Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 136 of 393 (755572)
04-09-2015 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Dr Adequate
04-08-2015 6:48 PM


Re: Interim Summary
Dr Adequate writes:
Let me try and set out the problems in your work as I see them.
Thanks for giving an actually reasoned comment, Dr Adequate. You maybe know that you also should take part in a discussion if you started to comment about it at all. For example "ThinAirDesigns" and "Cat Sci" didn't answered the questions I directly asked them. Regarding to your comment there will be a few question at the end I directly ask to you (marked by a "?"). If you are not answering to the clarification about your comment, then there can be no discussion about this topic. The fact that you made a reasoned comment about it at all, makes me optimistic that you will want to do so.
Dr Adequate writes:
Statistical methods are good for sorting out signal from noise, causation from randomness. But you are for some reason trying to do something else: to sort out a signal from a signal, and an intelligent cause from an intelligent cause.
I agree partly. The data source actually contains signals that were created by human intentions. But there were different data sources examined. From [Msg=78]: "The genre, setting and charakteres are different for all 4 examined series. The episodes would be differently constrained and different patterns would emerge. The editors, directors, and producers were different for all 4 examined series. The episodes would be differently constrained and different patterns would emerge.". They were all created differently, a signal created by human intention or other constraints would not have a significant importance on a comprehensive data source like that. At List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes - Wikipedia you see that nearly every episode was written by someone else and the actual signal would be every time an other one. Not only the episodes differ highly at the beginning ([Msg=120]), they were also written by different people (USA, England, Japan, India) in different times (1980-2015). What was done, is to compare a lot of independent signals for a common pattern with that all this signals can be described with.
Dr Adequate writes:
Why not work with a sequence that is in fact randomly generated? Try tossing a coin a hundred times, but first pray to your "triune god" that it should always come up heads. When you can get that to work, let's talk.
I actually referred to this in the paper. From page 2: "Bit strings are not suited to examine them for preferences and avoidance because they consist of only two digits. ". But the example you name is similar to what was done. In [Msg=14] I referred to this example with 100 coin tosses. I will come back to that below.
Dr Adequate writes:
Calculating the odds of you finding the patterns you did in fact find is the wrong calculation. What you need to do is to calculate the chances of getting any pattern that you'd have found equally impressive.
It was a proof of existence, not a proof of impressiveness. For the Higgs boson the physicist didn't calculated the probability of finding a particle they would have found equally impressive: Higgs boson: scientists 99.999% sure 'God Particle' has been found . They calculated the residual uncertainty about it, not its impressiveness. The made calculation were solely a proof of existence with a similar residual uncertainty.
Dr Adequate writes:
By analogy, suppose a guy prays for a miracle and then draws four cards from a deck, and they come out as a 5, 6, 7, 8, in that order. "A miracle!", he cries, "what are the odds of that!" And he calculates the odds and they are indeed quite long. But he'd also have been equally impressed if it had been 2, 3, 4, 5, or 2, 4, 6, 8, or all the kings, or all the 7s, or his birthdate, and so on. What he should be calculating are the odds of him getting anything that would make him shout "A miracle!" These odds against this are much shorter.
I totally agree with you. The pattern was created to fit with season 1,3,4 and has no statistical significance for this part of the data source. That the pattern was solely created out of this part of the data source is proved in table 5 on page 8 in the paper. If anyone insists, then I can post an image of it here. It is a giant table with a lot of numbers. If the pattern would have been created for the whole data source, then it would have no statistical significance. But it was solely created for the the first part of it and then tested on all other parts of the whole data source. To come back to this example:
Dr Adequate writes:
Try tossing a coin a hundred times, but first pray to your "triune god" that it should always come up heads. When you can get that to work, let's talk.
The pattern was tested 47 times for a data source it was not created for. It did fit 45 times and didn't fit 2 times. That's not like a 100 times fit out of 100 times but it is close. That the probability for the pattern to be caused through chance is 0.625, was shown in a test with a random starting time. For a coin toss it would be 0.5. You will find it also explained like this in [Msg=14].
Dr Adequate writes:
You got to decide yourself what would fall into what category. There's no reason a priori why we should class Romulans with the color silver, or that lack of knowledge should be classed with the number 4. You didn't decide on this classification scheme before you'd ever watched Star Trek, did you?
As stated before, it was made like this to make it fit with the first part of the data source and has no statistical significance for this part. You can examine the fifth table on your own. All parts of the pattern were created out of the first part.
Dr Adequate writes:
In every one I could identify something black. Do you have a rigid objective criterion for when this counts as P.BW?
It is black and white. Next to each other, not separately. For example a black gadget with white stripes or a white gadget with black stripes would be a criterion like this.
Dr Adequate writes:
This is a problem. Given the latitude to create arbitrary classes ad hoc and to decide for myself what falls into those classes, I could prove any number of things similar or indeed identical according to my classification scheme.
I agree. Maybe there actually could be an arbitrary pattern created for every possible data source. But the pattern was only created for one part of the data source as shown in the big fifth table on page 8.
Dr Adequate writes:
Finally, as I have pointed out, this isn't remotely evidence for a triune god, because we have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
You maybe mistake mathematical arguments with theological arguments. Please answer the following questions to enable me to comprehend your argumentation.
You said: "Try tossing a coin a hundred times, but first pray to your "triune god" that it should always come up heads. When you can get that to work, let's talk.". If this would happen, would it be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
If someone prays to a "triune god" to be able to walk again and it works, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
If someone prays to a "triune god" to get his limbs back he lost in a war before and it works, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
If every Christian is healed from every sickness he has, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
You also could be mistaken about what the things are he'd do. I doubt that you can have knowledge about everything God would do, if you assume God exists.
Thus far to what you wrote until now.
You seemingly didn't read the paper, but if you participate in an extended discussion you might also understand it without reading it.
ThinAirDesigns writes:
Math requires good inputs and without them all is lost
I agree. Because of that the whole data source was quantised with the rules you find in [Msg=28].
ThinAirDesigns writes:
You admittedly have no experience in the TV broadcast business and thus have no clue how patterns arise in that industry.
It doesn't matter whether I know how patterns arise or not, if I know that they have arose. The pattern has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. That means that the existence of the found pattern is ten million times likelier than its non-existence. You have agreed before about the patterns existence, or has that changed now?
ThinAirDesigns writes:
Natural forces don't just take a hiatus when chance is also involved. Chance and natural forces are simply two inputs into a given outcome.
You didn't answered the four questions I asked you. It is claimed that the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.. Chance and natural forces are two inputs into a given outcome, but the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. If you disagree, then you should be able to answer on of this questions with No:
1. Do you agree there is an coincidental contribution?
2. Do you agree that a coincidental contribution will change the row of appearances?
3. Do you agree that a change in the row of appearances will cause the pattern to not fit sometimes?
4. Do you agree that if the pattern doesn't fit that often, then the pattern will have only a low residual uncertainty like 1:10^2?
If you can't do that, then the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.. If you disagree, then refer to the arguments that are discussed, don't just ignore them as the other arguments before: [Msg=128].

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2015 6:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-09-2015 2:08 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-09-2015 3:02 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 137 of 393 (755575)
04-09-2015 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Dubreuil
04-09-2015 1:48 PM


Re: Interim Summary
Dubreuil writes:
It doesn't matter whether I know how patterns arise or not, if I know that they have arose.
Nonsense -- because you DO claim to know how they arose. You have been saying it's proof of a triune god since you arrived here.
What you have said above simply blows your entire paper out of the water. If you're here to merely demonstrate that patterns exist, then big woopy doo, but contrary to your above statement it DOES matter how they arose if you're actually attempting to prove the point of your paper.
Turns out, there's a much simply explanation for your patterns, but you might need knowledge of the industry to recognize it. You have made this mistake over and over in your posts where you dismiss the possibility of patterns introduced through industry norms and human involvement - such as your nonsense regarding teasers.
You didn't answered the four questions I asked you. It is claimed that the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.. Chance and natural forces are two inputs into a given outcome, but the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. If you disagree, then you should be able to answer on of this questions with No:
1. Do you agree there is an coincidental contribution?
2. Do you agree that a coincidental contribution will change the row of appearances?
3. Do you agree that a change in the row of appearances will cause the pattern to not fit sometimes?
4. Do you agree that if the pattern doesn't fit that often, then the pattern will have only a low residual uncertainty like 1:10^2?
If you can't do that, then the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.. If you disagree, then refer to the arguments that are discussed, don't just ignore them as the other arguments before:
No.
I'll decide how much time I spend on your nonsense, and as long as you are spewing fundamental nonsense, it won't be much.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Dubreuil, posted 04-09-2015 1:48 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 138 of 393 (755576)
04-09-2015 2:29 PM


Worked Example
Let's look at the sort of decisions you get to make. You have shown the nature of these decision more clearly in your appendices than in your main articles, so I'll look at that:
When Jesus [*P.Je] had left the house of the ruler Jairus [*P.Ja], there followed him two blind men [P.B1-, P.B2-, *P.B1, *P.B2].
Blind man 1: Thou, Son of David, have mercy upon us. Give us our sight.
Jesus: Do you believe me that I have power to cure you and give you sight.?
Blind man 2: Yes my Lord. [P.Je+]
Then he touched their eyes, and said to them;
Jesus: According to your faith, so be it unto you. [P.Je+]
They slowly opened their eyes and were able to see. [P.B1+, P.B2+]
Blind man 1: Oh! our saviour, I am able to see you. [P.B1+, *P.Je]
Blind Man 2: What a miracle? I am able to see. [P.B2+]
Jesus: Do not tell this to any one what I had done.
Saying so, Jesus left the place. [P.Je-]
Blind man 1: You know Jesus [*P.Je] cured us from blindness. [P.B1+, P.B2+, *P.Je]
Blind man 2: He is my lord, I glorified him [P.Je+] he is the one who gave me vision by grace.
Now, there are so many subjective decisions here that it is going to be boring and tedious for me to list them all. I shall focus on the way you award + and - to each person.
Jesus leaves the house of Jarius. Now, it's sad when you say goodbye to a friend. So this is arguably P.Je-, but you didn't class it as such.
Now, Jarius had as his houseguest the most amazing person who ever lived. who was God incarnate, and now he's leaving him behind, never to return. Isn't that P.Ja-? But you don't class it as such.
Then he meets the two blind men. You class this as P.B1-, PB2-, although the text doesn't say that they were suddenly struck blind at this point. They were not "negatively affected", they already had their handicap.
Arguably you could have classed this as P.B1+, P.B2+. These blind men have met Jesus. What could be more amazing? They are positively affected. But you write it down as - because they've been blind for a long time, rather than writing + because they've met God incarnate and the one person who can heal them.
Then the first blind man glorifies Jesus, calling him "Son of David" and you don't class it as P.Je+, even though you're going to class it as P.Je+ a few sentences later. I'll come back to this, it's the most flagrant example of your methods.
Then the first blind man says "Oh! our saviour, I am able to see you." And according to your classification, this is not P.Je+. Jesus has successfully healed the blind man, and is praised for it as "our saviour", and yet that's not a + for Jesus, according to you.
Then the second blind man exclaims "What a miracle? I am able to see." Stilll not P.Je+.
Then Jesus says "Do not tell this to any one what I had done." Doesn't that count as P.B1-, or P.B2-, or most especially P.Al-?
Then Jesus leaves. He does so, presumably, because he wants to, and yet you classify this as P.Je-. Why? And consequently, the blind men are deprived of his company, their savior, God incarnate, and yet you don't class this as P.B1- and P.B2-.
Then the first blind man remarks that "Jesus cured us from blindness." You have decided that this should be P.Je+, but the point at which the first blind man said "Oh! our saviour, I am able to see you." is not P.Je+. Apparently when the blind man looks back at his cure, when Jesus is no longer there, that's P.Je+, but when he acknowledges his cure when Jesus is there, that's not P.Je+. Surely if anything it should be the other way round.
Then blind man #2 remarks that "He is my lord, I glorified him [P.Je+] he is the one who gave me vision by grace." So this counts as P.Je+ because blind man #2 is reminiscing abut how he glorified Jesus in the past, but it didn't could as P.Je+ when blind man #2 actually glorified him by saying "What a miracle? I am able to see." And also, it doesn't count as P.B2+ when he reminisces about Jesus healing him. P.Je+, yes. P.B2+, no. When he says (looking back) "I glorified him", that's P.Je+. But when he says (looking back) Jesus "gave me vision by grace" that's not P.B2+. Why not?
So, there are two things that we might think about this:
THING 1: Perhaps your patterns would work equally either way. Perhaps you'd be able to find a pattern just as well if we declared that Jesus leaving the house of Jarius was P.Ja- and that the second blind man remembering his cure was P.B2+, and so on. But in that case your pattern is defined so broadly that it is not strange or at all impressive that we can find the pattern.
THING 2: But perhaps your pattern is very narrowly defined. But in that case, we would suspect that you have made your decisions in order to fit the pattern. As I have shown, many of your assignments of + and - could plausibly be made very differently. It's not cut and dried like deciding whether a coin came down heads or tails. You get to decide in a fairly arbitrary way whether each instance should be classified as +, -, or neutral. Given this freedom of decision, you can make the decisions which fit your pattern. In that case it is not strange or at all impressive that you can find your pattern.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 139 of 393 (755577)
04-09-2015 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Dubreuil
04-09-2015 1:48 PM


Re: Interim Summary
I agree partly. The data source actually contains signals that were created by human intentions.
So you are still in the position of trying to separate a signal from a signal, and trying to distinguish intelligent design from intelligent design.
Why don't you look at a source that we would truly expect to be random? Take your classes of P.Ya and M10 and P.BW and so forth, write them on bits of paper, put them into a bowl, draw them randomly out of the bowl, and see if you get the same results. A fortiori, if God can deprive the scriptwriters of Star Trek of their free will in order to create statistical anomalies, he could do the same for you.
I actually referred to this in the paper. From page 2: "Bit strings are not suited to examine them for preferences and avoidance because they consist of only two digits. "
But the stuff after "because" is not a reason. God could as well fiddle with the results of a coin toss as with anything else.
But if you really don't like "two digits", then again I propose the test I just proposed. Write "P.Pi" and "M5" and "P.Ya" and so forth on bits of paper and draw them randomly. See how that turns out.
It was a proof of existence, not a proof of impressiveness. For the Higgs boson the physicist didn't calculated the probability of finding a particle they would have found equally impressive: 404. They calculated the residual uncertainty about it, not its impressiveness. The made calculation were solely a proof of existence with a similar residual uncertainty.
I don't think you understand science at all. Read my comment again.
The pattern was tested 47 times for a data source it was not created for.
But the pattern was created so broadly as to fit the data source it was created for. Once you have created something so broad and loose that it will fit seasons 1, 3 and 4, I would not be at all surprised if it fit season 5 as well. By analogy, if you can find something that is true of three randomly selected men, let's call them Tom, Dick, and Harry, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was also true of George.
If someone prays to a "triune god" to be able to walk again and it works, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
If someone prays to a "triune god" to get his limbs back he lost in a war before and it works, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
If every Christian is healed from every sickness he has, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
We would indeed expect God to perform healing miracles, since that is exactly what he is reputed to do. According to the Bible, God does indeed perform miraculous healing as a result of prayers issued by the faithful. I do expect that if Jesus was God, then his statement "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven" would be true. I do not expect that if there was a god, he'd spend his time fiddling with Star Trek scripts when no-one even petitioned him to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Dubreuil, posted 04-09-2015 1:48 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 140 of 393 (755580)
04-09-2015 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dubreuil
04-08-2015 4:46 PM


Re: still not clear here, so let's try again, consolodating event 1
Slowly getting there
RAZD writes:
So you only start the "pattern" when a person appears. In other words, "yes" the first element is "a person appears" ...
It can also start with M1, M2, ..., M14 at E1, E3, E4 or E5.
Let's go back a bit and stick to just event 1 for now.
RAZD writes:
So am I correct that each of the following sequences of appearances would fit this "pattern" ...
Yes, it all fits with the exemplary pattern E1 to E5. The actual pattern E1 to E15 is shown in table 4 on page 5.
E1 would be:
Event 1: appearance of ∈ {P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7, M13}, singly and/or with multiple interactions between them,
and
∈ {P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-}
Excellent. So there are 19 elements included in ∈ {P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7, M13}, and ∈ {P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-}, that can occur singly and/or with multiple interactions between them, ...
... and the number of possible permutations for event 1 are at least:
(1x19!) + (19x18!) + (171x17!) + (969x16!) + (3876x15!) + (11628x14!) + (27132x13! + (50388x12!} + (75582x11!) + (92378x10!) + (92378x9!) + (75582x8!) + (50388x7!) + (27132x6!) + (11628x5!) + (11628x4!) + (969x3!) + (171x2!) + (19x1!) = ~3.3 x 10^17
... because multiple appearances of elements are not included in this calculation.
Would you agree that there is a high probability that event #1 occurs?
Can you tell me how many elements do not qualify for event #1? ...
.... or is this the point in the "teaser" that you initialize\start your "pattern" (in which case the probability of it occurring in the "pattern" is 1.0 by definition) -- the "red car" used to start your count of passing cars.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dubreuil, posted 04-08-2015 4:46 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


(1)
Message 141 of 393 (755660)
04-10-2015 1:00 PM


RAZD writes:
Can you tell me how many elements do not qualify for event #1?
There are 32 elements that can't occur at E1. These are: {*P.BeC, *P.En, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, M3, M4, M10, M11, M12, M14} and {P.Al+, P.BeC+, P.BeC-, P.BW-, P.Da+, P.Da-, P.En+, P.En-, P.LF+, P.LF-. P.Pi+, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.Ri-, P.Tr-, P.WeC+, P.Wo+, P.Wo-, P.WSA+, P.WSA-, P.Ya+, P.Ya-}
RAZD writes:
Would you agree that there is a high probability that event #1 occurs?
Yes, there is a high probability that a first event fits. That the whole pattern fits in a row is less likely.
The example from Message 28:
Row of appearances:
*P.Al, {*P.Tr, *P.Ri}, *P.Pi, M13, *P.Al, *P.Mi, *P.Ri, *P.Tr, *P.Mi, *P.Pi, *P.Tr, P.Tr-
E1: *P.Al, {*P.Tr, *P.Ri??}
E3: *P.Al, {*P.Tr, *P.Ri}, *P.Pi, M13??
E4: *P.Al, {*P.Tr??, *P.Ri}
E5: *P.Al??
{} means that both persons appear at the same moment together.
The pattern can start often at E1, but doesn't fit later. The pattern has to fit with all events up to E15 to completely fit. First *P.Al appears and then P.Tr and P.Ri at the same time. P.Tr can appear at E1 and P.Ri can appear at E2, but they can't appear together. From the possible starts E1, E3, E4 and E5 is only E3 possible because both persons can appear there together (table 4: E3 on page 5). *P.Pi is allowed at E3, therefore E3 remains the current event. M13 is not allowed at E3. The next possible events after E3 are E4 or E9 (Figure 1 on page 6) but M13 can't appear there too. Therefore the whole pattern doesn't fit. Only if all events up to E15 fit, then the whole pattern does fit.
An other example form page 13 in the paper:
Row of appearances:
*P.Al, *P.Pi, *P.Al, *P.BW, *P.Al, {*P.Ri, *P.BeC}, *P.Tr, *P.Al, P.Ri-, *P.LF, *P.Ri, M13, *P.Tr, M13, *P.BeC, M4, P.Ri+, *P.Tr, *P.Ri, M3, *P.Ya, *P.Pi, *P.Da, M14
For E1, E3 and E5:
E1: *P.Al, *P.Pi, *P.Al, *P.BW, *P.Al /E2: {*P.Ri, *P.BeC} /E3: *P.Tr, *P.Al, P.Ri-??
E3: *P.Al, *P.Pi, *P.Al, *P.BW, *P.Al /E9: {*P.Ri, *P.BeC}, *P.Tr, *P.Al, P.Ri-??
E5: *P.Al??
Only E4 is a possible start therefore:
E4: *P.Al /E5: *P.Pi /E6: *P.Al /E7: *P.BW, *P.Al, {*P.Ri, *P.BeC}, *P.Tr, *P.Al /E8: P.Ri-, *P.LF, M13, *P.Tr, M13 /E9: *P.BeC, M4 /E11: P.Ri+ /E12: *P.Tr /E13: *P.Ri /E14: M3, *P.Ya, *P.Pi, *P.Da /E15: M14
As shown, the whole pattern fits here.
ThinAirDesigns writes:
Nonsense -- because you DO claim to know how they arose. You have been saying it's proof of a triune god since you arrived here.
What you have said above simply blows your entire paper out of the water. If you're here to merely demonstrate that patterns exist, then big woopy doo, but contrary to your above statement it DOES matter how they arose if you're actually attempting to prove the point of your paper.
For the "proof of a triune god", how you call it, it doesn't matter how they arose. Even it they arose through industry norms and human involvement, how you claim, then it would be remarkable that industry norms are outlined in a way, that they proof a triune God, how you call it. Similar for all other human involvement. The residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 about this was shown in the paper.
ThinAirDesigns writes:
You didn't answered the four questions I asked you. It is claimed that the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.. Chance and natural forces are two inputs into a given outcome, but the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. If you disagree, then you should be able to answer on of this questions with No:
1. Do you agree there is an coincidental contribution?
2. Do you agree that a coincidental contribution will change the row of appearances?
3. Do you agree that a change in the row of appearances will cause the pattern to not fit sometimes?
4. Do you agree that if the pattern doesn't fit that often, then the pattern will have only a low residual uncertainty like 1:10^2?
If you can't do that, then the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.. If you disagree, then refer to the arguments that are discussed, don't just ignore them as the other arguments before:
No.
I'll decide how much time I spend on your nonsense, and as long as you are spewing fundamental nonsense, it won't be much.
No to what? You already agreed to question 1. in Message 133, that chance is involved. This is the second time you didn't answered to this questions.
I will not longer bother with your opinion. You are not even able to answer simple question. You also keep to repeat your claims without referring to the counterarguments that were already made about the constraints and one common pattern: Message 128.
Dr Adequate writes:
I shall focus on the way you award + and - to each person.
How + and - are awarded to each person was shown on page 6 in a first example and later in Appendix A with further examples. The paper was written to be understood by a reviewer, who actually spent some time with it and has also examined some examples from Appendix A. You seemingly haven't done that, but I will explain it to you.
Dr Adequate writes:
Jesus leaves the house of Jarius. Now, it's sad when you say goodbye to a friend. So this is arguably P.Je-, but you didn't class it as such.
It is not mentioned that anyone is sad. It is not mentioned that they are good friends. It is not mentioned that they are sad about saying goodbye.
Dr Adequate writes:
Now, Jarius had as his houseguest the most amazing person who ever lived. who was God incarnate, and now he's leaving him behind, never to return. Isn't that P.Ja-? But you don't class it as such.
It is not mentioned that anyone is sad. It is not mentioned that he leaves to never return.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then he meets the two blind men. You class this as P.B1-, PB2-, although the text doesn't say that they were suddenly struck blind at this point. They were not "negatively affected", they already had their handicap.
Arguably you could have classed this as P.B1+, P.B2+. These blind men have met Jesus. What could be more amazing? They are positively affected. But you write it down as - because they've been blind for a long time, rather than writing + because they've met God incarnate and the one person who can heal them.
P.B1-, PB2- is not about them being blind only. It's about them being blind and walking helpless on the street. They are affected negatively by their helplessness through their blindness in this situation.
It is not mentioned that they are amazed.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then the first blind man glorifies Jesus, calling him "Son of David" and you don't class it as P.Je+, even though you're going to class it as P.Je+ a few sentences later.
"Son of David" is just another name he is called. You are called "Dr Adequate", but no one glorifies you with that.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then the first blind man says "Oh! our saviour, I am able to see you." And according to your classification, this is not P.Je+. Jesus has successfully healed the blind man, and is praised for it as "our saviour", and yet that's not a + for Jesus, according to you.
It's also only an other name as "lord" later.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then the second blind man exclaims "What a miracle? I am able to see." Stilll not P.Je+.
He is astonished. Confusion doesn't justify P.Je+.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then Jesus says "Do not tell this to any one what I had done." Doesn't that count as P.B1-, or P.B2-, or most especially P.Al-?
It is not mentioned that anyone is sorrowful about this.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then Jesus leaves. He does so, presumably, because he wants to, and yet you classify this as P.Je-. Why?
It's not about leaving. You should had read the appending text to understand this. It's about intentionally ignoring what he has asked them for.
Dr Adequate writes:
And consequently, the blind men are deprived of his company, their savior, God incarnate, and yet you don't class this as P.B1- and P.B2-.
They are ambivalent about the person Jesus. They intentionally ignored what Jesus asked them for. It is not mentioned that they are sad about this. They stand unconcerned in front of a crowd shortly after.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then the first blind man remarks that "Jesus cured us from blindness." You have decided that this should be P.Je+, but the point at which the first blind man said "Oh! our saviour, I am able to see you." is not P.Je+. Apparently when the blind man looks back at his cure, when Jesus is no longer there, that's P.Je+, but when he acknowledges his cure when Jesus is there, that's not P.Je+. Surely if anything it should be the other way round.
You have mistaken this. "cured us from blindness. [P.B1+, P.B2+, *P.Je]" doesn't contain P.Je+.
Dr Adequate writes:
Then blind man #2 remarks that "He is my lord, I glorified him [P.Je+] he is the one who gave me vision by grace." So this counts as P.Je+ because blind man #2 is reminiscing abut how he glorified Jesus in the past, but it didn't could as P.Je+ when blind man #2 actually glorified him by saying "What a miracle? I am able to see."
One time he commended Jesus in front of a crowd and one time he didn't commended anything.
Dr Adequate writes:
And also, it doesn't count as P.B2+ when he reminisces about Jesus healing him. P.Je+, yes. P.B2+, no. When he says (looking back) "I glorified him", that's P.Je+. But when he says (looking back) Jesus "gave me vision by grace" that's not P.B2+. Why not?
The row of appearances was only examined until ", I glorified him [P.Je+]". There are no more comments because E15 was already passed at this point.
Dr Adequate writes:
But perhaps your pattern is very narrowly defined. But in that case, we would suspect that you have made your decisions in order to fit the pattern. As I have shown, many of your assignments of + and - could plausibly be made very differently. It's not cut and dried like deciding whether a coin came down heads or tails. You get to decide in a fairly arbitrary way whether each instance should be classified as +, -, or neutral. Given this freedom of decision, you can make the decisions which fit your pattern. In that case it is not strange or at all impressive that you can find your pattern.
+ and - are not that important. With the random data source the pattern did fit with 15 episodes and didn't fit with 9 episodes. For the 9 episodes that didn't fit were + and - only 4 times of importance (1x04, 1x05, 1x21, 1x23) at all. And it is not arbitrary to decide for + or - anyway, as shown.
Dr Adequate writes:
So you are still in the position of trying to separate a signal from a signal, and trying to distinguish intelligent design from intelligent design.
Why don't you look at a source that we would truly expect to be random? Take your classes of P.Ya and M10 and P.BW and so forth, write them on bits of paper, put them into a bowl, draw them randomly out of the bowl, and see if you get the same results. A fortiori, if God can deprive the scriptwriters of Star Trek of their free will in order to create statistical anomalies, he could do the same for you.
That's easy to tell: ID claims (title of the paper: "About testing Intelligent Design at the present time ...") that living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Evolution takes a long time to proceed, therefore it can't be tested. But there are evolution-like processes it can be tested on. There were different constraints in evolution and every animal wanted to survive. For the current data source there are also different constraints and everyone wanted his or her script to survive. If a common signal can be retrieved that underlies all other signals and that would be normally corrupted by chance, then it is possible that it also underlies evolution, if it already underlies evolution-like processes. Or do you have a better idea how to test ID at the present time?
Dr Adequate writes:
I don't think you understand science at all
I don't think you read the paper. If you had read the paper, then I wouldn't have to correct the most parts of your comments. You should read the paper first before you make unreasond comments.
Dr Adequate writes:
But the pattern was created so broadly as to fit the data source it was created for. Once you have created something so broad and loose that it will fit seasons 1, 3 and 4, I would not be at all surprised if it fit season 5 as well. By analogy, if you can find something that is true of three randomly selected men, let's call them Tom, Dick, and Harry, then I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was also true of George.
You would know that this isn't true, if you had read Message 14 or Message 120 or page 6 in the paper. From Message 120: "To exclude that the pattern is not only that random that it would fit always, it is tested on a random data source.". With randomised starting times the pattern did fit with 15 episodes and didn't fit with 9 episode. Therefore the probability for the pattern to be caused through random data is 0.625. The probability for the pattern to be caused at (00:00) is 0.95. This repeated itself 45 out of 47 times and resulted in the residual uncertainty about the pattern of 1:10^7.
Dr Adequate writes:
If someone prays to a "triune god" to be able to walk again and it works, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
If someone prays to a "triune god" to get his limbs back he lost in a war before and it works, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
If every Christian is healed from every sickness he has, would that be an evidence? We have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
We would indeed expect God to perform healing miracles, since that is exactly what he is reputed to do. According to the Bible, God does indeed perform miraculous healing as a result of prayers issued by the faithful. I do expect that if Jesus was God, then his statement "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven" would be true. I do not expect that if there was a god, he'd spend his time fiddling with Star Trek scripts when no-one even petitioned him to do so.
First you actually have not answered the questions. I didn't asked about two or more persons praying, I asked about one person praying. You can also say: "Because God hasn't done that recently, it's obvious that this is not the sort of thing he'd do.". What's about other miracles like: Marian apparition - Wikipedia. Do you declare everyone who believes in a God contrary to your imagination as dumb? I disagree with your opinion, but it is only an theological argument anyway. According to the Bible God created the world in 6 days and there was no one who expected from him to do so.
.
A summary until now: I will now stop commenting for a few days. Then everyone who is interested in the paper or this discussion has the opportunity to read it. Until know it was only discussed about 3 pages of the "Proving the pattern" section of the paper. With the ongoing discussion the other 5 pages of this section have to be discussed then too. The reference about a triune God was mentioned a few times by me: Message 39, Message 90, Message 111 but until now "Dr Adequate" was the only one who disagreed, because he literally can't image that it would be something God would do, to create a reference with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3. The arguments until now mostly lacked knowledge about the paper. I will comment again next week and hopefully there will be other persons here who became familiar with the paper or this discussion and participate then in the discussion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2015 5:58 PM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 146 by RAZD, posted 04-13-2015 3:07 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 142 of 393 (755690)
04-10-2015 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dubreuil
04-10-2015 1:00 PM


The reference about a triune God was mentioned a few times by me: Message 39, Message 90, Message 111 but until now "Dr Adequate" was the only one who disagreed, because he literally can't image that it would be something God would do ...
This is, of course, not true. It is wildly and bizarrely untrue.
I never said that I couldn't imagine God doing such a thing. I said that I have no expectation that God would do such a thing.
If you find that you need to defend your opinions with flat and egregious falsehoods, then this is kind of a hint that your opinions are not all that good.
---
I may come back to your other shifty equivocations later. Right now I am frankly too annoyed by your flagrant dishonesty to keep my temper.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dubreuil, posted 04-10-2015 1:00 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dubreuil, posted 04-13-2015 11:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 143 of 393 (755911)
04-13-2015 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Dr Adequate
04-10-2015 5:58 PM


Wow. Really? We are now discussing only about theological arguments? No one else who wants to disagree with any part of the paper? I expected that because all other person (partly acquaintances, partly a few id proponents) who have looked at the paper also wasn't able to refute the paper. But I didn't expected that to happen that fast here. Well, if someone still have question, then I still will answer them.
Dr Adequate writes:
This is, of course, not true. It is wildly and bizarrely untrue.
I never said that I couldn't imagine God doing such a thing. I said that I have no expectation that God would do such a thing.
If you find that you need to defend your opinions with flat and egregious falsehoods, then this is kind of a hint that your opinions are not all that good.
Well, you didn't answered the questions. I asked you about one person, but you only responded about two or more persons. You might apologise that I wasn't able to understand you correctly. If you would answer the questions I asked you, then I could more easily understand your theological argument.
Dr Adequate writes:
I may come back to your other shifty equivocations later. Right now I am frankly too annoyed by your flagrant dishonesty to keep my temper.
That's kind of ironic. You already sound like an young earth creationist who wants to refute evolution because there might be shifty equivocations in it. I would like to hear what you claim to have found. But you should be aware that the pattern has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. If you actually are able to name a few shifty equivocations, then there would be still a high residual uncertainty with for example 1:10^5. However, I would like to hear what you claim to have found. I really don't need discussions about this paper, it's content was already verified, but not yet in a peer-review. I won't try to force anyone to join this discussion, if there are no more comments about it, then it's alright for me too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2015 5:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2015 11:56 AM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2015 9:38 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 144 of 393 (755914)
04-13-2015 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dubreuil
04-13-2015 11:40 AM


We are now discussing only about theological arguments? No one else who wants to disagree with any part of the paper?
Well, I've lost count of how many times you've repeatedly said that "the pattern has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7".
I don't care about the math behind the calculation if it isn't the right thing to calculate in the first place.
I doubt that calculation is appropriate or even all that meaningful. But you won't plainly talk to me about what the pattern is, all you're willing to do is quote yourself and point to your paper.
You said it was written to be reviewed, but you have to give a person a good enough reason to even start getting into the details so they know they aren't wasting their time. You don't seem to be willing to do that.
Well, if someone still have question, then I still will answer them.
Can you explain what the pattern is and why it is meaningful in plain English, without reference to your paper, and without pointing to the quantizations?
Just write it out like a conversation, as if you were having one with some random person on the street.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dubreuil, posted 04-13-2015 11:40 AM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dubreuil, posted 04-13-2015 2:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 145 of 393 (755928)
04-13-2015 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by New Cat's Eye
04-13-2015 11:56 AM


Cat Sci writes:
You said it was written to be reviewed, but you have to give a person a good enough reason to even start getting into the details so they know they aren't wasting their time. You don't seem to be willing to do that.
Reviewers receive their papers from journals. It's their job to review papers. No one here is, as far as I know, used to review papers. That's why I was sceptical about reviewing a paper here. That's just not going to work.
Cat Sci writes:
Can you explain what the pattern is and why it is meaningful in plain English, without reference to your paper, and without pointing to the quantizations?
Just write it out like a conversation, as if you were having one with some random person on the street.
I already had a conversation about this with RAZD. He had the maths knowledge to understand the answers and ask questions. Unfortunately I haven't enough time to explain it to someone completely new in maths and information science in "plain English". A book about mathematics or information science could comprise 10,000 pages in plain English and 100 pages with equations and quantisations. At least some prior knowledge is necessary to talk in an efficient way. That's sad, but can't be changed because of limited time resources.
Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2015 11:56 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2015 3:21 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 04-13-2015 7:24 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 146 of 393 (755929)
04-13-2015 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dubreuil
04-10-2015 1:00 PM


oops less clear now ...
Well I don't know if I am more confused rather than less confused by your further explanations ...
RAZD writes:
Can you tell me how many elements do not qualify for event #1?
There are 32 elements that can't occur at E1. These are: {*P.BeC, *P.En, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, M3, M4, M10, M11, M12, M14} and {P.Al+, P.BeC+, P.BeC-, P.BW-, P.Da+, P.Da-, P.En+, P.En-, P.LF+, P.LF-. P.Pi+, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.Ri-, P.Tr-, P.WeC+, P.Wo+, P.Wo-, P.WSA+, P.WSA-, P.Ya+, P.Ya-}
RAZD writes:
Would you agree that there is a high probability that event #1 occurs?
Yes, there is a high probability that a first event fits. That the whole pattern fits in a row is less likely.
The example from [Msg=28]:
Row of appearances:
*P.Al, {*P.Tr, *P.Ri}, *P.Pi, M13, *P.Al, *P.Mi, *P.Ri, *P.Tr, *P.Mi, *P.Pi, *P.Tr, P.Tr-
E1: *P.Al, {*P.Tr, *P.Ri??}
E3: *P.Al, {*P.Tr, *P.Ri}, *P.Pi, M13??
E4: *P.Al, {*P.Tr??, *P.Ri}
E5: *P.Al??
{} means that both persons appear at the same moment together.
Now I'll admit I was initially confused by your "pattern" column headers, as I thought you were referring to episodes rather than to a sequence of "events" ...
So am I correct now, to think that everything listed in each column can occur either together or in any series composed of just those elements in the columns?
ie -- that you do not have sub-events within these "events" yes?
This could also be a problem others are having with understanding just what it is you mean by the pattern, so I would like some specific clarification here before proceeding.
{} means that both persons appear at the same moment together.
I fail to see the need for this distinction when the "event" includes a mix of appearance order and sequences that can all occur up to the moment that the next event begins.
In addition I now have to ask if you mean ...
{*P.BeC, *P.En, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, M3, M4, M10, M11, M12, M14} and {P.Al+, P.BeC+, P.BeC-, P.BW-, P.Da+, P.Da-, P.En+, P.En-, P.LF+, P.LF-. P.Pi+, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.Ri-, P.Tr-, P.WeC+, P.Wo+, P.Wo-, P.WSA+, P.WSA-, P.Ya+, P.Ya-}
... that those are two groups that "appear at the same moment together"? or are you mixing up your symbolism to cause confusion? (cause I guarantee that you have caused confusion).
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dubreuil, posted 04-10-2015 1:00 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(6)
Message 147 of 393 (755930)
04-13-2015 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dubreuil
04-13-2015 2:51 PM


That's why I was sceptical about reviewing a paper here.
This could be an excellent place to have your paper reviewed. But this is a discussion site and people come here to talk to you, they're not here to be pointed back to your paper.
I already had a conversation about this with RAZD. He had the maths knowledge to understand the answers and ask questions.
And he did a good job explaining why it wasn't worth our time to read your paper. He also explained why it was important for you to show that your paper is worth spending time and effort on before you expect people to read it.
Unfortunately I haven't enough time to explain it to someone completely new in maths and information science in "plain English".
No subject is too complicated to talk about in plain conversation-style English. You can use analogies and metaphors to get the point across. As I said before, we've talked about stuff here in conversation-style format that is more complicated and harder to understand than your stuff.
A book about mathematics or information science could comprise 10,000 pages in plain English and 100 pages with equations and quantisations.
Totally unecessary. That's why people want you to just explain it in plain English. We don't need to get into the math until you've explained why we should actually get into the math.
At least some prior knowledge is necessary to talk in an efficient way. That's sad, but can't be changed because of limited time resources.
Bullshit. You've posted 37 messages in the last 9 days.
You could have spent a fraction of that time coming up with a paragraph describing what we've asked for in an appropriate format.
But you won't, because you're obfuscating. You realize that if we really knew the details about the pattern that you keep hidden behind the math, then we wouldn't waste our time discussing the math.
Your attempts to baffle us have failed, so you're just going to insult our intelligence, say you don't have the time, and then run away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dubreuil, posted 04-13-2015 2:51 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 393 (755940)
04-13-2015 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dubreuil
04-13-2015 2:51 PM


I already had a conversation about this with RAZD. He had the maths knowledge to understand the answers and ask questions. Unfortunately I haven't enough time to explain it to someone completely new in maths and information science in "plain English".
Interestingly enough, I am finding the discussions with RAZD and Dr Adequate very easy to follow. That ease suggests that your excuses that your math is too far above the rabble to even be explained to them in lay terms is incorrect.
You are right about one thing. There is not much point in doing research on ID. Maybe you could take a crack at Bible codes?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dubreuil, posted 04-13-2015 2:51 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 149 of 393 (755945)
04-13-2015 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dubreuil
04-13-2015 11:40 AM


Wow. Really? We are now discussing only about theological arguments? No one else who wants to disagree with any part of the paper? I expected that because all other person (partly acquaintances, partly a few id proponents) who have looked at the paper also wasn't able to refute the paper. But I didn't expected that to happen that fast here. Well, if someone still have question, then I still will answer them.
Well, you didn't answered the questions. I asked you about one person, but you only responded about two or more persons. You might apologise that I wasn't able to understand you correctly. If you would answer the questions I asked you, then I could more easily understand your theological argument.
That's kind of ironic. You already sound like an young earth creationist who wants to refute evolution because there might be shifty equivocations in it. I would like to hear what you claim to have found. But you should be aware that the pattern has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. If you actually are able to name a few shifty equivocations, then there would be still a high residual uncertainty with for example 1:10^5. However, I would like to hear what you claim to have found. I really don't need discussions about this paper, it's content was already verified, but not yet in a peer-review. I won't try to force anyone to join this discussion, if there are no more comments about it, then it's alright for me too.
I cannot find anything in this gibberish that is either a justification of your dishonesty or an apology for it. Indeed, in so far as this incoherent trash has any meaning at all, it almost seems like you're doubling down --- and, indeed, inventing newer and stupider lies.
And then you wonder why you can't get published.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : I said some things that I think were way too savage and which I regret and apologize for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dubreuil, posted 04-13-2015 11:40 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 150 of 393 (755968)
04-14-2015 11:57 AM


RAZD writes:
So am I correct now, to think that everything listed in each column can occur either together or in any series composed of just those elements in the columns?
Yes.
RAZD writes:
ie -- that you do not have sub-events within these "events" yes?
How do you define a "sub-event"?
RAZD writes:
{} means that both persons appear at the same moment together.
I fail to see the need for this distinction when the "event" includes a mix of appearance order and sequences that can all occur up to the moment that the next event begins.
If two persons appear at the same time, then both of them could appear first or second. For example: *P.Al, *P.Tr, *P.Ri or *P.Al, *P.Ri, *P.Tr. This would be arbitrary: E1: *P.Al, *P.Tr /E2: *P.Ri or E1: *P.Al /E2: *P.Ri /E3: *P.Tr. With {} the pattern remains definite.
RAZD writes:
In addition I now have to ask if you mean ...
{*P.BeC, *P.En, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, M3, M4, M10, M11, M12, M14} and {P.Al+, P.BeC+, P.BeC-, P.BW-, P.Da+, P.Da-, P.En+, P.En-, P.LF+, P.LF-. P.Pi+, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.Ri-, P.Tr-, P.WeC+, P.Wo+, P.Wo-, P.WSA+, P.WSA-, P.Ya+, P.Ya-}
... that those are two groups that "appear at the same moment together"? or are you mixing up your symbolism to cause confusion? (cause I guarantee that you have caused confusion).
I referred to your symbolism from [Msg=130]. It is not the same as the {} used before. These are all elements that can't occur at E1.
Is there a reason for that you coloured "*P.Ri" red?
Cat Sci writes:
Bullshit. You've posted 37 messages in the last 9 days.
I had some spare time last week. That has changed now.
NoNukes writes:
That ease suggests that your excuses that your math is too far above the rabble to even be explained to them in lay terms is incorrect.
I explained the maths in [Msg=14]. I'm not used to teaching maths. Maybe it can be explained better. A website that also explains the probability mass function: http://www.itl.nist.gov/...handbook/eda/section3/eda366i.htm. There could be other websites around.
Dr Adequate writes:
I cannot find anything in this gibberish that is either a justification of your dishonesty or an apology for it. Indeed, in so far as this incoherent trash has any meaning at all, it almost seems like you're doubling down --- and, indeed, inventing newer and stupider lies.
And then you wonder why you can't get published. It's because your ideas are shit and you are dishonest filth.
I wonder why I ever had the idea to post here. If you would spend less time with offending other people, then I actually could imagine to discuss with you. But you don't want that. I wonder, can I ask someone to banish you for calling me "dishonest filth"?

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2015 1:04 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 152 by Admin, posted 04-14-2015 1:32 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2015 1:37 PM Dubreuil has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024