|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 2/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discontinuing research about ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3064 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
RAZD writes: 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.En, P.Ri, P.Ya, M3, P.Pi- and P.Wo+ from E2, with nothing additional from E3:
You accidentally added E3 twice. There is no M3, P.Pi- and P.Wo+ at E2. You would have *P.Wo, P.Wo+ and P.Wo- at S2.
RAZD writes: 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. Yes.
RAZD writes: That's still more than 4 variations. Except that you have 24 variations, not 4, that are allowed by your rules. Yes, but there is only one variation for every start with E1, E3, E4 and E5. You can see that in the three examples in [Msg=261]. For every start with E1, E3, E4 and E5 there is only one possible variation. An exception is example 3 with E3: Variation 1:
E3: *P.ap /E9: *P.LF /E10: *P.Da /E11: *P.Ri /E12: *P.Ya /E13: *P.Ri, P.Ya+?? Variation 2: E3: *P.ap /E9: *P.LF /E11: *P.Da, *P.Ri /E12: *P.Ya /E13: *P.Ri, P.Ya+?? Additional subvariations are rare and often without effect. There are overall 24 variations. But only 4 actually appear for every quantisation. Sometimes a fifth variation is possible.
RAZD writes: 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. Your pattern applied on the three examples in [Msg=261]: 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+ With: "S1(y/n), S2(y/n), S3, S4(y/n), S5, S6, S7, S8 ... ie 8 variations ..." 1.
S2: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC} /S3: P.Ya+ 2.
S2: *P.ap, M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}, M13 3.
S2: *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri /S3: P.Ya+ Your new pattern fits with all three examples. The original E1-E15 pattern fits with no example of them: 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+?? The pattern you created will probably fit anything.
RAZD writes: 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. Your pattern is completely different to the E1-E15 pattern.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You accidentally added E3 twice. There is no M3, P.Pi- and P.Wo+ at E2. ... Corrected that above, thanks. M3 is in E3, so it is still part of S1
... You would have *P.Wo, P.Wo+ and P.Wo- at S2. In the "pattern" description in Message 235 *P.Wo is in E1 and the first P.Wo+ is in E3 (both now S1) and there is no P.Wo- until E5 (now S2).
RAZD writes: 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. Yes. Any other rules? ie -- can you have both a P.ap+ and a P.ap- in the same event, or does the conversion cause a transition to the next event with the second conversion? Does *P.ap → P.ap+ → P.ap- mean that P.ap is back to where this started?
Yes, but there is only one variation for every start with E1, E3, E4 and E5. You can see that in the three examples in [Msg=261]. For every start with E1, E3, E4 and E5 there is only one possible variation. An exception is example 3 with E3: Let's look at your "pattern" as described in Message 235 again:
More options ... so NOW we have (updating the pattern in Message 166: Yes, but there is only one variation for every start with E1, E3, E4 and E5. You can see that in the three examples in Message 261. For every start with E1, E3, E4 and E5 there is only one possible variation. An exception is example 3 with E3: E1 is one of two options: E1 or not E1 which then each have other options per your Message 237:
E2 is not a possible start. The pattern has
for a total of 24 different pattern variations. To reduce this further you will need to have\show cause and a rule for it. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : typoby 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 3064 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
RAZD writes: Any other rules? ie -- can you have both a P.ap+ and a P.ap- in the same event, or does the conversion cause a transition to the next event with the second conversion? Until now there is always only P.ap+ OR P.ap- possible at the same event. *P.ap, P.ap+, P.ap- or *P.ap, P.ap+, P.ap- will therefore always cause at least one transition, if it doesn't break the pattern.
RAZD writes: To reduce this further you will need to have\show cause and a rule for it. Why should it be reduced? There are 24 variations in total and about 4 actual possible variations for every row of appearances. To describe all *, + and - in the first minutes of 76 episodes demands some complexity. The expected probability to fit was tested to 0.625 and calculated to <0.711 in [Msg=190]. The residual uncertainty was then calculated to 1:10^7. You can verify the result here: [Msg=171].
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
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. Insulting or not, their remarks about your inappropriate assignment of probability and your comparison to random remarks, and your "flexible" patterns have been echoed by me, and you've ignored them with or without reference to Dr. Adequate and Cat Sci. You seem determined not to understand the criticism. All you do in response is to do more of the same bad math and then try to impress me with how small a probability number you can calculate, badly. There are about 45 cars in the parking lot outside of my apartment. Yet I start each morning by getting into the same tan car with the primer colored driver side front panel. What are the odds of that happening? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes: Any other rules? ie -- can you have both a P.ap+ and a P.ap- in the same event, or does the conversion cause a transition to the next event with the second conversion? Until now there is always only P.ap+ OR P.ap- possible at the same event. *P.ap, P.ap+, P.ap- or *P.ap, P.ap+, P.ap- will therefore always cause at least one transition, if it doesn't break the pattern. Excellent, that gives purpose to observing +/- effects, so we now have two triggers to a new event:
So *P.ap or *P.ap & P.ap+ or *P.ap & P.ap- can occur in one event but not *P.ap & P.ap+ & P.ap- Can a second +/- effect in the same direction occur in one event (ie - *P.ap & P.ap+ & P.ap+ or *P.ap & P.ap- & P.ap-)? Then I can start building my sequences - using your data - and should be able to reproduce your results, yes?
Why should it be reduced? There are 24 variations in total and about 4 actual possible variations for every row of appearances. To describe all *, + and - in the first minutes of 76 episodes demands some complexity. The expected probability to fit was tested to 0.625 and calculated to <0.711 in Message 190. The residual uncertainty was then calculated to 1:10^7. You can verify the result here: Message 171. In other words, there are 24 possible variation in your overall (uber) pattern, but only 4 have been observed when you follow the rules above? Note that in my 8 possible Sequence variation overall (uber) pattern in Message 270 (corrected per your comment) there were only 5 of the 8 possible variation observed in the first season:
Sequence #1 observed 0 times (S1,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8) Sequence #2 observed 1 times (S1,S2,S3,,S5,S6,S7,S8) Sequence #3 observed 13 times (S1,,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8) Sequence #4 observed 1 times (S1,,S3,,S5,S6,S7,S8) Sequence #5 observed 9 times (,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8) Sequence #6 observed 1 times (,S2,S3,,S5,S6,S7,S8) Sequence #7 observed 0 times (,,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8) Sequence #8 observed 0 times (,,S3,,S5,S6,S7,S8) Logically you should have observed more than 5 variations in your pattern for the first season. I haven't checked that yet, but I think your claim of only observing 4 variations must be an error as I should end up with fewer sub-patterns observed than your system, due to the way I have combined some of your events. For instance if we observed:
E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10, , E12, E13, E14, E15 and then E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, , E11, E12, E13, E14, E15 That would count as two variations observed, while my system would only count 1 variety:
S1(E1, E2, E3), S2(E4, E5, E6, E7, E80, S3(E9), S4(E10, ), S5(E12), S6(E13), S7(E14), S8(E15) and then S1(E1, E2, E3), S2(E4, E5, E6, E7, E80, S3(E9), S4( , E11), S5(E12), S6(E13), S7(E14), S8(E15) And curiously when I do the same counting of your pattern variations for the first season I find 8 variations observed (16 possibilities not observe).
Event variation #1 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #2 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #3 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #4 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #5 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #6 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #7 observed 1 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #8 observed 1 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #9 observed 0 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #10 observed 0 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #11 observed 0 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #12 observed 1 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #13 observed 0 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #14 observed 0 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #15 observed 12 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #16 observed 0 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #17 observed 1 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #18 observed 1 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #19 observed 7 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #20 observed 0 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #21 observed 0 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #22 observed 0 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #23 observed 1 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #24 observed 0 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) So your claim of only 4 viable variations is not correct.
Why should it be reduced? ... Why should it be made more complex than it needs to be? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : ....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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3064 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
NoNukes writes: Insulting or not, their remarks about your inappropriate assignment of probability and your comparison to random remarks, and your "flexible" patterns have been echoed by me To which remark do you refer? I looked through your previous posts and referred to all of them. Is that all right for you?
NoNukes writes: 1) the use of complicated pattern rules increases the probability of identifying a pattern. You can actually increase the number of alternatives for identifying a particular pattern until you insure that the pattern is matched. Yes. The pattern was created for the first three seasons of the data source and has no predictive power for this first part of the data source.
NoNukes writes: 2) increasesing the complexity of the identified pattern thereby resulting in an increasingly low probability in the calculations of the type you describe. Yes. Therefore you can't include the first part of the data source into the probability calculation. This wasn't done.
NoNukes writes: The individual items of the pattern are not independent. Some items cannot happen unless other items have happened. And none of the items in a TV show are random. Yes, but the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7.
NoNukes writes: We know that biological life as a whole contains patterns. But the theory is that naturally occurring processes identified as a part of evolution are perfectly capable of generating patterns.
Yes, patterns with 1:10 or 1:10^2. The involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. This is a mathematical argument you don't want to talk about. I assume we can't talk about this? Or can we?
NoNukes writes: There are about 45 cars in the parking lot outside of my apartment. Yet I start each morning by getting into the same tan car with the primer colored driver side front panel. What are the odds of that happening? Yes, the odds would be very low for it to happen by chance. It is likely that you own the car you start in each morning. But your example is not affected by chance. A similar example like the found pattern would be: It takes you every morning 59.9 seconds - 60.1 seconds to get to your car. This example is affected by coincidental contributions. For example wind, passers-by or rain. You can get the normal probability by watching other people getting to their cars. If it takes them 50 seconds - 70 seconds with the same distance, then you are somehow different. If the involvement of chance would preclude a time of 59.9 seconds - 60.1 seconds to get to your car every morning, happened 45 out of 47 times, then you are maybe a godlike being. This would be a similar example. Did I forgot anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3064 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
RAZD writes: So *P.ap or *P.ap & P.ap+ or *P.ap & P.ap- can occur in one event but not *P.ap & P.ap+ & P.ap- Yes. Also P.ap+ or P.ap- can occur in one event. *P.ap or P.ap+ or P.ap- or *P.ap & P.ap+ or *P.ap & P.ap- can occur in one event but not *P.ap & P.ap+ & P.ap- or P.ap+ & P.ap-
RAZD writes: Can a second +/- effect in the same direction occur in one event (ie - *P.ap & P.ap+ & P.ap+ or *P.ap & P.ap- & P.ap-)? Yes. All with possible repeated appearances.
RAZD writes: In other words, there are 24 possible variation in your overall (uber) pattern, but only 4 have been observed when you follow the rules above? No. There are 24 possible variation in overall, but only 4 The row of appearances: *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.Tr, *P.LF, M1, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya-, *P.LF can only have this variations:
E1: *P.Wo /E2: *P.Ya /E3: *P.Tr /E9: *P.LF, M1, *P.Ya, *P.Ri /E12: P.Ya- /E13: *P.LF
E3: *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.Tr /E9: *P.LF, M1, *P.Ya, *P.Ri /E12: P.Ya- /E13: *P.LF E4: *P.Wo /E5: *P.Ya /E6: *P.Tr /E7: *P.LF /E8: M1 /E9: *P.Ya, *P.Ri /E12: P.Ya- /E13: *P.LF E5: *P.Wo, *P.Ya /E6: *P.Tr /E7: *P.LF /E8: M1 /E9: *P.Ya, *P.Ri /E12: P.Ya- /E13: *P.LF There is no choice to not skip E4-E8 with the E1 variation. There is no choice to not skip E10-E11 with the E1 variation.There is no choice to not skip E4-E8 with the E3 variation. There is no choice to not skip E10-E11 with the E3 variation. There is no choice to not skip E10-E11 with the E4 variation. There is no choice to not skip E10-E11 with the E5 variation. There are 55 fixed transitions and only 4 transition which allow an additional subvariation. There is mostly no choice beyond the four variations E1, E3, E4 and E5. There are 24 possible variation in overall, but mostly only 4 can be observed for every row of appearances. There are 4 possible variations out off all 24 possible variation.
RAZD writes: Why should it be made more complex than it needs to be? It wasn't made more complex than it needed to be. It is already a "simple" pattern which is distinct. Your pattern fits a lot more. You said:
RAZD writes: 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. This is only possible, if every quantisation fits with both patterns in the same way. If there is a quantisation that fits with your pattern but doesn't fit with the E1-E15 pattern, then they are different patterns. If there is a quantisation that doesn't fit with your pattern but does fit with the E1-E15 pattern, then they are different patterns. There are three examples in [Msg=271] which fit with your pattern but don't fit with the E1-E15 pattern. Therefore they are different patterns. You have a strange way to "review". You don't refer to the actual pattern, you create your own different patterns. You don't refer to the actual calculations, you want to create your own different calculations.
Then I can start building my sequences - using your data - and should be able to reproduce your results, yes? No, your pattern is different. It doesn't fit with the same quantisations: [Msg=271].
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It is likely that you own the car you start in each morning. But your example is not affected by chance. Exactly.
If the involvement of chance would preclude a time of 59.9 seconds - 60.1 seconds to get to your car every morning, happened 45 out of 47 times, then you are maybe a godlike being. This would be a similar example. Until you separate the design elements from the chance elements you have no chance of calculating a probability of any occurrence. I have yet to see you make any attempt to identify any elements of direct human choice. All you do is deny that humans have any affect on the establishing a pattern that covers a mere three episodes. There's nothing to see here. I am out. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Silly, no good duplicate.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
A similar example like the found pattern would be: It takes you every morning 59.9 seconds - 60.1 seconds to get to your car. This example is affected by coincidental contributions. For example wind, passers-by or rain. You can get the normal probability by watching other people getting to their cars. If it takes them 50 seconds - 70 seconds with the same distance, then you are somehow different. If the involvement of chance would preclude a time of 59.9 seconds - 60.1 seconds to get to your car every morning, happened 45 out of 47 times, then you are maybe a godlike being. This would be a similar example. Did I forgot anything? Yes, he forgot the possibility that I know that he is timing how long it takes me to get to my car, and that I am trying to get there in exactly 60 seconds. Analogously: TV show producers making awesome TV serieses that will succeed and make a lot of money. But don't let him kid you, his pattern isn't nearly as exact as he's trying to portray. His stupid "residual uncertainty of 1:10^7" doesn't tell you anything at all about whether or not I knew about the test. And his "pattern" is so convoluted that its practically meaningless, like, RAZD can't even reproduce it (and he's given it a good shot!). So its not even so tight as to being like between 59.9 and 60.1. Further, if you translate the arbitrary Pxx+/- crap back into an English phrase describing a Star Trek episode, then it just describes regular old stuff that you'd expect from it to happen. The whole thing is a sham, perpetuated by a charlatan trying to baffle the audience with bullshit. All attempts at exposing the underlying assumptions of the whole thing are met with obfuscation and derision, and always pointing back to that same old nonsense: "The involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7." This dude caught himself in a downward spiral into the mathematics. I wish he was more reasonable and spoke better English. Maybe then he could see the error in his ways. But alas, he cannot. It makes me wonder if this is more religion-driven than evidence-driven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes: So *P.ap or *P.ap & P.ap+ or *P.ap & P.ap- can occur in one event but not *P.ap & P.ap+ & P.ap- Yes. Also P.ap+ or P.ap- can occur in one event. *P.ap or P.ap+ or P.ap- or *P.ap & P.ap+ or *P.ap & P.ap- can occur in one event but not *P.ap & P.ap+ & P.ap- or P.ap+ & P.ap-
RAZD writes: Can a second +/- effect in the same direction occur in one event (ie - *P.ap & P.ap+ & P.ap+ or *P.ap & P.ap- & P.ap-)? Yes. All with possible repeated appearances. So again, the rules as I understand them:
No. There are 24 possible variation in overall, but only 4 Sorry, repeating this claim after I have shown it to be false is rather disingenuous. As I said in Message 275:
And curiously when I do the same counting of your pattern variations for the first season I find 8 variations observed (16 possibilities not observe).
Event variation #1 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #2 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #3 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #4 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #5 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #6 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #7 observed 1 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #8 observed 1 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #9 observed 0 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #10 observed 0 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #11 observed 0 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #12 observed 1 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #13 observed 0 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #14 observed 0 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #15 observed 12 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #16 observed 0 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #17 observed 1 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #18 observed 1 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #19 observed 7 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #20 observed 0 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #21 observed 0 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #22 observed 0 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #23 observed 1 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #24 observed 0 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) So your claim of only 4 viable variations is not correct. And I have now expanded this analysis for the third season (the second season is skipped) data you provided in appendix A:
Event variation #1 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #2 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #3 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #4 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #5 observed 2 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #6 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #7 observed 4 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #8 observed 2 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #9 observed 0 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #10 observed 0 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #11 observed 2 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #12 observed 1 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #13 observed 0 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #14 observed 0 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #15 observed 19 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #16 observed 2 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #17 observed 0 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #18 observed 1 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #19 observed 11 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #20 observed 1 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #21 observed 0 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #22 observed 2 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #23 observed 4 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #24 observed 0 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) out of 51 total episodes (not counting episode 1x02 as it is a continuation of 1x01) 12 of the 24 possible cases were not observed 12 of the 24 possible cases were observed in two seasons of data This is your information from your data in your Appendix A for seasons 1 and 3 (season 2 was skipped by you). And I would expect to pick up more of the variation cases with the next season of episodes -- because I don't expect them to fit the pattern of use built up in the first two seasons ... just as season 3 did not fit the pattern of use seen in the first season. Enjoy ps -- I note that you have two errors in your appendix A found so far: (1) 3x08 The Price - recorded elements: *P.Al, P.Tr+,*P.Ya, *P.Tr, P.Tr-, *P.BW,P.Tr-, *P.Pi, P.Tr-... P.Tr+ not preceded by *P.Tr -- should be *P.Al, *P.Tr, P.Tr+, *P.Ya, *P.Tr, P.Tr-, *P.BW, P.Tr-, *P.Pi, P.Tr- (2) 3x23 Sarek - recorded elements: *P.Pi, P.Al+, *P.BW, *P.WeC, *P.BW, P.Pi-... P.AI+ not preceded by *P,AI -- should be *P.Pi, *P,AI, P.Al+, *P.BW, *P.WeC, *P.BW, P.Pi- (I have deleted your /E and time data from these strings for clarity) Edited by RAZD, : psby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Further, if you translate the arbitrary Pxx+/- crap back into an English phrase describing a Star Trek episode, then it just describes regular old stuff that you'd expect from it to happen. Nicely said. One sentence that sums up a point I've tried to get him to address in about five or six attempts.
Yes, he forgot the possibility that I know that he is timing how long it takes me to get to my car, and that I am trying to get there in exactly 60 seconds. Or maybe I have another, completely different goal I am actually shooting for that results in me getting to the car in exactly 60 seconds. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Until you separate the design elements from the chance elements you have no chance of calculating a probability of any occurrence. I have yet to see you make any attempt to identify any elements of direct human choice. All you do is deny that humans have any affect on the establishing a pattern that covers a mere three episodes. There are actually several levels of ambiguity that I can see:
Which aspect of an element is recorded? (We don't know from the data: for instance, when *P.AI is recorded it can be any one of 13 aspects):
quote: Romulans are counted as P.BW instead of P.Wo when the definition of P.BW is "colour black/white, silver, ice, cold, invisible" and the definition of P.Wo includes "hostile aliens" ... ??? Does *P.Wo as Lt Worf shooting a *P.Wo as a "hostile alien" count as P.Wo-? Does the sequence {*P.AI, P.Wo+} mean that P.Wo was one of "more than five" people but only he was affected or even that P.Wo was a "hostile alien" in the group of "more than five" people. When an appearance of an element that is not part of the cast in E(n) it triggers a transition to the next event that contains that element E(n+j), which may be the next event or one further down the line, but the only invalidation of the "pattern" is an element appearing out of sequence. The "hop-scotch" between events hides sequences that don't conform to the strict step by step chronology of the events (which is not recorded for any of the observed episodes, they are all sub-patterns of the full length "pattern"). What it appears to be is an arbitrary lumping\conflating of things into groups with no rhyme or reason other than being able to create a "pattern" from the mish-mash by conflating several things arbitrarily as equally of value to the "pattern" ... one that is so flexible that it covers thousands of different sequences of diverse things ... and thus the "pattern" appears to be an artifact of multiple options at every level by hiding what is actually digitized. A more rigorous approach would have each variety of every element defined and recorded as a separate element, Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : typoby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Romulans are counted as P.BW instead of P.Wo when the definition of P.BW is "colour black/white, silver, ice, cold, invisible" and the definition of P.Wo includes "hostile aliens" .... The person P.BW appears wherever a 6 is mentioned or the colour black/white or silver appears. Sigh... Edited by NoNukes, : Expand example drawing laughterJe 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 3064 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Yes.
RAZD writes: No. There are 24 possible variation in overall, but only 4 Sorry, repeating this claim after I have shown it to be false is rather disingenuous. As I said in Message 275: You misunderstood this. All 24 possible variation can be observed, but only 4 can be observed for one row of appearances. There are 4 possible variations for one quantisation. If there are 24 quantisations, then all 24 variations can be possibly observed.
RAZD writes: ps -- I note that you have two errors in your appendix A found so far: (1) 3x08 The Price - recorded elements: *P.Al, P.Tr+,*P.Ya, *P.Tr, P.Tr-, *P.BW,P.Tr-, *P.Pi, P.Tr-... P.Tr+ not preceded by *P.Tr -- should be *P.Al, *P.Tr, P.Tr+, *P.Ya, *P.Tr, P.Tr-, *P.BW, P.Tr-, *P.Pi, P.Tr- (2) 3x23 Sarek - recorded elements: *P.Pi, P.Al+, *P.BW, *P.WeC, *P.BW, P.Pi-... P.AI+ not preceded by *P,AI -- should be *P.Pi, *P,AI, P.Al+, *P.BW, *P.WeC, *P.BW, P.Pi- For season 3, 4, 5 and 6 there are only appearances and affected persons noted that trigger the next event. *P.Al and *P.Tr were not mentioned therefore.
RAZD writes: There are actually several levels of ambiguity that I can see: All this rules were created for the first three seasons of the data source and has no predictive power for this first part of the data source.
RAZD writes: Does *P.Wo as Lt Worf shooting a *P.Wo as a "hostile alien" count as P.Wo-? If there are more than 13 persons, then a 14th person can appear as an already present person. For example P.Wo.
RAZD writes: Does the sequence {*P.AI, P.Wo+} mean that P.Wo was one of "more than five" people but only he was affected or even that P.Wo was a "hostile alien" in the group of "more than five" people. No.
RAZD writes: one that is so flexible that it covers thousands of different sequences of diverse things Yes, and it also doesn't fit with thousands of different sequences of diverse things. For two sequences that fit, there is about one sequence that doesn't fit. Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024