Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 226 of 393 (756529)
04-22-2015 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Dr Adequate
04-21-2015 11:50 PM


Content hidden - Adminnemooseus
{Non-topic sniping material hidden. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Non-topic sniping material hidden (also, signature turned off).
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2015 11:50 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 227 of 393 (756543)
04-22-2015 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Dubreuil
04-20-2015 6:44 PM


take 2 -- building an event pattern
RAZD writes:
you are now saying that anything left over from E1 can be in E2 even when it is not listed as a part of E2.
The pattern is used on the quantisations, not on the original visual information.
For Example:
P.Wo, P.Ya, P.WeC walk onscreen
P.Da walks onscreen
P.Pi, P.Ri, P.WeC have a conversation
Is: *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Da, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC
A possible fit is:
E1: *P.Wo /E2: *P.Ya, *P.WeC /E3: *P.Da, *P.Wo, *P.Ya /E9: *P.WeC /E11: *P.Wo /E12: *P.Ya /E13: *P.WeC, *P.Wo /E14: *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC
P.Da remains visible in the original visual information, but in the quantisation he doesn't appear again. The pattern is used on the quantisations, not on the original visual information.
Two things:
First - because the "pattern is used on the quantizations, not on the original visual information" the "pattern" depends on what you chose to quantisize
Second - the "possible fit" is based on how elements are grouped, which appears arbitrary and has not been explained.
RAZD writes:
add these transitions (and who\what can stay from the previous event/s and who\what would be an invalidating elements) between each event:
A possible transition is every element that is not part of the current event but part of a next event.
An element that is part of the current event will not cause a transition.
An element that is not part of the current event or a next event will invalidate the pattern.
There is nothing like "can stay" or "can not stay". The pattern is not used on the original visual information, it is used on the quantisations.
For E1:
transitions to E2: *P.BeC, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, M4, P.BW-, P.Da-
invalidating: *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-
Now if *P.BeC, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, M4, P.BW-, P.Da- were included in the list of elements for Event #1 then they wouldn't cause a transition to Event #2.
LIkewise if certain elements of Event #1 were moved to Event #2 then their appearance would trigger a transition to Event #2.
Now obviously if you included every possible element into the Event #1 cast there could only be one event, so the question is how and why are the elements divided into different events?
Now I could take the Event #1 cast as a given and then lump everybody in Event #2 (seeing as there are many carry-overs from one event to the next) and then every element not in Event #1 would trigger Event #2.
But why should I take the Event #1 cast as a given - how is it derived?
Well an easy first approximation would be to start with those elements that start the episodes - ie start with the element that is at the start of episode 1 and then add the element that is at the start of episode 2 (if it is not the same element) and so on, until all 76 of the "data set" episodes is included.
With this approach there should be no +/- elements in Event #1 because you can't start with those.
So the Event #1 cast would be defined by episode starters (you could say they trigger the transition to Event #1), and any element not a starter would trigger the transition to Event #Remainder (in this case #2).
Then I could take all the trigger elements - the elements that are not episode starters but which then appear next in each episode and that trigger the transition to the next event ...
So the Event #2 cast would be defined by the Event #2 triggers (they trigger the transition to event #2) ... plus the cast from Event #1 (because I have no reason to remove elements) ... and then any element not an Event #2 cast element would trigger the transition to Event #Remainder (in this case #3).
Likewise the Event #3 cast would be defined by the Event #3 triggers (they trigger the transition to event #3) ... plus the cast from Event #2 (which includes the cast from Event #1 because I still have no reason to remove elements) ... and then any element not an Event #3 cast element would trigger the transition to Event #Remainder (in this case #4).
And we can continue this way until the Event #n cast would include all the elements, there would be none left to cause a transition to a next event.
This pattern would fit the 76 episodes because of the way it is developed. It would also be different from the published one, and likely it would have fewer total events.
This process is dependent on what is chosen to observe as an element that triggers an event: is the picture of a sun (from a planet) different from a picture of a star field? Do I count an empty room (view without people) as an element? Do I then count the room as an element when other elements (people) are included?
Why should I remove any elements of preceding events from later events? For instance I could remove elements in the Event #(n) cast if they did not appear (renew their involvement) in Event #(n-1), but what is the rationale?
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 204 by Dubreuil, posted 04-20-2015 6:44 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 228 of 393 (756558)
04-22-2015 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Dubreuil
04-20-2015 6:44 PM


wtf???
So I thought I would play with the pattern discussed in Message 227 and went to look at appendix A thinking I would be able to obtain a sequential listing of the elements used by you to make your pattern and I get this:
Appendix A lists in detail all appearances and persons that are affected by situations and the movement through the pattern for season 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Appendix B lists the attempt to apply this pattern at a later starting point. The notation looks like this:
So far so good ... just what I was looking for ...
1x01 Encounter At Farpoint (1) E3: (OC) 02:32 {*P.Al, *P.Pi, *P.Al, M1, *P.En, *P.Pi, M1, *P.Pi, *P.Wo}/E9: 03:06 {P.Al+, M11, *P.Ya, *P.Tr}/E11: 03:09 {*P.Da}/E12: 03:10 {*P.Al}/E13: 03:13 {*P.Ri}/E14: 03:15 {*P.Pi, M1}/E15: 03:16 {P.Ri+, *P.Tr, *P.Ya}
The caption contains the episode number and the title. The text contains the event numbers, the time the events occur and all appearances. The first three episodes contain more detailed descriptions. For season 3, 4, 5 and 6 there are only appearances and affected persons noted that trigger the next event. Starships at the beginning are also skipped then. (OC) tells the opening credits are included.
Back the bus up, young fella ... where are events 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10? AND you only count elements that trigger the next event in the latter seasons???
So the "pattern" must have been built from the first two seasons in order to know the triggers. Your text talks about adding new elements for later episodes to make them fit the "pattern" ... did you go back and review the first two seasons for these additional elements to see if they changed the documentation for those seasons?
1x01 Encounter At Farpoint (1) E3: (OC) 02:32 {*P.Al, *P.Pi, *P.Al, M1, *P.En, *P.Pi, M1, *P.Pi, *P.Wo}/E9: 03:06 {P.Al+, M11, *P.Ya, *P.Tr}/E11: 03:09 {*P.Da}/E12: 03:10 {*P.Al^9}/E13: 03:13 {*P.Ri}/E14: 03:15 {*P.Pi, M1}/E15: 03:16 {P.Ri+, *P.Tr, *P.Ya}
1x02 Encounter At Farpoint (2) Continuation of 1x01
1x03 The Naked Now
E4: 00:04 {*P.Al}/E5: 00:06 {*P.Pi}/E6: 00:13 {*P.Al^10, M6}/E7: 00:23 {*P.Da}/E8: 00:27 {P.Al-^11, *P.Tr,*P.LF}/E9: 00:28 {*P.Ya,*P.Pi,*P.Al^12}/E11: 00:34 {*P.Da^13}/E12: 00:34 {*P.Al^10}/E13: 00:38 {*P.WSA^14}/E14: 00:38 {*P.Al^10, *P.Ri^15,*P.Tr, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.Pi, *P.Ri}/E15: 00:56 {P.WSA-}
(notes)
9 (1x01 E12) The crew is mentioned, the crew in ST:TNG consist of 1000 persons
10 (1x03 E6, E12, E14) A starfleet vessel is named
11 (1x03 E8) Problems on the starfleet science vessel are mentioned
12 (1x03 E9) Number of persons visible at the same time exceeds 5
13 (1x03 E11) Data starts to speak
14 (1x03 E13) Woman without special abilities, appears in: 1x03, 3x06, 3x22, 3x25 and 5x06
15 (1x03 E13) Riker appears again through disappearance before, Picard was visible since E7 without interruption, he does not appear again
Now I notice that disappearances are mentioned even though you tell me they are not part of the "pattern" ...
Presumably there is no documentation for episode 2 because it is a continuation ... even though there would be a recap introduction ...
Seems rather haphazard recording of data if you don't have elements listed for some of the events but then claim that the events occur as documented in the pattern.
This reviewer throws the paper back on your desk and says "do over" -- add a section to explain how the pattern is developed (so that it can be reproduced), how the events are determined (so that they can be reproduced), and reasons for grouping elements into the events (so that they can be reproduced), and provide all the data in chronological sequences, without listing events (events are not part of the data, they are what develops from the data as you develop 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 204 by Dubreuil, posted 04-20-2015 6:44 PM Dubreuil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Coyote, posted 04-22-2015 8:09 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 229 of 393 (756565)
04-22-2015 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by RAZD
04-22-2015 2:41 PM


Re: wtf???
So, to use an old phrase, you caught him palming the pea, eh?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2015 2:41 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2015 10:47 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 393 (756593)
04-23-2015 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Coyote
04-22-2015 8:09 PM


Re: wtf???
So, to use an old phrase, you caught him palming the pea, eh?
From the description, it seems he managed to fool himself at the shell game. He accurately recorded exactly what he saw, in exactly the tradition of Tycho Brahe and Robert A. Millikan. Otherwise, RAZD could not review his work without watching old Star Trek episodes.
But then finishing in the well worn style of the crank [1], the author managed to find his pre conceived conclusions by using less admirable forms of... let's call it data reduction, which rendered whatever care used in the gathering and reporting of the data quite moot.
Besides that, how can people talk about patterns in Star Trek and fail to mention all those red shirted security guys that bought the farm.
[1] An excerpt from the site http://www.crank.net
quote:
-10 is not a negative number. It is mathematically MINUS as in the operation, but that it exists shows that it is positive. There is only positive, into infinity and then lack of a number. This fits the definition which is so clear with every other subject of study. Speed: No negative speed exists, only none and speed into infinity. Heat: No negative heat exists, only none and then heat into infinity.

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 229 by Coyote, posted 04-22-2015 8:09 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3042 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 231 of 393 (756598)
04-23-2015 12:03 PM


I have rethought my decision about stop commenting here. I will give it second chance, but only with clear rules I will observe for myself. I will ignore every comment that includes:
1. sarcasm
or 2. insults
or 3. expletives (BS, Bullshit)
RAZD showed that it is possible to write comments like this. I will also ignore all posts from:
1. Coyote: He suggested to ignore all portions of the paper, although there was still a discussion about it. Therefore I will also ignore all posts of him if he wants to join a discussion one day.
2. Dr Adequate: He has more likely a Ph.D in insulting than in maths.
Hopefully this rules I will observe for myself will change the currently destructive conversation into a constructive conversation. Science is not war. And I don't want to be attacked for the opinions and arguments. We will see if this new rules I will observe for myself are sufficient to allow a civil discussion.
RAZD writes:
But if it reassures you, the pattern was also tested for season 7 some time ago and it did fit again 22 out of 23 times.
Curiously that is about what I would expect from the way your pattern is constructed.
I assume you mean that it would always fit with every data source? The probability was tested to 0.625 to fit with random data and calculated to <0.711 in [Msg=190]. If you are agreeing with this calculation and the test, then you would expect only a 14 out of 23 fit.
RAZD writes:
The pattern is used on the quantisations, not on the original visual information.
For Example:
P.Wo, P.Ya, P.WeC walk onscreen
P.Da walks onscreen
P.Pi, P.Ri, P.WeC have a conversation
Is: *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Da, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC
A possible fit is:
E1: *P.Wo /E2: *P.Ya, *P.WeC /E3: *P.Da, *P.Wo, *P.Ya /E9: *P.WeC /E11: *P.Wo /E12: *P.Ya /E13: *P.WeC, *P.Wo /E14: *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC
P.Da remains visible in the original visual information, but in the quantisation he doesn't appear again. The pattern is used on the quantisations, not on the original visual information.
So in one episode he stays and in another he doesn't and you think these are the same.
With your rules the quantisation would be:
*P.Wo, {*P.Wo, *P.Ya}, {*P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC}, {*P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC. *P.Da}, {*P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC. *P.Da} ...
If someone is named or affected, then it continues:
{*P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC. *P.Da, *P.Pi}, {*P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC. *P.Da, P.Da-}, {*P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC. *P.Da, P.Da+}
You would create a pattern with *, +, - for every part of the pattern and it would always fit. You could not create a distinct pattern then, if you also quantise all stays.
RAZD writes:
With 52 elements (counting +/- and adding 1 for "something else") you have 26/52 = 0.50 for E1 and 28/52 = 0.54 for E2 probability to fail.
Your 26/52 is better than your 26/infinite argument but still incomplete. Appearances occur about 10 times more often than +/- and M's. Therefore the probability to fit with E1 is higher than 0.50. The probability to fit with E1 and E2 in a row would be E1*E2=0.50*0.54=0.27. The probability to fit with 15 elements in a row would maybe be 0.0001. This contradicts the experimental result of a probability of 0.625 to fit. I already calculated the probability in [Msg=190]. I suggest you read and refer to this calculation first.
RAZD writes:
P.Ya+ and P.Ya- cannot occur because *P.Ya does not exist in E1 and the appearance of P.Ya means you are in E2. Likewise P.BeC+ and P.BeC- cannot occur without *P.BeC causing a transition to E2, *P.En is not listed in E1 or E2 or in your invalidating list, so P.En+ and P.En- also cannot occur without *P.En (which presumably would be an invalidating element), and similarly P.Ri+ and P.Ri- need to be preceded by *P.Ri (which presumably would be an invalidating element), and so we see that the actual possible invalidation elements are reduced to 20 elements.
You are actually right about this. But that's only for E1. The later events have a possible appearance before.
RAZD writes:
They are take from your quantisations from actual audible and visual data.
And you still haven't said why your elements are grouped the way they are when there is no discernible common thread within each group.
The pattern was created to fit with the first 76 episodes. If you remove *P.Da from E7, then the pattern wouldn't fit anymore with 1x03 (table 5 page 8). If you add *P.Da to E6, then it wouldn't fit anymore with 1x03 too. The pattern is the simplest pattern known to me, that fits with this whole first part and can describe all *, + and - over a time of nearly a few minutes.
RAZD writes:
Curiously something is missing that would de facto cause an event change: a scene change.
Only elements were quantised within the episodes. A scene change can cause an event change. For example if a new person appears.
RAZD writes:
My overall impression is that you have not tried to simplify the pattern (equation), preferring to add elements to get a 100% fit, and as a result it is unwieldy and clunky.
The reason for the different events is to describe the happenings over time. 7 Events would maybe only describe 30 seconds. 15 events already describe a minute. 100 events would describe the happenings for maybe 5 minutes. The more events, the more predictive power has the pattern.
RAZD writes:
You might find that a system with half of your elements would be accurate 95% of the time ... which would still be a strong signal of pattern.
Do you refer to the M's or to ...? It is actually possible, that the pattern without M's could be accurate 95% of the time. But I found that humour (M3) only appeared at E3 and E14. It only appeared there, therefore I added M3 to the pattern. But it probably could be removed too without affecting the patterns fit.
RAZD writes:
First - because the "pattern is used on the quantizations, not on the original visual information" the "pattern" depends on what you chose to quantisize
Yes. The paper was based on previous studies that found law-like patterns. According to a previous study, every time a person is avoided, every time a person gets a positive benefit and every time a person just appears was observed. With this basic outline, there were M's that always appeared at the same places, therefore I added them to the pattern.
RAZD writes:
Second - the "possible fit" is based on how elements are grouped, which appears arbitrary and has not been explained.
It was explained in table 5 on page 8. If you remove *P.Da from E7, then the pattern wouldn't fit anymore with 1x03. If you add *P.Da to E6, then it wouldn't fit anymore with 1x03 too.
RAZD writes:
Now obviously if you included every possible element into the Event #1 cast there could only be one event, so the question is how and why are the elements divided into different events?
To describe the happenings over time. 100 events could describe the happenings for maybe 5 minutes.
RAZD writes:
Well an easy first approximation would be to start with those elements that start the episodes - ie start with the element that is at the start of episode 1 and then add the element that is at the start of episode 2 (if it is not the same element) and so on, until all 76 of the "data set" episodes is included.
That's how it was done. There are 76 episode. The pattern is the simplest pattern known to me, that fits with this whole first part and can describe all *, + and - over a time of nearly a few minutes.
RAZD writes:
And we can continue this way until the Event #n cast would include all the elements, there would be none left to cause a transition to a next event.
True. It wouldn't describe the happenings over time anymore.
RAZD writes:
It would also be different from the published one, and likely it would have fewer total events.
The less events, the less predictive power over time.
RAZD writes:
This process is dependent on what is chosen to observe as an element that triggers an event: is the picture of a sun (from a planet) different from a picture of a star field? Do I count an empty room (view without people) as an element? Do I then count the room as an element when other elements (people) are included?
Only *, + and - for persons were observed first. All M's that appeared always at the same events were then added to the pattern. There are possibly more M's that also always appear at the same events.
RAZD writes:
Back the bus up, young fella ... where are events 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10? AND you only count elements that trigger the next event in the latter seasons???
From page 6 and [Msg=190]: "At the events 1, 3, 4 and 5 the pattern is allowed to start". For 1x01 the pattern starts at E3. The optional events 10 and/or 11 and/or group {4,5,6,7,8} can be omitted. E{4,5,6,7,8} and E10 were omitted.
"there are only appearances and affected persons noted that trigger the next event." means that the notation is shortened from:
E1: *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Tr, *P.Da, *P.LF /E2: *P.Ri
to
E1: *P.LF /E2: *P.Ri
RAZD writes:
So the "pattern" must have been built from the first two seasons in order to know the triggers. Your text talks about adding new elements for later episodes to make them fit the "pattern" ... did you go back and review the first two seasons for these additional elements to see if they changed the documentation for those seasons?
That doesn't make sense. The pattern was built from the first three seasons of the data source (table 5 page 8).
RAZD writes:
Now I notice that disappearances are mentioned even though you tell me they are not part of the "pattern" ...
From page 3: "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." Every appearance precedes a disappearance. If disappearances would be observed too, then every time a person is interrupted while speaking would be {appearance: P.personwhostartedtospeak, disappearance: P.personwhostoppedtospeak}. It would complicate the pattern a lot to add all this simultaneous appearances.
It is nice that you finally started to read a few more parts of the paper. This discussion here will probably go one for a few months until a few persons have acquired the knowledge about the text and content of the paper. There will probably be more unknown sentences no one has read until now. The new rules I introduced in this post will make the discussion hopefully more civil than before.
@Cat Sci: I will answer your last post in one of the next comments. You still don't know how the pattern works ([Msg=219]) and you haven't read the paper yet. It will take more time to answer your posts to explain all this to you. Expect your posts to be answered maybe every third day. I will answer your last post, although it contains a lot of bullshit. You have to remove this word in future posts, if you want me to answer to them.

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Admin, posted 04-23-2015 2:06 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 234 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2015 5:25 PM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2015 5:39 PM Dubreuil has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 232 of 393 (756603)
04-23-2015 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Dubreuil
04-23-2015 12:03 PM


Moderator On Duty
Dubreuil writes:
I have rethought my decision about stop commenting here. I will give it second chance, but only with clear rules I will observe for myself.
Do whatever you have to do, but the only rules that count are the Forum Guidelines, and the only people allowed to enforce them are moderators.
I still see no reply to my Message 186. You don't have to reply to it if you don't want to, but I would like to see you begin to try to address at least some of the contradictions and fallacies people think they have found. You only bring problems upon yourself when you begin ignoring people as they will inevitably become more and more extreme in their expression in an attempt to obtain a response. I think you're embarking upon a course that is unlikely to bear fruit. As moderator I'm here to help facilitate discussion, and I'm trying to help you, but you don't seem to be following any of my advice.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Dubreuil, posted 04-23-2015 12:03 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3042 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 233 of 393 (756611)
04-23-2015 4:53 PM


Cat Sci writes:
Cat Sci writes:
But you kept revising the pattern until you got something that fit.
You kept all the positives and disregarded all the negatives.
But only for the first 76 episodes.
Even worse. Your criteria for your pattern is a hodgepodge of arbitrary observations for a portion of the episodes in the series.
It matches all the other episodes because you defined it into place by basing the criteria on the observations that you made.
It was not created for the whole data source, only for the first 76 episodes.
You will see this in the big table 5 on page 8. You will also see there, that it didn't matched all the other episodes, how you claim. It only matched 45 out of 47 times.
Cat Sci writes:
No, I mean that your M#'s are just based on what you noticed and selected for or against based on whether it could fit a pattern or not. You don't have M#'s for things you didn't notice and you don't include M#'s that don't fit the pattern you are creating.
Cat Sci writes:
If instead you used:
M1 closed window, color pink/green
M2 musical instrument, "How many?"
M3 sadness, crying
and so on
Obviously, you wouldn't have found a pattern, right?
As far as I know:
Nowhere appeared a closed window
Nowhere appeared a color pink/green
One time appeared a musical instrument
Nowhere appeared a "How many?
Nowhere appeared a crying
Recurring appearances that are not persons were added as M's. All M's appeared recurringly. The pattern was found for *, + and -. Afterwards the M's were added. For the M's it was not selected against anything. All recurring appearances that appeared recurringly at specific events in the first part of the data source was added to the pattern.
Cat Sci writes:
You're diluting the criteria for your pattern into one that can fit a lot of possibilities.
The pattern fits with a lot of possibilities and doesn't fit with a lot of possibilities too. If the pattern would fit almost ever, then there wouldn't be 9 out of 24 episodes that didn't fit in the test with random starting times. If the pattern would fit almost ever, then the probability for the pattern to fit wouldn't have been calculated to <0.711 in [Msg=190].
Cat Sci writes:
The opening scene is like a summation of the episode, or even a mini-episode, in its form. This is no surprise.
Have you read this?
quote:
Beginnings that highly differ:
3x01: starts with someone sleeping
3x02: starts with a concert
3x06: starts on a beach
3x10: starts with reciting a novel
3x14: starts in an art class
3x15: starts in a bar
3x19: starts without the main cast
3x21: starts with a caricature of reality
4x06: starts with poker
4x08: starts with a birthday party
4x10: starts with a psychological counselling meeting
4x13: starts with reciting an other novel
4x14: starts with random leisure activities
4x15: starts in a hospital
4x18: starts with viewing an old video
4x19: starts with reciting a third novel
4x21: starts with an interrogation
4x23: starts in a shuttle
Nothing of this is a summation.
Cat Sci writes:
Cat Sci writes:
What is the usual way that chance is involved in making episodes for a TV series?
The usual way is the normal way if there is no bias or cause or pattern in chance itself.
Pssh. You can't use the definition of the word to define the word you're using.
The usual way is if there is no bias or cause or pattern in chance itself, the existence of chance.
Cat Sci writes:
Then I will specify again: Any nontrivial pattern.
So then, it is up to you what counts as trivial or not?
Triviality (mathematics) - Wikipedia
For example, consider the differential equation y'=y where y = f(x) is a function whose derivative is y′. The trivial solution is y = 0, the zero function while a nontrivial solution is y(x) = e^x, the exponential function.
Your example "Scene opens and later scene closes" is a trivial pattern, it has only one part and fit always. The E1-E15 pattern has 15 parts and describes *, + and - for about a minute.
Cat Sci writes:
Yes, but the pattern quantises rows of appearances. I doubt there is a restraint which always defines the row of appearances.
Is incredulity your only argument? Because that's a logical fallacy...
I will give you an example in words what the pattern predicts. The pattern predicts there is no P.Ya+ from E10 to E14. In words:
1. If P.Tr and P.Ri appeared simultaneous and if then P.LF appeared and if then P.Da appeared, then P.Ya can't be positively affected until for example P.Tr has appeared and then P.Da has appeared and and then P.Tr has appeared again.
2. If P.LF appeared and if then P.Pi was negatively affected and if then P.Da appeared and if then P.Pi was negatively affected again and if then P.BeC appeared and if then P.Wo appeared, then P.Ya can't be positively affected until for example P.LF was negatively affected and then P.Wo appeared and then P.BeC appeared again.
3. If P.Ya, P.Pi and P.Tr appeared simultaneous and if then P.Pi was positively affected and if then P.Pi was negatively affected, then P.Ya can't be positively affected until for example P.Tr has appeared again and then was negatively affected and then P.Pi appeared again.
This list is far from being complete for no P.Ya+ from E10 to E14. There are more predictions made for P.Ya and there are 12 more persons. Maybe you see now that there is no restraint that can create this complexity in every episode. It is also only a "restraint", something that can't happen. You need to assume a "force", that creates this complexity. The pattern is about something that is happening.
For example the reference about a triune God. No one has yet disagreed with this. This reference was proved in the appendices D-I. There are three persons "God", "Jesus" and "Bible". It was shown that there are 12 persons the pattern would be broken with and only 1 person that fits. It was shown that P.Go=P.Je=P.Bi=P.Ya. Any other person for this three persons would break the pattern, only P.Ya fits. For 1x09 Bsfk (Appendix I) the persons Abraham, Sarai and God must appear as P.BW, P.Wo and P.Ya. Any other fit than P.Ab=P.BW, P.Sa=P.Wo and P.Go=P.Ya would break the pattern. There are 13 persons "God", "Jesus" and "Bible" can appear as, but they all appeared as P.Ya every time. This pattern is about something that is happening. The residual uncertainty is (1/13)*(1/13)*(1/13)≈1:2.2*10^3.
Admin writes:
I'm still waiting for an answer for how you could start a thread about a paper with "Triune God" in the title and then in discussion completely disavow any discussion of God.
A theologist could answer:
"God is omniscient. What you call bizarre is part of a greater plan which you can't understand because you are only a inferior human being".
An theologist will answer this to every question, including evolution, the question about evil and death in the world and why innocent babies die in Africa. Evidence is the opposite of religion. Any religious belief could claim: "That does not concur with my beliefs about God" and any religious belief could claim: "But it does concur with my beliefs about God". Discussions about religion are the more arbitrary, the more religious beliefs start to discuss. This is a statistical paper, not a religious. I don't claim it proves the cristian God, I only present my finding that the pattern supports a triune God with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3. This is a mathematical argument, not a theological.
Admin writes:
or that your "patterns" are so ill defined as to match almost anything.
If the pattern would fit almost ever, then there wouldn't be 9 out of 24 episodes that didn't fit in the test with random starting times. If the pattern would fit almost ever, then the probability for the pattern to fit wouldn't have been calculated to <0.711 in [Msg=190].

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-23-2015 7:45 PM Dubreuil has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 393 (756612)
04-23-2015 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Dubreuil
04-23-2015 12:03 PM


RAZD showed that it is possible to write comments like this. I will also ignore all posts from:
1. Coyote: He suggested to ignore all portions of the paper, although there was still a discussion about it. Therefore I will also ignore all posts of him if he wants to join a discussion one day.
2. Dr Adequate: He has more likely a Ph.D in insulting than in maths.
I have to admit to being a bit disappointed that I did not to make your list. I'm going to blame that on that pesky moderator's interference because he hid part of my exchange with Dr. Adequate. You can still find my comment by using "peek".
Regarding Coyote's suggestion to ignore all parts of your paper, I can see the reason why such a thing would be considered insulting. But please consider that his comment springs from your own confusing position about what your paper does and does not contain.
In particular, the section of your paper labeled "Testing the pattern for a triune God" has logical holes in it that expose a lack of ability to draw reasonable conclusions from data. Consider the following logical chain quoted from your paper.
"If there is a triune God as designer that wants to be known, then a person called God could always appear as P.Ya."
Clearly there are some other unstated assumptions here that ought to be explored prior to looking drawing any conclusions about what the data might mean. And even the statement you do make are loaded up with ifs and maybes. Yet you do not even devote time to addressing the assumptions you explicitly did make.
As a result, the following quoted statement is completely unjustified based on anything you write in your paper.
quote:
There are proponents of intelligent design, that assume the designer can only be the christian God, although it is not part of the theory of intelligent design itself. The found law-like pattern contains enough information to test this assumption.
At best you can reach the conclusion[1] that your data is not inconsistent with the Christian God revealing himself through a TV series only moderately popular with non geeks in a fashion viewers are, by your insistence, unable to discern without your help.
quote:
Appendix I Proof that God appears as P.Ya
Proof...
Uh, you are aware that Star Trek is science fiction written and directed by someone whose religious position is not documented? How are you separating God's actions from man's actions in your analysis? Why is it reasonable to assume (and in fact to assume conclusively) that your patterns are not artifacts of deliberate choices made by writers and directors working on the show?
So should we ignore the explicitly religious parts of your paper? Why is your paper in the Religion and Spiritualism section of the archive?
Since you've mentioned Dr. Adequate and your disbelief in his credentials, what are your relevant credentials?
[1] We can reach a similarly "strong" conclusion about the shape of snow flakes or the fact that total solar eclipses are visible from earth's surface.
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 231 by Dubreuil, posted 04-23-2015 12:03 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Dubreuil, posted 04-24-2015 1:59 PM NoNukes has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 235 of 393 (756616)
04-23-2015 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Dubreuil
04-23-2015 12:03 PM


and again ...
RAZD writes:
P.Ya+ and P.Ya- cannot occur because *P.Ya does not exist in E1 and the appearance of P.Ya means you are in E2. Likewise P.BeC+ and P.BeC- cannot occur without *P.BeC causing a transition to E2, *P.En is not listed in E1 or E2 or in your invalidating list, so P.En+ and P.En- also cannot occur without *P.En (which presumably would be an invalidating element), and similarly P.Ri+ and P.Ri- need to be preceded by *P.Ri (which presumably would be an invalidating element), and so we see that the actual possible invalidation elements are reduced to 20 elements.
You are actually right about this. But that's only for E1. The later events have a possible appearance before.
Thanks . Good to know you are not one of those people that cannot admit to errors.
But I have a feeling there will be cases in other episodes where *P.(A) has not appeared but P.(A)+/- could be listed as deal breakers if we are not careful.
RAZD writes:
The pattern is used on the quantisations, not on the original visual information.
...
A possible fit is:
E1: *P.Wo /E2: *P.Ya, *P.WeC /E3: *P.Da, *P.Wo, *P.Ya /E9: *P.WeC /E11: *P.Wo /E12: *P.Ya /E13: *P.WeC, *P.Wo /E14: *P.Ya, *P.WeC, *P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC
P.Da remains visible in the original visual information, but in the quantisation he doesn't appear again. The pattern is used on the quantisations, not on the original visual information.
So in one episode he stays and in another he doesn't and you think these are the same.
With your rules the quantisation would be:
*P.Wo, {*P.Wo, *P.Ya}, {*P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC}, {*P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC. *P.Da}, {*P.Wo, *P.Ya, *P.WeC. *P.Da} ...
Not really. I'm just saying that there is a difference to people remaining and people leaving a scene, and that this muddles the dependent P.(A)+/- assignments.
RAZD writes:
And you still haven't said why your elements are grouped the way they are when there is no discernible common thread within each group.
The pattern was created to fit with the first 76 episodes. If you remove *P.Da from E7, then the pattern wouldn't fit anymore with 1x03 (table 5 page 8). If you add *P.Da to E6, then it wouldn't fit anymore with 1x03 too. The pattern is the simplest pattern known to me, that fits with this whole first part and can describe all *, + and - over a time of nearly a few minutes.
That still does not explain the method used to determine the event groups (or how events are defined) and this makes it difficult to duplicate.
RAZD writes:
Well an easy first approximation would be to start with those elements that start the episodes - ie start with the element that is at the start of episode 1 and then add the element that is at the start of episode 2 (if it is not the same element) and so on, until all 76 of the "data set" episodes is included.
That's how it was done. There are 76 episode. The pattern is the simplest pattern known to me, that fits with this whole first part and can describe all *, + and - over a time of nearly a few minutes.
That's a start, but as noted, I ran into a couple of problems doing that.
RAZD writes:
And we can continue this way until the Event #n cast would include all the elements, there would be none left to cause a transition to a next event.
True. It wouldn't describe the happenings over time anymore.
The way I saw it was that the probability of a deal breaker decreased with each event if you don't have a mechanism (and a reason for it) for removing elements from the event cast, so you have increasing probability of pattern fit when it should be constant or increasing.
RAZD writes:
This process is dependent on what is chosen to observe as an element that triggers an event: is the picture of a sun (from a planet) different from a picture of a star field? Do I count an empty room (view without people) as an element? Do I then count the room as an element when other elements (people) are included?
Only *, + and - for persons were observed first. All M's that appeared always at the same events were then added to the pattern. There are possibly more M's that also always appear at the same events.
Curiously this makes the pattern less restrictive rather than more ... adding optional alternatives when you don't need it to define the pattern.
RAZD writes:
Back the bus up, young fella ... where are events 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10? AND you only count elements that trigger the next event in the latter seasons???
From page 6 and [Msg=190]: "At the events 1, 3, 4 and 5 the pattern is allowed to start". For 1x01 the pattern starts at E3. The optional events 10 and/or 11 and/or group {4,5,6,7,8} can be omitted. E{4,5,6,7,8} and E10 were omitted.
More options ... so NOW we have (updating the pattern in Message 166:

  • OPTION : Event #1 can be SKIPPED; IF NOT Skipped 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
  • IFF no E1, then OPTION : Event #2 can be SKIPPED, else - IF NOT Skipped - 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
  • IFF no E1 and no E2, then OPTION : Event #3 can be SKIPPED, else - IF NOT Skipped - 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
    • OPTION : Events #4 thru 8 can be SKIPPED as a GROUP, else - IF NOT Skipped:
    • 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
  • OPTION : Event #10 can be SKIPPED, else - IF NOT Skipped - 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
  • OPTION : Event #11 can be SKIPPED, else - IF NOT Skipped - 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+.
When you said:
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.
We now have optional events 1, 2 and 3 ...
So the pattern has ...
  • four variations,
    • one with E1 (and E2 and E3), and
    • one without E1, which then has three sub-variations,
      • one with E2 (and E3), and
      • one without E2, which then has two sub-sub-variations,
        • one with E3 and
        • one without,
  • two variation, one with E4-E8 and one without, and both variations have
  • two variation, one with E10 and one without, and both variations have
  • two variation, one with E11 and one without, ...
... for a total of 4x2x2x2 different pattern variations possible or 32 different patterns ...
And now when we go back to the deal breakers we have several possibilities where instead of (P.En) invalidating Event #1 it could just be due to E1 and E2 being skipped (depending on who else is involved) -- the invalidations would have to work in ALL 32 variations.
So what I would rather see is that the pattern is fixed to 15 events and ones that have missing events -- but the rest of the sequence holds -- would be places where the pattern misses the predicted values
ie -- Events 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 would have 14/15 accuracy (93%)
and 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 would have 10/15 accuracy (67%)
And really, the only thing that invalidates your "pattern" are "events" that are out of sequence rather than elements of patterns -- because they do show up in other events.
RAZD writes:
But if it reassures you, the pattern was also tested for season 7 some time ago and it did fit again 22 out of 23 times.
Curiously that is about what I would expect from the way your pattern is constructed.
I assume you mean that it would always fit with every data source? The probability was tested to 0.625 to fit with random data and calculated to <0.711 in [Msg=190]. If you are agreeing with this calculation and the test, then you would expect only a 14 out of 23 fit.
Curiously I think your calculations are flawed by not properly accounting for the multiple (32) patterns within your overall pattern, any one of which can be fit by the new season episodes.
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 231 by Dubreuil, posted 04-23-2015 12:03 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Dubreuil, posted 04-24-2015 1:59 PM RAZD has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 393 (756618)
04-23-2015 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Dubreuil
04-23-2015 4:53 PM


I will give you an example in words what the pattern predicts.
That's still not totally using words like I mean it, but its a really good start. Thank you.
It's like this, I'll sub in the words for the symbols.
Example #1:
you writes:
1. If P.Tr and P.Ri appeared simultaneous and if then P.LF appeared and if then P.Da appeared, then P.Ya can't be positively affected until for example P.Tr has appeared and then P.Da has appeared and and then P.Tr has appeared again.
Alright, so we've got a Star Trek scene:
If Deanna Troi and William Riker appeared simultaneous and if then Geordi La Forge appeared and if then Data appeared, then Tasha Yar can't be positively affected until for example Deanna Troi has appeared and then Data has appeared and and then Deanna Troi has appeared again.
Lemme clarify that:
If Troi and Riker are together, and La Forge and Data are shown, then Yar won't be happy before Troi and Data show up again, and then they'll show Troi once more before Yar's actually happy.
Here's #2:
you writes:
2. If P.LF appeared and if then P.Pi was negatively affected and if then P.Da appeared and if then P.Pi was negatively affected again and if then P.BeC appeared and if then P.Wo appeared, then P.Ya can't be positively affected until for example P.LF was negatively affected and then P.Wo appeared and then P.BeC appeared again.
If Geordi La Forge appeared and if then Jean-Luc Picard was negatively affected and if then Data appeared and if then Jean-Luc Picard was negatively affected again and if then Beverly Crusher appeared and if then Worf appeared, then Tasha Yar can't be positively affected until for example Worf was negatively affected and then Worf appeared and then Beverly Crusher appeared again.
Lemme clarify that:
If LaForge is there and Picard gets mad, then Data shows up and Picard gets mad, and then Crusher and Wolf appear, the Yar won't be happy until Worf is mad and shown and then Crusher is shown..
How's that sound? Still with me?
Added by edit:
You also wrote:
@Cat Sci: I will answer your last post in one of the next comments. You still don't know how the pattern works (Message 219) and you haven't read the paper yet. It will take more time to answer your posts to explain all this to you. Expect your posts to be answered maybe every third day. I will answer your last post, although it contains a lot of bullshit. You have to remove this word in future posts, if you want me to answer to them.
I think I've got a good handle on how the pattern works, and I've read a lot of the paper. Anyways, what about "bullspit", can I say bullspit?
One more edit:
If you actually hit reply to my actual post then I get an email notification letting me know. There's also less chance that I'll miss stuff in non-replied posts like I found for the last edit.
Its way better if you keep just one message and person to each reply and go through and reply to the individual posts rather than posting general replies and putting multiple replies to multiple posts into one submission. Just FYI.
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Dubreuil, posted 04-23-2015 4:53 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Dubreuil, posted 04-24-2015 1:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3042 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 237 of 393 (756657)
04-24-2015 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by RAZD
04-23-2015 5:39 PM


Re: and again ...
RAZD writes:
Not really. I'm just saying that there is a difference to people remaining and people leaving a scene, and that this muddles the dependent P.(A)+/- assignments.
It can be talked about a person no matter if this person is visible or not. A person can be also commended if the person is not present.
RAZD writes:
That still does not explain the method used to determine the event groups (or how events are defined) and this makes it difficult to duplicate.
RAZD writes:
That's a start, but as noted, I ran into a couple of problems doing that.
First a simple pattern was created for a few episodes and the more episodes were added, the more complex it became to fit with all episodes. But at about 50 episodes the pattern stopped to become more complex. The other parts of the data source fit then with it. Of course it will be difficult to duplicate it, it will take you maybe a year to create a pattern from nothing from a big data source, which describes *, + and - for about a minute.
RAZD writes:
The way I saw it was that the probability of a deal breaker decreased with each event if you don't have a mechanism (and a reason for it) for removing elements from the event cast, so you have increasing probability of pattern fit when it should be constant or increasing.
You have for example to remove elements from certain events to allow further transitions.
RAZD writes:
Curiously this makes the pattern less restrictive rather than more ... adding optional alternatives when you don't need it to define the pattern.
It makes it more restrictive. For example:
Row of appearances:
*P.Al, {*P.Tr, *P.Ri}, *P.Pi, M13
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??
You were right with "the invalidations would have to work in ALL 32 24 variations.". E1, E3, E4 and E5 are the starting events, therefore it only has to be shown that the pattern doesn't work in all 4 cases. Events are not arbitrary skipped. E4-E8 can only be skipped, if E3 is the present event and a part of E9 occurs. Only 4 cases have to be shown. You will find the other 8 examples that didn't fit in the random data test in Appendix B.
RAZD writes:
So the pattern has ...
  • four variations,
    • one with E1 (and E2 and E3), and
    • one without E1, which then has three sub-variations,
      • one with E2 (and E3), and
      • one without E2, which then has two sub-sub-variations,
        • one with E3 and
        • one without,
E2 is not a possible start. The pattern has
  • four variations,
    • one with E1 as start, which then has 8 sub-variations,
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:y
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:n
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:y
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:n
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:y
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:n
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:y
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:n
    • one with E3 as start, which then has 8 sub-variations,
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:y
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:n
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:y
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:n
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:y
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:n
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:y
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:n
    • one with E4 as start, which then has 4 sub-variations,
      • E10:y; E11:y
      • E10:y; E11:n
      • E10:n; E11:y
      • E10:n; E11:n
    • one with E5 as start, which then has 4 sub-variations,
      • E10:y; E11:y
      • E10:y; E11:n
      • E10:n; E11:y
      • E10:n; E11:n
for a total of 24 different pattern variations. Only E1, E3, E4 or E5 can be arbitrary chosen. Which events are omitted is decided by the elements that occur. If at E3 an element of E9 occurs which is not part of E3, then E4-E8 are skipped. If at E3 an element of E4 occurs which is not part of E3, then E4-E8 are not skipped. If at E9 an element of E12 occurs which is not part of E9, then E10-E11 are skipped. And so on.
RAZD writes:
Curiously I think your calculations are flawed by not properly accounting for the multiple (32) patterns within your overall pattern, any one of which can be fit by the new season episodes.
The probability was calculated for the multiple possible patterns. It was calculated for the 16 most likely possibilities. The other fits were negligible. For Example: From [Msg=190]:
E3->E9->E12->E13->E14->E15: p=0.201
E3->E9->E10->E12->E13->E14->E15: p=0.139
E3->E9->E11->E12->E13->E14->E15: p=0.132
E3->E9->E10->E11->E12->E13->E14->E15: p=0.090
and so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2015 5:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2015 9:17 PM Dubreuil has replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3042 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 238 of 393 (756658)
04-24-2015 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by New Cat's Eye
04-23-2015 7:45 PM


Cat Sci writes:
Anyways, what about "bullspit", can I say bullspit?
No.
Your tone is still somehow sarcastic. I will give you an other example:
The pattern predicts there is no simultaneous appearance of P.Da and P.Tr from E10 to E13. In words:
1. If P.Tr and P.Ri appeared simultaneous and if then P.LF appeared and if then P.Da appeared, then P.Da and P.Tr can't appear simultaneous until for example P.Tr has appeared and then P.Wo has appeared.
2. If P.LF appeared and if then P.Tr appeared and if then P.Ya and P.Wo appeared simultaneous and if then M1 (an open door) appeared and if then P.BeC appeared and if then P.Wo appeared and if then P.Ri appeared, then P.Da and P.Tr can't appear simultaneous until for example P.Ya appeared and then P.Da appeared.
3. If P.Ya, P.Pi and P.Tr appeared simultaneous and if then P.LF appeared and if then P.Wo appeared, then P.Da and P.Tr can't appear simultaneous until for example P.BeC has appeared and then P.LF appeared.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-23-2015 7:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-24-2015 4:06 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3042 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 239 of 393 (756659)
04-24-2015 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by NoNukes
04-23-2015 5:25 PM


NoNukes writes:
quote:
Appendix I Proof that God appears as P.Ya
Proof...
Uh, you are aware that Star Trek is science fiction written and directed by someone whose religious position is not documented?
The "Proof" shows that the three persons "God", "Jesus" and "Bible" can only appear as P.Ya. It is also shown that all other 12 person would break the pattern. This proof was done on two independent series.
NoNukes writes:
How are you separating God's actions from man's actions in your analysis?
The pattern is a "nontrivial" pattern. Everyone could include a sentence "A triune God exists". But the examination made in appendices D-I is different. The result that P.Go=P.Je=P.Bi=P.Ya was created through simultaneous appearances that would break the pattern and similar occurrences. Any person who wanted to intentionally include this data, would have needed a broad knowledge about the pattern to design every episode in a way which creates this result. But you can maybe assume that God made the man doing this. For this purpose the residual uncertainty was calculated. You would expect that if the persons P.Go, P.Je and P.Bi can only appear as one person, then it would be a random person with a probability of 1/13 for every single person. They all appeared as P.Ya resulting in a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3. A person who wanted to intentionally include this data, would have needed a broad knowledge about how to design all episodes properly.
NoNukes writes:
Why is it reasonable to assume (and in fact to assume conclusively) that your patterns are not artifacts of deliberate choices made by writers and directors working on the show?
Because of the residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. The pattern did fit 45 out of 47 times for a data source it was not created for. This is only a 95% certainty. The high residual uncertainty results from the behaviour contrary to chance. The probability to fit with a data source the pattern was not created for was tested to 0.625 and calculated to <0.711 in [Msg=190]. The probability for the pattern to fit behaves contrary to the tested and calculated expectations for the two seasons it wasn't created for and also for the other 3 series that were examined. This behaviour contrary to chance can be calculated to a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. You can verify it yourself: [Msg=171].
And chance would normally preclude any nontrivial pattern with a high residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. I also formulated four questions about this:
quote:
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 any nontrivial pattern will have only a low residual uncertainty like 1:10^2?
If all this questions are answered with Yes, then the involvement of chance precludes any nontrivial pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.
A nontrivial pattern is a pattern a lot more complex than: "Scene opens and later scene closes". The involvement of chance would normally corrupt this pattern to a residual uncertainty below 1:10^2.
NoNukes writes:
So should we ignore the explicitly religious parts of your paper? Why is your paper in the Religion and Spiritualism section of the archive?
There are no religious parts. The residual uncertainties are based on statistics, not on beliefs. It is in the Religion section because ID is classified as Religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by NoNukes, posted 04-23-2015 5:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2015 2:53 PM Dubreuil has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 393 (756663)
04-24-2015 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Dubreuil
04-24-2015 1:59 PM


The "Proof" shows that the three persons "God", "Jesus" and "Bible" can only appear as P.Ya.
The item you claimed to be testing was the proposition that the Christian God is the intelligent designer of the ID hypothesis. Where did you test that proposition?
And you did not actually, "Prove" that even the proposition that you claim. What you have showed, at best, is that a particular appearance did not occur in a very few television series episodes. You have not established that such an appearance could not occur.
But more importantly, the fact remains that the writers do not insert events randomly, and they are not, in fact attempting and failing to generate random events. They are trying to tell a story that makes some sense. So the question still remains regarding what the significance of your exercise ever could be. Given that people know and are generally respectful of religion, is there something more to be explained about the depiction of God, Jesus or Abraham Lincoln in these episodes?
NoNukes writes:
How are you separating God's actions from man's actions in your analysis?
Dubreuil writes:
. A person who wanted to intentionally include this data, would have needed a broad knowledge about how to design all episodes properly.
What you need to demonstrate is that a person who simply wanted to tell a bunch of stories of a particular genre, week after week, and who had no intention of including "data" would not find himself creating elements which you would then determine to be meaningful. Showing a low probability of generating a pattern by inserting elements at random does not accomplish that because random generation is not a model for how episodes are written and filmed.
In short, you are nowhere near making a convincing argument that you are not simply drawing your bull's eyes around whatever your shooting happens to hit. And every time you force an element or provide rules that allow alternatives, all you are doing is force fitting data because the pattern did not work without the alternatives.
Edited by NoNukes, : Remove double negative.

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 239 by Dubreuil, posted 04-24-2015 1:59 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Dubreuil, posted 04-25-2015 11:31 AM NoNukes 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