|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discontinuing research about ID | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You have ignored three times in a row what I asked for... Oh boo-hoo. Nobody is going to kiss your ass and jump through hoops so that they can be granted the opportunity to converse with you.
If one PhD would offend an other PhD with "scared pussy", then both would never talk with each other again. Uh, no. You just made that up. It isn't remotely true.
Discussions can't work like that. Sure they can, it happens all the time. The only way that discussions really can't work, is when people refuse to discuss.
You are herewith added to the same list with "Coyote" and "Dr Adequate" in Message 231. You can keep discussing with other persons here, but I will never respond to your comments again. Cute. That's the easiest way to deal with refutations of your paper, just pretend that they don't exist. Its pretty ridiculous, though, to hide behind some feigned offense to expletives and sarcasm. Anyways, like I said, I'll do my part to keep the discussion going. As other's have pointed out:
quote: For a tiny example of something like that, take what you wrote in Message 238:
then P.Da and P.Tr can't appear simultaneous until for example P.Tr has appeared and then P.Wo has appeared "Data and Troi don't appear together until Troi and Worf have both appeared." Worf and Troi have a working relationship and it makes sense that they're both going to appear before Troi is shown with Data. The odds of that happening by chance is a pointless calculation to compare to. These are the kinds of things that are helping to clutter your pattern and ruin your calculations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3070 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
NoNukes writes: Secondly, your argument actually is not even If A then B. Your argument is if A then maybe B could be true. (If there is a Triune god, and if he wanted to be recognized then he could do B is what you actually claimed) Yes, it is. I just copied this part from your last post and I didn't changed it then.
NoNukes writes: And as I've said before, you cannot even establish B to anyone's satisfaction other than your own. I wouldn't say a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is nothing. Currently you can flip a coin. If heads, then there might be a triune God, if tails, then probably not. There is currently no test to test for a triune God. As shown in appendices D-I, B (God and ... always appears as P.Ya) has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3. A residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is a higher certainty than 1:2. You pointed out that it can't be proven that actually a triune God or anything else is responsible for this reference. I mainly agree with this. The paper only showed that P.Go=P.Je=P.Bi=P.Ya(3) has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3. The actual origin of this was only discussed short. There is not that much evidence to discuss this question.
NoNukes writes: When I put you to this question, you start calculating random probabilities. But random assembling of elements make an incoherent story. And bad incoherent stories ought to be screened out or modified before being presented on TV. I asked you to answer the four questions about this already twice:
quote: quote: quote: I will now repeat it a third time: If you want to discuss about this part, then you should answer the four questions first. This will simplify the discussion. As I also stated often, it is not about the existence of patterns, it's about their certainty. There can be a lot patterns with a residual uncertainty of 1:10 or 1:10^2 as a byproduct. The defining difference about these patterns and the E1-E15 pattern is the residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. Any casual discussion won't help here. You should refer to the questions and/or the mathematics if you want to keep discussing. You still refer to ordinary patterns with residual uncertainties of 1:10 or 1:10^2. I agree with the comments you presented about these patterns until now. You don't have to repeat them.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3070 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
RAZD writes: Indeed, the feedback from the audience on what are good episodes goes into editors trying to repeat those successful episodes, and the more they can do that then the more successful the series will be, leading to more seasons ... It's a feedback loop, much like evolution: variation followed by selection followed by another round of variation followed by selection etc etc etc So no one person need design the "pattern" rather it can easily be an emergent property of the whole process, and author, editor, producer, actor, station, audience all function as an ber entity to cause the "pattern" ... It was never searched before in all evolution-like processes for a common underling signal. There were 4 different evolution-like processes (series) examined and all exhibited the same pattern. And an emergent property would not have a high residual uncertainty and patterns within the pattern, which have again a high residual uncertainty. It's really not about the existence of patterns, it's about their certainty.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3070 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
@Cat Sci: Your comment is ignored as outlined in [Msg=251]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
wouldn't say a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is nothing. Your assignment of uncertainty is not correct. It is indeed nothing.
The actual origin of this was only discussed short. There is not that much evidence to discuss this question. Yet you did it anyway. And titled the paper as though something along this line had been accomplished. I still have yet to convince your probability assessments are wrong. I think you have too much invested in your work to consider the argument. So here is an experiment. Describe a hypothetical scene in which P.Ya is counter to what you predict. Let's see if we can understand why such a scene might not make into a Star Trek episode without invoking any supernatural entity to make it so.
Currently you can flip a coin. If heads, then there might be a triune God, if tails, then probably not. Say what? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3070 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
NoNukes writes: wouldn't say a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is nothing. Your assignment of uncertainty is not correct. It is indeed nothing. Oh, c'mon. If I would be interested in opinions, then I would discuss with people like Cat Sci. You say it is nothing, then you have maybe a reason for this claim? If you have a reason for this claim, then you maybe want to name this reason/reasons? Chance would create P.Go=P.Ya(3) with a probability of 1/13. There are 13 persons possible. Chance would create P.Go=P.Je=P.Bi=P.Ya(3) with a probability of (1/13)^3=1/2197. Do you even want to participate in a scientific discussion about this topic? You did not answered the four questions. I assume you don't want to discuss about this topic?
NoNukes writes: Describe a hypothetical scene in which P.Ya is counter to what you predict. Let's see if we can understand why such a scene might not make into a Star Trek episode without invoking any supernatural entity to make it so. I could describe a lot. 1. P.Ya and P.WeC appear simultaneous then P.Ya is positively affected (for example commended)2. Any person appears then M14 appears then P.Ya and P.Tr appear simultaneous then M13 appears 3. Any person appears then P.LF appear then P.Da appears then P.Ri appears then P.Ya appears then P.Ri appears then P.Ya is positively affected (for example commended) is: P.ap: any person (13 possibilities) 1. {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}, P.Ya+2. *P.ap, M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}, M13 3. *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+ doesn't fit with the pattern: 1.
E1: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}?? E3: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}?? E4: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}?? E5: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}, P.Ya+?? 2.
E1: *P.ap, M14?? E3: *P.ap /E9: M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}, M13?? E4: *P.ap /E5: M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}?? E5: *P.ap, M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}?? 3.
E1: *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da /E2: *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+?? E3: *P.ap /E9: *P.LF /E11: *P.Da, *P.Ri /E12: *P.Ya /E13: *P.Ri, P.Ya+?? E4: *P.ap /E5: *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+?? E5: *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+?? You are seemingly new to this discussion. It maybe take you a month to completely understand the pattern. I think RAZD understand it already. You should not getting started with it, if you don't want to invest that much time in it. Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Oh, c'mon. If I would be interested in opinions, then I would discuss with people like Cat Sci. You say it is nothing, then you have maybe a reason for this claim? I've given my reason repeatedly. It is the same reason given by RAZD, Dr. Adequate and Cat Sci.
Chance would create P.Go=P.Ya(3) with a probability of 1/13. There are 13 persons possible. Episodes are not created by chance. Star Trek TNG episodes are part action but mainly soap opera type character development where interactions between characters are developed by switching from scene to scene. A lot of the interactions and stories about who affects who and how are built up over long periods of time.
I could describe a lot. 1. P.Ya and P.WeC appear simultaneous then P.Ya is positively affected (for example commended)2. Any person appears then M14 appears then P.Ya and P.Tr appear simultaneous then M13 appears 3. Any person appears then P.LF appear then P.Da appears then P.Ri appears then P.Ya appears then P.Ri appears then P.Ya is positively affected (for example commended) Not what I asked you for. I want you to describe a scene. I'm not asking you to string P.LF's and "positively affected" together.
You are seemingly new to this discussion. No. I am not interested in the part of the discussion where you categorize and calculate. I'm discussing your results from a level of abstraction above that. And from there you do not make any sense. Since I cannot get you to answer my question, how about you tell me the season/episode of the three or so episodes you used to validate your P.Ya. I'll watch those episodes myself over the next few days.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3070 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
NoNukes writes: I could describe a lot. 1. P.Ya and P.WeC appear simultaneous then P.Ya is positively affected (for example commended)2. Any person appears then M14 appears then P.Ya and P.Tr appear simultaneous then M13 appears 3. Any person appears then P.LF appear then P.Da appears then P.Ri appears then P.Ya appears then P.Ri appears then P.Ya is positively affected (for example commended) Not what I asked you for. I want you to describe a scene. I'm not asking you to string P.LF's and "positively affected" together.
No reason to be harsh. Scene's: From page 3: "Jean-Luc Picard = P.PiWilliam Riker = P.Ri Geordi La Forge = P.LF Worf = P.Wo Deanna Troi = P.Tr Data = P.Da Beverly Crusher = P.BeC Wesley Crusher = P.WeC Tasha Yar = P.Ya 1. P.Ya and P.WeC appear at the beginning simultaneous. Then a conversation: P.WeC: "You did a great job"P.Ya: "Thanks" is: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}, P.Ya+ 2. Any person appears, for example P.Wo, then he walks toward a conduction of gas with a leak. Then the scene changes to an other room. P.Ya and P.Tr are shown in this other room to repair the malfunction too. Then a conversation: P.Ya: "This will take a long time". is: *P.ap, M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}, M13 3. Any person, for example P.Da, appears. Then P.LF joins. Then a conversation: P.Da: "Hi." Then P.Ri and P.Ya join. First P.Ri joins them, then P.Ya. Then a conversation: P.Ri: "You did a great job"P.Ya: "Thanks" is: *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+
NoNukes writes: I've given my reason repeatedly. It is the same reason given by RAZD, Dr. Adequate and Cat Sci. "Dr Adequate" and "Cat Sci" are not a good reference. If I would still discuss with "Dr Adequate", then he would still insult me. If I would still discuss with "Cat Sci", then we would still throw excrements after each other. The only time RAZD referred to this was:
RAZD writes: RAZD writes:
How about 3 invisible pigs? was sarcasm regarding your assumption of a triune god/s. (a combination of "when pigs fly" with "the three little pigs" and "invisible unicorns") in [Msg=153]. Do you refer to this opinion?
NoNukes writes: Chance would create P.Go=P.Ya(3) with a probability of 1/13. There are 13 persons possible. Episodes are not created by chance. Star Trek TNG episodes are part action but mainly soap opera type character development where interactions between characters are developed by switching from scene to scene. A lot of the interactions and stories about who affects who and how are built up over long periods of time. Yes. But I don't refer to a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10 or 1:10^2, I refer to patterns with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 and 1:10^7. I agree with your statements about these normal patterns until now. To arguing with comments I agree with will not be helpful here.
NoNukes writes: No. I am not interested in the part of the discussion where you categorize and calculate. I'm discussing your results from a level of abstraction above that. And from there you do not make any sense. Well, the questions about the possible/non-possible origins is answered with mathematical arguments. We can't discuss about this, if you don't want to discuss about this. I suggest you answer the four questions in [Msg=257]. I already asked you four times for it. I ask you now a fifth time. A discussion means, that you are also able to answer to questions. I wouldn't see a reason to reply again to your comments until you answered this four Yes/No questions. If you don't want to answer questions, then there can't be a well balanced discussion.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There are only 4 real different predictions. The sub-variations can't be chosen arbitrary. Only in this cases are more than one sub-variation possible: E4-E8:M4 appears at E3. M4 is part of E4 and E9, but not part of E3. This has never happened. That something has not happened does not mean it has to be excluded from your calculations if it is possible under your rules. What you CAN do is go through the episodes and class them by the 24 possible cases and then calculate the Root Mean Square Error for the whole data set. Here is the table again, with the events listed so you can compare them: Table A
And I have gone through the season 1 episodes in Appendix A and extracted the event chronology per your descriptions there: Table B
So now we can combine tables A and B to see how well your "pattern" fits the first season: Table C
Curiously I note that the most common pattern is Case 15, covering 12 of the 24 episodes, yet it still results in relatively high error counts for the three models here. And 23 of the 24 episodes did not have E10. Based on my analysis I would combine E1, E2 and E3 into one event, E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8 into one event and E10 and E11 into one event, which I would designate S1 (E1, E2 and E3), S2 ( E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8), S3 (E9), S4 (E10 and E11), S5 (E12), S6 (E13), S7 (E14) and S8 (E15) and the pattern would be: S1(y/n), S2(y/n), S3, S4(y/n), S5, S6, S7, S8 ... ie 8 variations ... ... based on your division of events in the episodes as you have recorded.
Yes, you have accounted 616 errors ... That was the sum of the errors square so that the Erms could be calculated. Curiously I find that the similarity of Erms for the different models means that there is a large variation from each one -- and that this is seen with none of them being close to the most common case, case 15. In the revised system with eight sequences (S1 to S8) there would be one error (S4 missing), so I would expect much closer results using these sequences. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : colby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3070 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
RAZD writes: Curiously I note that the most common pattern is Case 15, covering 12 of the 24 episodes, yet it still results in relatively high error counts for the three models here. Yes, your models cause relatively high error counts. Is there a reason you want to replace the multi(4)-pattern model with a high predictive power and a low residual uncertainty with a new 10E, 11E or 15E model with a lower predictive power and a high residual uncertainty, probably 1:10?
RAZD writes: S1 (E1, E2 and E3), S2 ( E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8), S3 (E9), S4 (E10 and E11), S5 (E12), S6 (E13), S7 (E14) and S8 (E15) and the pattern would be: Then you would have for P.Wo for example: S1: *, +S2: *, +, - or P.Pi: S1: *, -S2: *, +, - That wouldn't be distinct.
RAZD writes: S1(y/n), S2(y/n), S3, S4(y/n), S5, S6, S7, S8 ... ie 8 variations ... That's still more than 4 variations.
RAZD writes: There are only 4 real different predictions. The sub-variations can't be chosen arbitrary. Only in this cases are more than one sub-variation possible: E4-E8:M4 appears at E3. M4 is part of E4 and E9, but not part of E3. This has never happened. That something has not happened does not mean it has to be excluded from your calculations if it is possible under your rules. Yes, the overall probability is maybe about 1% for this to happen. It increases the average of possible variations maybe to 4.05 possible variations. An overall average for the possible variations (E10/E11 included) is maybe 4.5 possible variations for every row of appearances. You have to refute 8 variations for every row of appearance with your selfmade pattern. At E3:There are 2 transitions which trigger E4 only. There are 14 transitions which trigger E9 only. There is 1 transition which triggers E4 and E9 both. (Never happened yet) At E9:There are 7 transitions which trigger E12 only. There are 6 transitions which trigger E11 only. There are 2 transitions which trigger E10 only. There are 0 transition which trigger E10 and E12 both. There are 0 transition which trigger E11 and E12 both. There are 3 transition which trigger E11 and E10 both. At E10:There are 13 transitions which trigger E12 only. There are 11 transitions which trigger E11 only. There are 0 transition which trigger E11 and E12 both. There are 55 fixed transitions and only 4 transition which allow an additional subvariation. The average of possible variations is far below 8 as in your theoretical pattern.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Continuing on from the revised pattern to include 8 appearance sequences, the variations would be
Table A
And I have gone through the season 1 episodes in Appendix A and extracted the event chronology per your descriptions there: Table B
And as before, accounting for the frequency of sequences in the first season: Table C
This tells us that one of the 7 sequence patterns is better than either the 8 sequence or the 6 sequence patterns and that it is better that the event patterns, but it is still a simplistic analysis: in reality two different 7 sequence patterns differ from each other at two points, not 0, and which one is better at matching the episode data would take another analysis with absolute values for departures, not +/- values. That is best done with a modified table B to compare each episode with the three 7 sequence patterns SN2, SN3 and SN5: Table D
* The accuracy of predicting the 7 sequence pattern is calculated from the average and Erms values by dividing by 7 and subtracting from 100%. With this analysis we can see that none of the 7 sequence patterns are a good match to the episodes ... even though the previous analysis looked good (but did not properly account for |departure| from the pattern) ... this essentially predicts 1 to 2 errors of matching an episode to a specific 7 sequence pattern ... Curiously I do not find this a compelling "pattern" in this regard. Nor do I see any value in lumping the three 7 sequence patterns into an uber pattern. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
"Dr Adequate" and "Cat Sci" are not a good reference. If I would still discuss with "Dr Adequate", then he would still insult me. Worse yet, I'd point out clear errors in your reasoning in a way that you apparently still find unanswerable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3070 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
RAZD writes: With this analysis we can see that none of the 7 sequence patterns are a good match to the episodes Seriously, why do you create your own patterns? Shall I review your selfmade patterns? Yes, your new patterns are not a good match. Do you want to hear more about your revised patterns?
RAZD writes: Nor do I see any value in lumping the three 7 sequence patterns into an uber pattern. Do you refer to the E1-E15 pattern with "uber pattern"? If so, then maybe because of the predictive power? You successfully managed to convert the E1-E15 pattern with 4 variations to other revised patterns with less predictive power. It's like to say: Look at the fossil record. There are simple lifeforms first and then more complex lifeforms. That means, that God created in 6 days first simple lifeforms and then more complex lifeforms. A theory of evolution might have a higher predictive power but we don't care about uber patterns. We will take a pattern with a lower predictive power and believe in creation. We don't care about uber patterns the fossil record might exhibit. I don't see any value in lumping an uber pattern into three 7 sequence patterns with a much less predictive power and a much higher residual uncertainty.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes: Curiously I note that the most common pattern is Case 15, covering 12 of the 24 episodes, yet it still results in relatively high error counts for the three models here. Yes, your models cause relatively high error counts. Is there a reason you want to replace the multi(4)-pattern model with a high predictive power and a low residual uncertainty with a new 10E, 11E or 15E model with a lower predictive power and a high residual uncertainty, probably 1:10? Curiously what I am doing is reviewing your "pattern" by breaking it down into a more understandable form and looking at the probabilities for each version.
RAZD writes: S1 (E1, E2 and E3), S2 ( E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8), S3 (E9), S4 (E10 and E11), S5 (E12), S6 (E13), S7 (E14) and S8 (E15) and the pattern would be: Then you would have for P.Wo for example: S1: *, +S2: *, +, - or P.Pi: S1: *, -S2: *, +, - That wouldn't be distinct. It appears that you are not understanding what the Sn's are -- or I am not understanding your comment. For clarity, Sn's are like your En's but with the elements grouped into fewer categories to make the uber pattern simpler. For example S1 = E1 elements + E2 elements + E3 elements and Event #1:Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi,P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-. Event #2: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BeC, P.LF, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Ya, M4, M5, P.BW-, P.Da-. Event #3: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, M1, M3, M5, M6, P.BW+, P.Pi-, P.Wo+. So S1: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-,& & As you can see this adds P.BeC, P.Ri, P.Ya, M4, P.BW- and P.Da- from E2, with P.En, M3, P.Pi- and P.Wo+ additional from E3. removing duplicates and rearranging S1 becomes: S1: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.BW-, P.Da-, P.Pi-, P.Tr+, P.WeC-, P.Wo+.
Then you would have for P.Wo for example: S1: *, + S2: *, +, - or P.Pi:S1: *, - S2: *, +, - That wouldn't be distinct. If you are talking about the transition from S1 to S2, then it doesn't appear to me to be any different than the transition from E3 to E4 (or E9).
That's still more than 4 variations. Except that you have 24 variations, not 4, that are allowed by your rules.
There are 55 fixed transitions and only 4 transition which allow an additional subvariation. The average of possible variations is far below 8 as in your theoretical pattern. If you have additional rules than what has already been discussed then you need to spell them out. Simply. Every one. if x(1) then y(1)if x(2) then y(2) if x(3) then y(3) etc. What I currently understand is that if an element is observed that is not a member of the current event caste (including predecessors) then it triggers a transition to the next event that contains that element. There is no reason I can seen where they wouldn't apply to the 8 sequence 8 variation pattern and your 15 event 24 variation pattern. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : corrected first E3 to E2per msg 265 comment by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes: With this analysis we can see that none of the 7 sequence patterns are a good match to the episodes Seriously, why do you create your own patterns? Shall I review your selfmade patterns? Yes, your new patterns are not a good match. Do you want to hear more about your revised patterns? Oh please do. Here it is in more detail:
Do you refer to the E1-E15 pattern with "uber pattern"? If so, then maybe because of the predictive power? ... No, just that it is the "over" pattern that is made up from 24 sub-patterns and arbitrary rules.
... You successfully managed to convert the E1-E15 pattern with 4 variations to other revised patterns with less predictive power. It's like to say: Look at the fossil record. There are simple lifeforms first and then more complex lifeforms. That means, that God created in 6 days first simple lifeforms and then more complex lifeforms. A theory of evolution might have a higher predictive power but we don't care about uber patterns. We will take a pattern with a lower predictive power and believe in creation. We don't care about uber patterns the fossil record might exhibit. I don't see any value in lumping an uber pattern into three 7 sequence patterns with a much less predictive power and a much higher residual uncertainty. Your opinion. Curiously I think it has better predictive power without all the extra exceptions of your "pattern" -- when every single episode in the first season doesn't match your "pattern" without invoking one or more exceptions to your pattern, most with different exceptions. Your "pattern" is like a deck of cards that you can arrange in many different ways, but only the jokers don't fit the pattern composed of all those different arrangements. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : dup comment Edited by RAZD, : correct scene 1 here as well per comment Edited by RAZD, : bulletby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024