RAZD writes:
The opening credits are strict formula with the theremin-like music and the intoning of the stock
"Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."
The opening credits and not included, they are always the same. They start at (03:00-07:00). Only the first two minutes are mostly quantised.
RAZD writes:
Again I disagree. The "teasers" for mystery shows are pretty formulaic in previewing who is going to be charged (wrongly) with what crime, for example.
To make a claim of expectation of variation you would need to provide evidence that this was the case, not a calculation showing there is a pattern and an assumption that there should not be one.
Beginnings that highly differ:
3x01: starts with someone sleeping
3x02: starts with a concert
3x06: starts on a beach
3x10: starts with reciting a novel
3x14: starts in an art class
3x15: starts in a bar
3x19: starts without the main cast
3x21: starts with a caricature of reality
4x06: starts with poker
4x08: starts with a birthday party
4x10: starts with a psychological counselling meeting
4x13: starts with reciting an other novel
4x14: starts with random leisure activities
4x15: starts in a hospital
4x18: starts with viewing an old video
4x19: starts with reciting a third novel
4x21: starts with an interrogation
4x23: starts in a shuttle
The three other series don't have teasers and an other main cast.
RAZD writes:
Well I for one am still having some trouble figuring out what your pattern is, as it seems you have made your discussion of it very complex, imho.
Let's pretend that I am very simple minded, a doddering old man or a young child, and you are trying to explain to me what the pattern is: use words and try to be as explicit as you can be.
If I can go back to my tree ring example I can see the most recent rings from the older chronology making this pattern:
{}BABBABCCBCBACB ...(etc)
Every appearance will be quantified. A pattern like this can emerge in 4 different episodes:
*P.Pi, *P.Ri,....................
*P.LF, *P.Wo, *P.Tr, *P.Wo, *P.Tr,
*P.Da, *P.Ya
*P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.Pi, *P.Ri,
*P.LF, *P.Wo,...............................
*P.Da, *P.LF
*P.Ya,............................
*P.LF, *P.Tr,..................................
*P.Da, *P.Ya
*P.Ya, *P.Ri, *P.Ya,.........
*P.LF, *P.Wo,...............................
*P.Da, *P.LF
This is rather obviously a distinct pattern. It can be divided into different parts called "events"
E1: *P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.Ya can appear, no one else
E2: *P.LF can appear, no one else
E3: *P.Wo, *P.Tr can appear, no one else
E4: *P.Da can appear, no one else
E5: *P.LF, *P.Ya can appear, no one else
with E1->E2->E3->E4->E5
This pattern was created from 4 episodes. Now it is tested on 10 more episodes and does fit with 9 episode and doesn't fit with one episode. That is already a good fit for the distinct pattern. To exclude that the pattern is not only that random that it would fit always, it is tested on a random data source. The episodes have opening credits that always end at different times. Therefore the pattern is tested at this later starting point with 10 episode. This time the pattern does fit 3 times and doesn't 7 times. The probability for the pattern to be caused through random data is 0.3. Therefore the pattern is distinct enough to not only fit with every random data source. How likely it is that only a random fluctuation would yield a distinct pattern like that can be calculated with the probability mass function.
Appearances that doesn't fit:
*P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.Wo??
*P.Pi, *P.LF, *P.Ri??
*P.Pi, *P.LF, *P.Wo, *P.LF??
*P.Pi, *P.LF, {*P.Wo??, *P.LF}
For the actual pattern were also P.Pi+, P.Pi- and 12 additional observations quantised. The pattern was created out of season 1, 3 and 4. Afterwards it was tested on season 5 and 6 (95% fit) and a random data source (63% fit). For three other series the pattern was tested for, the pattern did fit 66 times and didn't fit 1 time.
RAZD writes:
If you think you can remove elements and still maintain your pattern then they are not essential to the pattern and should NOT be included in the profile/s
You could be right about that. For example it should be easily possible to remove "green", "big/wide/a lot", "lack of knowledge", "do nothing", "very old", "standby", "science", "stone", "death" and "4" without affecting anything. Only to remove "holiday" and "starships" would change something. There are often similarities like "a science starship" or similarities between "very old" and "death" therefore I added them there. The removable elements appear also at the events of P.Al, but they don't cause a next event, therefore it is unimportant if they are a part of P.Al or not. To observe the behaviour of these elements I preliminary added them to P.Al.
"holiday" and "starships" was added to P.Al to make it fit with season 1, 3 and 4. It should not affect the distinctness of the pattern for season 5 and 6 therefore. Even if so, it would not significantly reduce the certainty about the pattern. 5.3 sigma is a very high certainty.
RAZD writes:
Can you envisage an introductory "teaser" segment that does NOT include a "person" appearing in the opening seconds?
A new event wouldn't be triggered until a person appears.
ThinAirDesigns writes:
Dubreuil, what is your experience in the industry of TV? Do you have any? Have you been trained in writing or producing scripts? Do you have some related expertise to help support the many assertions you are making about the way TV shows are constructed?
No. I referred to
Cold open - Wikipedia and the mathematics about the pattern.
RAZD writes:
or not. That is not an explanation based on knowledge of the cause, but an argument based on the absence of knowledge of the cause, and the presumptive assumption of an unknown causal agent. Also called "wishful thinking."
The pattern has a high residual uncertainty. Random effects or random preferences by one of the hundred persons that were involved in it would cause more episodes to not fit with the pattern and drastically reduce the certainty about it. The involvement of chance would normally prevent patterns like this. Chance itself also wasn't the cause as calculated with the probability mass function. It is true that this doesn't exactly demonstrate the presence of ID, but it points to something unknown, a force or bias that creates nontrivial structures out of chance/nowhere. That's what the ID proponents claim, that the origin and evolution of life needs an additional information creating process because they can't believe it happened naturally. I wasn't concerned long enough with the origin and evolution of life to be able to tell if this claims have any substance.
™ Version 4.2