Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


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


(1)
Message 166 of 393 (756156)
04-15-2015 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by RAZD
04-15-2015 3:11 PM


Re: and so it goes
RAZD writes:
Is this NOW correct?
Yes, nearly. There is no *P.WeC listed at E8. *P.LF, *P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.Tr is listed at E8. There is no *P.Wo listed at E9. M12 is listed at E12. When I look at page 5 of the paper, then there is a "*" at M12/E12.
I added + and -:

  • Event #1:Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi,P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-.
    then
  • Event #2: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BeC, P.LF, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Ya, M4, M5, P.BW-, P.Da-.
    then
  • Event #3: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, M1, M3, M5, M6, P.BW+, P.Pi-, P.Wo+.
    then
    • OPTIONAL:
    • Event #4: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.Wo, M4, M10, P.Al-.
      then
    • Event #5: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Wo, P.Ya, M2, M4, M5, M7, M14, P.BW-, P.Pi+, P.Wo-.
      then
    • Event #6: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.Tr, P.Wo, M1, M6, P.Pi-, P.Ri-.
      then
    • Event #7: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al. P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.Ya, M2, M4, M7, M14, P.BW-, P.Pi+, P.Wo-.
      then
    • Event #8: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.Wo, M1, M4, M5, M6, M10, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.En-, P.LF-, P.Pi-, P.Ri-, P.Tr+, P.WeC-, P.Wo+.
    then
  • Event #9: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Ya, M1, M2, M4, M7, M11, M14, P.Al+, P.BW-, P.Da-, P.Pi+, P.Tr-, P.Wo-, P.Ya+.
    then
  • OPTIONAL: Event #10: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, P.LF+, P.Wo+.
    then
  • OPTIONAL: Event #11: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Da, P.LF, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M6, M7, P.Da+, P.En-, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.WeC-, P.Wo-.
    then
  • Event #12: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al. P.BeC, P.BW, P.En, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.Ya, M2, M10, M12, P.Al-, P.Da-, P.En+, P.LF-, P.Pi+, P.Ya-.
    then
  • Event #13: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Da, P.LF, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M5, M6, M7, P.BW-, P.Da+, P.En-, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.Tr-, P.WeC-, P.Wo-.
    then
  • Event #14: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, M1, M2, M3, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BeC-, P.BW+, P.Da-, P.Pi+, P.Ri-, P.WeC+, P.Wo+, P.Ya-.
    and finally
  • Event #15: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.WSA, P.Ya, M4, M12, M14, P.Al+, P.BW-, P.Da+, P.En+, P.LF+, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.Tr-, P.WeC-, P.Wo-, P.Ya+.
Only optional events 10 and/or 11 and/or group {4,5,6,7,8} can be omitted, the order of events cannot be changed.
The big table on page 5 represents this content easier. But this fieldset of words is in English words what the pattern is.
RAZD writes:
It seems to me on a first level evaluation, that these are in reality 5 completely different patterns and that not one of them fits the other "sample episodes" even though they all "comply" with your "pattern"
Assuming the appearances you represent in your table for episode A-E are the only appearances, then only the episodes A-C fully fit with the pattern:
Episode D:
E1: *P.LF, *P.WeC, *P.Tr, M10??
Episode E:
E1: *P.Tr /E2: *P.Ya /E3: *P.Wo /E9: M2 /E10: *P.Da /E11: M7 /E12: M10 /E13: *P.LF /E14: *P.Pi, *P.BeC
*P.BeC doesn't trigger E15 at E14. Only an appearance that appears at E15 and doesn't appear at E14, triggers E15. For Example: M14, M4, M12 and *P.En.
RAZD writes:
IF, as you allow, elements can repeat within an "event" then the number of possible permutations\variations explodes exponentially, for instance in event #4 you have 4 elements and if each one repeats within the event we now have 8 elements and 109,600 possible permutations instead ...
The number of possible variations is actually infinite. For Example:
E1: *P.Tr, *P.LF /E2: *P.Ri
E1: *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF /E2: *P.Ri
E1: *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF /E2: *P.Ri
and so on.
The number of non-possible variations is also infinite. For Example:
E1: *P.Tr, *P.LF, M10??
E1: *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF, M10??
E1: *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF, M10??
and so on.
RAZD writes:
That means that your probability calculation must be flawed: you have to know the possibilities before you can derive the probabilities, and your result is either a mistake or an artifact of an incomplete analysis.
The probabilities were derived experimental, not mathematical. At (00:00) the pattern did fit for 45 episodes and didn't fit for 2 episodes. At (03:00-07:00) the pattern did fit for 15 episodes and didn't fit for 9 episodes. This resulted in a 0.95 probability for (00:00) and a 0.63 probability for (03:00-07:00). These probabilities were derived experimental and weren't the result of a probability calculation. The 1:10^7 probability was derived mathematical, but not the 0.63 and 0.95 probability.
RAZD writes:
What can I do to make these all fit a single pattern without arbitrarily grouping elements? What is your method for doing this? What are the reasons for your groupings?
They actually can only be grouped arbitrarily with only 5 episodes. The E1-E15 pattern was created for 76 episodes. If you are interested about this, then the pages 11 to 13 of the paper could be revealing to you. It was tried there to add actual random data from episodes to the pattern. To make the pattern fit with this random data, it became a random pattern itself. Large gaps were removed and the patterns within the pattern had to be removed too. The pattern also didn't fit anymore with previous episode, for example 4x08 as shown at the end. To make the pattern fit again with 4x08, M3 must be added to E12 and M14 to E13. This would again remove large gaps and would make the pattern even more random. The elements therefore have to be grouped in a way to create a pattern of the most possible distinctness. For adding random information to the pattern (page 11-13) it was not possible to create a distinct pattern for it. The pattern needs a distinct predictive ability and should not fit with random data as often as possible, although it always fits at (00:00).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2015 3:11 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2015 4:58 PM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2015 12:54 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 167 of 393 (756219)
04-16-2015 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Dubreuil
04-15-2015 4:48 PM


Re: and so it goes: back to baby steps
Yes, nearly. There is no *P.WeC listed at E8. *P.LF, *P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.Tr is listed at E8. There is no *P.Wo listed at E9. M12 is listed at E12. When I look at page 5 of the paper, then there is a "*" at M12/E12.
I added + and -:
Only optional events 10 and/or 11 and/or group {4,5,6,7,8} can be omitted, the order of events cannot be changed.
The big table on page 5 represents this content easier. But this fieldset of words is in English words what the pattern is.
Thanks. For the peanut gallery "fieldset" refers to the html code I used to draw the box around the white backgrounded area that the "pattern" is described on. Gives it a nice embossed appearance.
I added + and - ...
So can I assume that you consider P.WeC-P.WeCP.WeC+ ... ie - that these are actually different elements? Can only people be +/- not M's?
The number of possible variations is actually infinite. For Example:
E1: *P.Tr, *P.LF /E2: *P.Ri
E1: *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF /E2: *P.Ri
E1: *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF /E2: *P.Ri
and so on.
I had also considered the sequence P.Pi, p.pi, P.Pi, where P.Pi would be current and p.pi would be a "flashback" to when he was borg.
This means that probability cannot properly be calculated.
... The 1:10^7 probability was derived mathematical, ...
Just because you can plunk values into a function does not mean that you are using the function properly. We can come back to this later if you want. For what it's worth I don't think anyone here thinks this calculation is a valid result.
The number of non-possible variations is also infinite. For Example:
E1: *P.Tr, *P.LF, M10??
E1: *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF, M10??
E1: *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF, *P.Tr, *P.LF, M10??
and so on.
Curiously, I am not quite convinced this is true. Let's review the transition between Event #1 and Event #2, and see if we can tease some more information out of you on how your "pattern" works:
Event #1:Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-.
As you have acknowledged each of these elements can repeat ad nauseum, so the question becomes when does event #1 end and event #2 begin?
Event #2: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BeC, P.LF, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Ya, M4, M5, P.BW-, P.Da-.
Of these elements P.Al, P.LF, M5, are in event #1 and thus their repetition would not initiate event #2, ... nor would their continued presence invalidate event #2 ...
... so event #2 would have to be initiated by the observation "either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances" of P.BeC, P.Ri, P.WeC (≠P.WeC-), P.Ya, M4, P.BW- (≠P.BW), P.Da- (≠P.Da), ...
... and of these, three elements are obvious transitions: P.WeC- → P.WeC, P.BW → P.BW-, and P.Da → P.Da-, ... these would be single occurances but any 1, 2, or 3 of these could occur?
... and finally, elements that have to cease being present\observed for Event #2 to start (if they were involved in Event #1) are: P.Pi, P.Tr, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+.
Would that be correct?
Can there be a period of overlap\transition between events when elements unique to the two events appear together?
So there would appear to be a clear signal possible for when one event ends and the next begins, that would include:
  1. disappearance of any elements that are not observed in the next event,
  2. appearance of any of the elements of the next event that are not observed in the previous event, and
  3. appearance of any element not in either event.
The first two are needed for the transition from one event to the next, the third means the pattern is broken.
Because it only takes one observation\appearance of any invalid element (type 3), it would seem to me possible to compile a list of these invalidating elements, and that they would make a finite list.
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 166 by Dubreuil, posted 04-15-2015 4:48 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Dubreuil, posted 04-16-2015 6:00 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 168 of 393 (756226)
04-16-2015 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by RAZD
04-16-2015 4:58 PM


Re: and so it goes: back to baby steps
RAZD writes:
So can I assume that you consider P.WeC-P.WeCP.WeC+ ... ie - that these are actually different elements? Can only people be +/- not M's?
Yes, it is actually P.WeC-*P.WeCP.WeC+. An appearance is denoted as *P.WeC. Only people can be +/-. That fire, water or the past is positively or negatively affected wasn't observed yet.
RAZD writes:
This means that probability cannot properly be calculated.
... The 1:10^7 probability was derived mathematical, ...
Just because you can plunk values into a function does not mean that you are using the function properly. We can come back to this later if you want. For what it's worth I don't think anyone here thinks this calculation is a valid result.
I insist we come back to this later.
RAZD writes:
Of these elements P.Al, P.LF, M5, are in event #1 and thus their repetition would not initiate event #2, ... nor would their continued presence invalidate event #2 ...
True.
RAZD writes:
... so event #2 would have to be initiated by the observation "either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances" of P.BeC, P.Ri, P.WeC (≠P.WeC-), P.Ya, M4, P.BW- (≠P.BW), P.Da- (≠P.Da), ...
True, except *P.WeC. *P.WeC is part of E1 and E2.
RAZD writes:
... and of these, three elements are obvious transitions: P.WeC- → P.WeC, P.BW → P.BW-, and P.Da → P.Da-, ... these would be single occurrences but any 1, 2, or 3 of these could occur?
True, except for *P.WeC.
E1: P.WeC-, *P.WeC
E1: *P.BW /E2: P.BW-
E1: *P.Da /E2: P.Da-
For example P.Da starts to speak and complains about nausea. Or P.Da appears and is shot to death. Both would be: *P.Da, P.Da-. Only the first reappearance counts as *P.Da. From [Msg=28]: "A person counts as appeared if this person is clearly visible, is named or if the person starts to speak. If a person gets interrupted while speaking through someone else and then starts to speak again it counts as an-other appearance. Equally if a person walks away and becomes visible again after this disappearance. Otherwise a person that started speaking once or appeared once would never appear again and no consistent pattern could be created."
RAZD writes:
... and finally, elements that have to cease being present\observed for Event #2 to start (if they were involved in Event #1) are: P.Pi, P.Tr, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+.
If *P.Pi, *P.Tr, *P.Wo, *P.WSA, M1, M6 or P.BW+ occurs (incomplete list), then E3 is triggered. If M2, M7, M13, P.Al- or P.Tr+ occurs (incomplete list), then it breaks the pattern.
RAZD writes:
Can there be a period of overlap\transition between events when elements unique to the two events appear together?
No. If P.Ri and P.Tr appear together at E1, then it breaks the pattern:
E1: *P.Al, {*P.Tr, *P.Ri??}
or
E1: *P.Al, |*P.Tr, *P.Ri??|
dependent on the notation for a simultaneous appearance.
RAZD writes:
So there would appear to be a clear signal possible for when one event ends and the next begins, that would include:
  1. disappearance of any elements that are not observed in the next event,
  2. appearance of any of the elements of the next event that are not observed in the previous event, and
  3. appearance of any element not in either event.
The first two are needed for the transition from one event to the next, the third means the pattern is broken.
Because it only takes one observation\appearance of any invalid element (type 3), it would seem to me possible to compile a list of these invalidating elements, and that they would make a finite list.
All true. The list of occurrences that breaks the pattern at E1 is: *P.En, M3, M10, M11, M12, M14, P.Al+, P.BeC+, P.BeC-, 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-.
The list is longer for simultaneous appearances. For example other appearances that break the pattern at E1:
{*P.Tr, *P.Ri}, {M1, *P.Ri}, {*P.Al, *P.BeC, *P.LF, *P.Wo}
or
|*P.Tr, *P.Ri|, |M1, *P.Ri|, |*P.Al, *P.BeC, *P.LF, *P.Wo|
dependent on the notation for a simultaneous appearance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2015 4:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2015 12:43 PM Dubreuil has not replied

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


(1)
Message 169 of 393 (756255)
04-17-2015 1:55 AM



Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Larni, posted 04-17-2015 6:18 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 170 of 393 (756258)
04-17-2015 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Dr Adequate
04-17-2015 1:55 AM


And if you group the red peppers and the green squares in the same group as the dark squares with the white dot in the middle you actually have two crosses.
Twice the signal strength.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2015 1:55 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 171 of 393 (756276)
04-17-2015 11:53 AM


@Dr Adequate: The only thing you did here was to present your sarcasm and to offend me. I suggest you keep your mouth shut and stop spamming.
@Larni: A pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10 or 1:10^2 is not a pattern.
@RAZD: You said you don't believe the 1:10^7 probability was properly calculated. What's about the 0.383 and 1:10^25 probability in [Msg=14]. Do you believe these probabilities were properly calculated?
If you have never heard of the probability mass function before, then here are some links that explain the mathematics:
Binomial distribution - Wikipedia
http://www.itl.nist.gov/...handbook/eda/section3/eda366i.htm
Essential Probability
You can verify the result here: The resource cannot be found.
Probability of success: 0.625
Successes: 45
Trials: 47
Result: 0.00000010 = 1:10^7

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-17-2015 7:40 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 173 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2015 9:00 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 393 (756312)
04-17-2015 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Dubreuil
04-17-2015 11:53 AM


You said you don't believe the 1:10^7 probability was properly calculated. What's about the 0.383 and 1:10^25 probability in Message 14. Do you believe these probabilities were properly calculated?
I doubt that your math is wrong. I think it is wrongly applied.
So we can't speak math to sort that out. That's why I need you to describe, in plain English, what the pattern is and then we can talk about how your calculation applies to that scenario.
If you really understand that what and that how (and speak English), then it shouldn't take you any more time than replying to multiple messages, linking to other messages, and looking up links to provide.
The lack of time excuse is bullshit. You make time for what you want to do.
You're choosing not to expose the plain English explanation of your theory, because you're looking for an argument and you are better at speaking math. Plus, your math most likely isn't wrong to begin with. Its your application that is wrong. And exposing that means that you don't have an argument anymore. So you gotta avoid actually explaining the application of your theory.
If you want an quick example of what I'm looking for, I'll even do this off the cuff;
The Theory of Evolution describes a natural unguided process for explaining the diversity of the species that we see today. That diversity is a result of a shit ton of heritable traits that have accumulated through the random generation of mutations in the genome of each animals' DNA, that is passed on from parent to offspring. Those mutations are acted upon by nature selecting individuals for the possibility of reproduction through things like death and disease.
I used my phone to time it and left it unedited, from the semi-colon above to that last period took me 3 minutes and 8 seconds. But then, I actually have a decent understanding of the Theory of Evolution.
So what's your theory? And how does it work? That's what I'm interested in.
Basically, why should I read your paper?
Here, I'll even get more specific for you:
Abstract: Prompted by previous research results human decision processes
were analysed for unconscious patterns. Like former studies law-like
patterns were found that were not consciously created.
So the human decision making process was making Star Trek episodes, and the pattern is what, exactly? How different characters enter the episode and how they're affected and also what colors appear in the scene, and other weird stuff?
If you plot those out as quantized events then you start to notice some pattern, right? So then you apply a bunch of math to those numbers and:
quote:
The residual uncertainty was calculated to 1 : 10^7 and a high correlation ratio for the data
basis related to the found pattern was proved through an intra class correlation test.
Isn't that the odds of getting the pattern? And aren't you really saying that you're absolutely confident that the pattern is there and you're seeing it?
I'll leave that for now and see if you even reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Dubreuil, posted 04-17-2015 11:53 AM Dubreuil has not replied

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


Message 173 of 393 (756314)
04-17-2015 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Dubreuil
04-17-2015 11:53 AM


Dr Adequate: The only thing you did here was to present your sarcasm and to offend me.
I also presented you with an unanswerable critique of your massive and ridiculous failure. Perhaps you missed it, it was mixed in with the sarcasm.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Dubreuil, posted 04-17-2015 11:53 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 174 of 393 (756316)
04-17-2015 11:42 PM


...one needs to understand there can be quite a difference between a real-life concept and a mathematical model of it
Read more at Bumblebees Can't Fly | Snopes.com

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

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


Message 175 of 393 (756325)
04-18-2015 10:04 AM


Cat Sci writes:
I doubt that your math is wrong. I think it is wrongly applied.
So we can't speak math to sort that out.
The probability mass function is a common mathematical function. You can find simple explanations about it everywhere in the Internet. Three links were already presented in [Msg=171].
Cat Sci writes:
That's why I need you to describe, in plain English, what the pattern is and then we can talk about how your calculation applies to that scenario.
RAZD already explained it in plain English. From [Msg=165]:
RAZD writes:
correctly spelled out in simple english ... that wasn't too bad, was it?
He already explained it in plain English and I agree with him that it is understandable. You can find the explanation in english words in [Msg=164] or [Msg=166].
Cat Sci writes:
and the pattern is what, exactly? How different characters enter the episode and how they're affected and also what colors appear in the scene
Yes, mainly. It's about 13 persons and M1 to M14. M1 is for example an open door as explained in the paper. If an open door and an other person appear together, then it is only allowed sometimes. For example in 1x01 there is a simultaneous appearance of an open door (M1) and P.Pi at E14. This simultaneous appearance is only allowed at E1, E2, E3, E7, E8, E9, E13 and E14. At E4, E5, E6, E10, E11 and E12 it breaks the pattern.
Cat Sci writes:
If you plot those out as quantized events then you start to notice some pattern, right? So then you apply a bunch of math to those numbers and:
quote:
The residual uncertainty was calculated to 1 : 10^7 and a high correlation ratio for the data
basis related to the found pattern was proved through an intra class correlation test.
Isn't that the odds of getting the pattern?
It is not the odds of getting the pattern, it is the odds of its existence. The "bunch of math" was applied this way: First the pattern was created for the first 76 episodes. It was assumed that there is a recurring pattern at the beginning of every episode. To test this assumption, the pattern was tested on a data source with random starting times (03:00-07:00). The pattern did fit with 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. If there is no recurring pattern at the beginning of every episode, then the probability for a fit should also be about 0.625. If there is a recurring pattern at the beginning of every episode, then the probability for a fit should also be a lot higher. The probability for a fit a the beginning was actually 0.95. This shows that the beginning of every episode is not random, it nearly always fit with the distinct pattern. But it also could be just a random fluctuation, that the pattern fit 15 out of 24 times for the random data source and 45 out of 47 times at the actual beginning. This was calculated with the probability mass function. You are maybe not able to comprehend all mathematical calculations in detail, but you probably can agree that it is very unlikely that this large difference (15/24,45/47) is only coincidental. The actual probability for a coincidental occurrence was calculated to 1:10^7 with the probability mass function.
Cat Sci writes:
Basically, why should I read your paper?
You don't have to read the paper if you don't want to.
Dr Adequate writes:
I also presented you with an unanswerable critique of your massive and ridiculous failure. Perhaps you missed it, it was mixed in with the sarcasm.
I also think that you are dishonest filth. You are dishonest, because you call this discussion ridiculous, although there are still serious discussions about it. You are filth, because you keep spamming sarcasm instead of participating in a scientific discussion. Therefore you are dishonest filth.
@Admin: Until now I limited my insults to words "Dr Adequate" already used to offend me. But I want to use other words to offend him, if he maintains his offensive behaviour. Is there somewhere a guide that explains to me how to properly offend other offensive persons here? I'm not used to do this yet, but I want to learn it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Admin, posted 04-18-2015 11:02 AM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2015 1:40 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 182 by NoNukes, posted 04-18-2015 4:00 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 176 of 393 (756326)
04-18-2015 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dubreuil
04-18-2015 10:04 AM


Dubreuil writes:
@Admin: Until now I limited my insults to words "Dr Adequate" already used to offend me. But I want to use other words to offend him, if he maintains his offensive behaviour. Is there somewhere a guide that explains to me how to properly offend other offensive persons here? I'm not used to do this yet, but I want to learn it.
Do not try to take moderation into your own hands. Please leave moderation to the moderators.
I do think Dr Adequate was raising appropriate questions, such as why we should expect God to reveal himself through the episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation rather than through healing miracles. You first claimed in Message 136 that God isn't expected to perform healing miracles, which I think most people would consider a rather bizarre claim, and then in Message 141 and Message 143 you broadly mischaracterized Dr Adequate's points, even comparing him to a young earth creationist. Ever since then Dr Adequate has waxed remarkably sarcastic, but I interpreted it as attempts to influence you to finally address his points.
I think it would be fair to ask Dr Adequate to again characterize the arguments he felt were left unanswered. I'll be here to insure that discussion remains civil.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Dubreuil, posted 04-18-2015 10:04 AM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dubreuil, posted 04-18-2015 12:20 PM Admin has replied

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


Message 177 of 393 (756327)
04-18-2015 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Admin
04-18-2015 11:02 AM


Admin writes:
I do think Dr Adequate was raising appropriate questions, such as why we should expect God to reveal himself through the episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation rather than through healing miracles. You first claimed in Message 136 that God isn't expected to perform healing miracles, which I think most people would consider a rather bizarre claim, and then in Message 141 and Message 143 you broadly mischaracterized Dr Adequate's points, even comparing him to a young earth creationist. Ever since then Dr Adequate has waxed remarkably sarcastic, but I interpreted it as attempts to influence you to finally address his points.
I think it would be fair to ask Dr Adequate to again characterize the arguments he felt were left unanswered. I'll be here to insure that discussion remains civil.
I'm not a theologist. Ask theological questions to a theologist. I don't know what God prefers to do, if he exists. And I can't give evidences for anything God would hypothetical prefer to do. But I agree that God must be a bizarre being if he exists. How stated before, he leaves innocent babies in Africa to die. This is not a forum about religion, it's about science (EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Intelligent Design). And I see no reason to engage in this absolutely bizarre religious discussions which completely lack evidences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Admin, posted 04-18-2015 11:02 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Admin, posted 04-19-2015 7:08 AM Dubreuil has not replied

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


Message 178 of 393 (756331)
04-18-2015 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dubreuil
04-16-2015 6:00 PM


Re: and so it goes: back to baby steps
Thanks for the clarification, but I still need some help.
Yes, it is actually P.WeC- ≠ *P.WeC ≠ P.WeC+. An appearance is denoted as *P.WeC. Only people can be +/-. That fire, water or the past is positively or negatively affected wasn't observed yet.
So P.WeC- and P.WeC+ are not appearances -- does the person (P.WeC in this case) need to be present for +/- to occur?
True, except for *P.WeC.
E1: P.WeC-, *P.WeC
E1: *P.BW /E2: P.BW-
E1: *P.Da /E2: P.Da-
Can you have P.WeC without it being * P.WeC, P.WeC- or P.WeC+ ? I'm just trying to understand your marking system.
All true. The list of occurrences that breaks the pattern at E1 is: *P.En, M3, M10, M11, M12, M14, P.Al+, P.BeC+, P.BeC-, 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-.
So I'm thinking that it will be more valuable to discuss what cannot be in Event #n and the transition from Event #n to Event #n+1. This would start with a full listing of all the elements.
Message 175: Yes, mainly. It's about 13 persons and M1 to M14. M1 is for example an open door as explained in the paper. If an open door and an other person appear together, then it is only allowed sometimes. ...
So we have 13 people with three flavors +,* and -, and 14 M's (please check this, it seemed to me that there were some gaps: I see M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M10, M11, M12, M13, and M14 -- M8 and M9 seem to be missing from the "pattern" table 4
Message 1 pdf of paper link
So there are only 12 different "marks" in the pattern. This would make a total of 13*3 + 12 = 51 different elements.
Would I be correct in thinking that anything not covered by this list is ignored in the "pattern" derivation and applications?
I insist we come back to this later.
I plan to, but as an initial comment you say that the calculation is based on the observed incidents rather than on an accounting of the possibilities, yes?
If I throw a di 10 times and only get numbers between 1 and 3, can I calculate with confidence the probability of what the next throw will be? Would you calculate that probability based on the number of 1's the number of 2's and the number of 3's in those 10 throws to predict the next toss? Certainly I can take the results of those 10 throws and put them through standard probability calculations while ignoring possibilities that did not occur during the data gathering phase, yes?
If we assume that we don't know what shape the di was -- Tetrahedron (four faces), Cube or hexahedron (six faces), Octahedron (eight faces), Dodecahedron (twelve faces), Icosahedron (twenty faces) -- then the only evidence we have for the possibilities is what is observed during the data gathering phase, yes?
But we KNOW from this simple example that calculating presumed probabilities based on the observed results will not give us an accurate calculation of the probability for the next throw or it's result.
Essentially you are assuming that the three observed results are the only possibilities. Nor do we know if the di was weighted so we are assuming that the results are not biased.
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 168 by Dubreuil, posted 04-16-2015 6:00 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 179 of 393 (756332)
04-18-2015 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Dubreuil
04-15-2015 4:48 PM


the pink hippo in the room
RAZD writes:
It seems to me on a first level evaluation, that these are in reality 5 completely different patterns and that not one of them fits the other "sample episodes" even though they all "comply" with your "pattern"
Assuming the appearances you represent in your table for episode A-E are the only appearances, then only the episodes A-C fully fit with the pattern:
Episode D:
E1: *P.LF, *P.WeC, *P.Tr, M10??
Episode E:
E1: *P.Tr /E2: *P.Ya /E3: *P.Wo /E9: M2 /E10: *P.Da /E11: M7 /E12: M10 /E13: *P.LF /E14: *P.Pi, *P.BeC
*P.BeC doesn't trigger E15 at E14. Only an appearance that appears at E15 and doesn't appear at E14, triggers E15. For Example: M14, M4, M12 and *P.En.
The question you did not answer was why\how should I conclude that these three hypothetical episodes should be part of the same pattern:
Next, if you want to continue, we can get into the issue of replicating your work, especially why your elements are grouped the way they are: why would/should I conclude that these all are the same pattern being followed?
Events Episode A Episode B Episode C Episode D Episode E
Event #1 P.Al P.BW P.Da P.LF P.Tr
Event #2 P.BeC M5 P.LF P.WeC P.Ya
Event #3 P.En P.Pi P.Ri P.Tr P.Wo
Event #4 P.Wo P.Al M4 M10
Event #5 P.Da P.En P.Wo P.Ya
Event #6 M1 P.Ri P.Al M6
Event #7 P.BW P.Tr P.WeC P.Wo
Event #8 M4 P.Wo P.BW P.Da
Event #9 P.Ri P.BeC P.En P.BW M2
Event #10 P.WSA P.Pi P.Da
Event #11 P.WeC P.LF M7
Event #12 P.Tr P.Ya P.BeC M2 M10
Event #13 M5 M6 M1 M7 P.LF
Event #14 M2 M3 M13 P.BeC P.Pi
Event #15 M14 M4 M12 P.En P.BeC
... when each of these "sample episodes" has different elements at each event; these "sample episodes" are different lengths, and no single character appears more than once in any of these episodes?
It seems to me on a first level evaluation, that these are in reality 5 completely different patterns and that not one of them fits the other "sample episodes" even though they all "comply" with your "pattern" ...
What can I do to make these all fit a single pattern without arbitrarily grouping elements? What is your method for doing this? What are the reasons for your groupings?
and how do I correct D and E so they fit the pattern?
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 166 by Dubreuil, posted 04-15-2015 4:48 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 393 (756333)
04-18-2015 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dubreuil
04-18-2015 10:04 AM


It is not the odds of getting the pattern, it is the odds of its existence.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Your whole argument is flawed: You don't figure out why and how a pattern exists by calculating the odds of it existing.
Your response to whether or not this is a naturally occuring pattern is to determine that the chance of it happening is very low, but that doesn't answer the question.
Then you question how it actually could happen naturally. And when people offer you ideas you just scoff at them with incredulity, and point back to something you've already said as if that solves the issue.
Your pattern could just be a natural result of the TV series making process, you have not eliminated that possibility and that the chance of it happening is very low doesn't either.
You also haven't refuted this counter argument:
RAZD writes:
Curiously the fact that these "triggers" seem to be rather arbitrary (ie unrelated to one another of the same category) leads me to the conclusion that your "pattern" is an artifact of your analysis rather than a pattern in the tv show.
I brought that up in Message 65:
quote:
The complexity of the pattern could just be an artifact of the way in which you are notating the conditions compounded with the way that you are looking for the patterns.
TV shows follow rules and they are going to have patterns. Quantizing events in the shows and then looking for patterns in the notations is going to make more complicated patterns that are going to have lower odds of occurring.
That you can identify these patterns and calculate the odds of them existing, says nothing about how and why they exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Dubreuil, posted 04-18-2015 10:04 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024