Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #116605
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: A lesson on outliers for cc |
| Date | 2012-06-28 13:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CC121188.425B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <e8ea4840-103b-476c-975b-623b019d75a4@googlegroups.com> <CC11D687.4217%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <6660dd25-efb5-4f53-a20a-ce484918176c@googlegroups.com> <CC11EDCC.422F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <371149a2-faf4-473b-9e5a-f446bb35383b@googlegroups.com> |
On 6/28/12 11:32 AM, in article
371149a2-faf4-473b-9e5a-f446bb35383b@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>> Ah, yes, your continual change of what data set you want to use. Got it.
>
> Says the guy who narrowed down his trendline to only the latter half of 2011
> after he got spanked and shown his original trendline was hilariously wrong!
> If you had an understanding outliers, you would understand why you use all the
> data available to find them.
Your above shows you clearly have not understood what I have been telling
you. You just fabricate BS. But let us say you were right (you are not -
you are just showing off your ignorance of what I have been telling you),
how would that make it right for you?
And I have repeatedly asked you to show this new fuller set of data you have
been using. You refuse... because, frankly, you are lying. As you keep
lying. As has been beaten to death:
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>
...
>>> One of my methods was Grubbs
>>
>> And yet you claim to come up with four points.
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/outliers-grubbs.pdf>
>>
>> And that is with a standard significance level of 0.05. And it finds *one*
>> point.
>>
>> But, wait, there is more.
>>
>> <http://graphpad.com/faq/viewfaq.cfm?faq=1598>
>>
>> The Grubbs method assumes a Gaussian population... a normal distribution.
>> Oops!
>
> Not an oops. It can still be used for a simple test for outliers, even if it's
> not a normal distribution. Is it the best method? No, but it is fast. it was
> also not the only method I used.
It is a method that is meant for distributions that approximate a normal
distribution... but there is no reason to think the data in question does.
But OK, you showed ignorance in picking an inappropriate method. Got it.
Then you claimed that with this inappropriate method you got four points as
being shown as being outliers. But using that method it is common to use
either a 0.01 or 0.05 - with the latter being the one that would show more
outliers (for obvious reasons - though I suspect they go over your head).
But when using that method we find this:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/outliers-grubbs.pdf>
Only *one* outlier... not four as you claimed. So where did you get four?
Oh, you made those up or screwed up your calculations.
And then you said you used a much larger set of data... though you cannot
show this set. Likely another lie from you, but whatever... let us assume
you have this set... using the full set you claim that you still only found
four outliers and they all happened to be in a series that occurred in the
latter half of 2011.
You know, the more you try to defend your BS the more you show you are just
making things up. You are lying. This is not a question: you are. No
doubt.
...
>> Well, if you use whatever flawed method you used to find *four* points.
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/outliers-grubbs.pdf>
>>
>> But let me guess: just like you think the MS site is wrong and the Apple
>> site and the other sites that speak of how to get a linear trend line, you
>> think the graphpad.com calculator is also wrong.
>>
>> Only you know the "right" answers. LOL!
>
> It is not wrong at all. Why you don't use all data available to you is beyond
> me though.
LOL! So in "all the data available" you think that there are four outliers
and they are all at the end of 2011.
Hey, show where I can get "all the data available". I admit, I did not see
it on the site - I merely used the data *YOU TOLD ME TO*. Yeah, I did as
you asked... but now you are claiming to find the results you did you had to
use a *DIFFERENT* set of data.
You just keep piling your lies. But prove me wrong: show this set of "all
the data available" and then show how you came up with those four points
(which you have not specified, but said they are 4 of 6 at the latter half
of 2011) are the "outliers".
LOL! Your hole is just being dug deeper and deeper. You try to "prove"
your points and end up just showing how much you have been lying. It is
*great* entertainment.
...
>> All the data you asked me to use or some other set of data?
>
> We were discussing a trend over a particular time frame, which is why we only
> used that data set. You would use the entire data set to look for outliers.
This data set you cannot point to. And shows outliers based on the Grubbs
method only in the end of 2011. That is your new claim... right?
>> And in *all* that data, which you will not list, you found only four
>> outliers and they were *all* in the latter half of 2011.
>
> I never said such a thing.
LOL! You never said you found only four outliers and not six. Never. You
never made a point of that.
Is that your story these days? Be real clear here... it makes your lies
more amusing.
...
>> So show this data. And then explain why you only found four outliers and
>> *all* of them happen to be from the latter half of 2011.
>
> Do you not know how to find the data? It's on the exact same website.
Doing a quick search I did not find it... I would welcome a link. But I bet
you cannot provide one.
> Are you mentally retarded? And again, I did not say the only outliers happen
> to be from the latter half of 2011.
Ah, so the four outliers might not be just in the latter half of 2011. So
the data from the latter half of 2011 might not be mostly outliers... as you
previously claimed. Got it.
...
>> I found the post on California and responded... and finding the regional
>> data had nothing to do with your faulty methods you screwed up.
>
> You mean you found the post after I had already linked to it, days ago?
> Hilarious. So I've now blown your argument completely out of the water.
No: you have blown your lies completely out of the water.
You have been proved to be a liar. Repeatedly. See above for examples.
> Amazing how I was able to do that with apparently "faulty" methods.
The Grubbs method has nothing to do with the post on California. It was not
even mentioned (nor should it have been).
> At least you see there was no trend upward in Linux usage. Your prediction was
> wrong, your correlation that you didn't prove never was there in the first
> place.
Well, the correlation was there - but the cause and effect has been now now
only *not* been shown to be correct but has been refuted.
> My "faulty" methods showed the correct trend for the dataset, showed the
> points you wanted to use for an additional trendline were mostly outliers, and
> then backed up the outliers with concrete proof that it was anomalous data.
> Wow. Tough week for you, little man.
You made all of that up. The only question is if some part of you believes
it... unlikely.
--
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
A lesson on outliers for cc Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-27 22:45 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-27 23:10 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-27 23:45 -0700
Au revoir (killfile extension) Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2012-06-28 06:16 -0400
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Foster <frankfoster50@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-28 08:37 -0400
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-28 14:47 +0200
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-28 14:54 +0200
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Foster <frankfoster50@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-28 08:58 -0400
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 09:09 -0700
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Foster <frankfoster50@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-28 08:58 -0400
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2012-06-28 08:04 -0500
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Foster <frankfoster50@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-28 09:07 -0400
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2012-06-28 09:34 -0400
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 09:11 -0700
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2012-06-28 09:54 -0400
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-28 07:24 -0700
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 09:02 -0700
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Foster <frankfoster50@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-28 19:40 -0400
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Marti Van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> - 2012-06-29 09:29 +0200
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2012-06-29 10:37 +0100
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-29 11:42 +0200
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-29 11:47 +0200
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2012-06-29 06:13 -0400
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2012-06-29 11:23 +0100
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Foster <frankfoster50@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-29 10:28 -0400
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Foster <frankfoster50@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-29 10:27 -0400
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2012-06-29 13:10 -0600
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2012-06-29 08:31 -0400
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2012-06-29 08:29 -0400
Re: Au revoir (killfile extension) Foster <frankfoster50@yahoo.com> - 2012-06-29 10:26 -0400
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-29 11:49 +0200
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-27 23:27 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-28 05:51 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 09:38 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-28 10:17 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 11:17 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-28 11:32 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 13:50 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-28 14:01 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 14:30 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-28 14:34 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 14:48 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-28 14:52 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 15:17 -0700
Re: Grubbs_Nov2007-May2012 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 15:59 -0700
Re: Grubbs_Nov2007-May2012 Onion Knight <onionknightgot@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-29 04:36 -0700
Re: Grubbs_Nov2007-May2012 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-29 09:19 -0700
Re: Grubbs_Nov2007-May2012 Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-29 22:15 -0700
Re: Grubbs_Nov2007-May2012 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-30 11:05 -0700
Re: Median_and_Array_Nov2007-May2012 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 20:56 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-28 14:14 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 14:36 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-28 14:42 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 14:51 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 20:52 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Onion Knight <onionknightgot@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-29 04:33 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-29 09:03 -0700
Re: A lesson on outliers for cc Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-28 09:45 -0700
csiph-web