 -0700
cc and Carroll lie about their running. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 11:48 -0700
Re: cc and Carroll lie about their running. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 11:57 -0700
cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 12:26 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 12:39 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 13:56 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 14:15 -0700
Wow... cc proves he is a coward *again*! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 14:59 -0700
Re: Wow... cc proves he is a coward *again*! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:16 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:24 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 19:45 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-20 22:52 -0400
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 04:07 +0000
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 21:10 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:57 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-21 08:16 -0600
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:55 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 22:35 -0400
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 05:14 -0700
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
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 14:33 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:13 -0700
Re: OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:14 -0700
csiph-web