Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 393 (756742)
04-26-2015 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Dubreuil
04-25-2015 5:03 PM


You have ignored three times in a row what I asked for...
Oh boo-hoo.
Nobody is going to kiss your ass and jump through hoops so that they can be granted the opportunity to converse with you.
If one PhD would offend an other PhD with "scared pussy", then both would never talk with each other again.
Uh, no. You just made that up. It isn't remotely true.
Discussions can't work like that.
Sure they can, it happens all the time.
The only way that discussions really can't work, is when people refuse to discuss.
You are herewith added to the same list with "Coyote" and "Dr Adequate" in Message 231.
You can keep discussing with other persons here, but I will never respond to your comments again.
Cute. That's the easiest way to deal with refutations of your paper, just pretend that they don't exist.
Its pretty ridiculous, though, to hide behind some feigned offense to expletives and sarcasm.
Anyways, like I said, I'll do my part to keep the discussion going.
As other's have pointed out:
quote:
My claim, yet to be refuted or even addressed by you is that simply by trying to write a good story, and sticking to well accepted, and well worn conventions, human actions is sufficient to explain the relationships you observed regarding P.Ya. (Well that and your flexible rules about what constitutes an appearance). I suspect that stories that violate your observation would not pass the smell test of being acceptable stories for a largely Christian audience.
Indeed, the feedback from the audience on what are good episodes goes into editors trying to repeat those successful episodes, and the more they can do that then the more successful the series will be, leading to more seasons ...
For a tiny example of something like that, take what you wrote in Message 238:
then P.Da and P.Tr can't appear simultaneous until for example P.Tr has appeared and then P.Wo has appeared
"Data and Troi don't appear together until Troi and Worf have both appeared."
Worf and Troi have a working relationship and it makes sense that they're both going to appear before Troi is shown with Data. The odds of that happening by chance is a pointless calculation to compare to.
These are the kinds of things that are helping to clutter your pattern and ruin your calculations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Dubreuil, posted 04-25-2015 5:03 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Dubreuil, posted 04-26-2015 11:53 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 257 of 393 (756743)
04-26-2015 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by NoNukes
04-26-2015 3:55 AM


NoNukes writes:
Secondly, your argument actually is not even If A then B. Your argument is if A then maybe B could be true. (If there is a Triune god, and if he wanted to be recognized then he could do B is what you actually claimed)
Yes, it is. I just copied this part from your last post and I didn't changed it then.
NoNukes writes:
And as I've said before, you cannot even establish B to anyone's satisfaction other than your own.
I wouldn't say a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is nothing. Currently you can flip a coin. If heads, then there might be a triune God, if tails, then probably not. There is currently no test to test for a triune God. As shown in appendices D-I, B (God and ... always appears as P.Ya) has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3. A residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is a higher certainty than 1:2.
You pointed out that it can't be proven that actually a triune God or anything else is responsible for this reference. I mainly agree with this. The paper only showed that P.Go=P.Je=P.Bi=P.Ya(3) has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3. The actual origin of this was only discussed short. There is not that much evidence to discuss this question.
NoNukes writes:
When I put you to this question, you start calculating random probabilities. But random assembling of elements make an incoherent story. And bad incoherent stories ought to be screened out or modified before being presented on TV.
I asked you to answer the four questions about this already twice:
quote:
I already answered this in the last comment. A coincidental contribution would preclude any nontrivial pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because of 1.->2.->3.->4.. I suggest you answer first the four questions in Message 239 with for example "Yes, No, No, No" or "Yes, Yes, Yes, No" or 4 times Yes. This will simplify the discussion.
quote:
You should answer the four questions, if you want to discuss about this part.
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 this E1-E15 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 this E1-E15 pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.
I will now repeat it a third time: If you want to discuss about this part, then you should answer the four questions first. This will simplify the discussion.
As I also stated often, it is not about the existence of patterns, it's about their certainty. There can be a lot patterns with a residual uncertainty of 1:10 or 1:10^2 as a byproduct. The defining difference about these patterns and the E1-E15 pattern is the residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. Any casual discussion won't help here. You should refer to the questions and/or the mathematics if you want to keep discussing. You still refer to ordinary patterns with residual uncertainties of 1:10 or 1:10^2. I agree with the comments you presented about these patterns until now. You don't have to repeat them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by NoNukes, posted 04-26-2015 3:55 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by NoNukes, posted 04-26-2015 2:55 PM Dubreuil has replied

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


Message 258 of 393 (756744)
04-26-2015 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by RAZD
04-26-2015 8:21 AM


Re: feedback loop
RAZD writes:
Indeed, the feedback from the audience on what are good episodes goes into editors trying to repeat those successful episodes, and the more they can do that then the more successful the series will be, leading to more seasons ...
It's a feedback loop, much like evolution: variation followed by selection followed by another round of variation followed by selection etc etc etc
So no one person need design the "pattern" rather it can easily be an emergent property of the whole process, and author, editor, producer, actor, station, audience all function as an ber entity to cause the "pattern" ...
It was never searched before in all evolution-like processes for a common underling signal. There were 4 different evolution-like processes (series) examined and all exhibited the same pattern. And an emergent property would not have a high residual uncertainty and patterns within the pattern, which have again a high residual uncertainty. It's really not about the existence of patterns, it's about their certainty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2015 8:21 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 259 of 393 (756745)
04-26-2015 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by New Cat's Eye
04-26-2015 11:42 AM


@Cat Sci: Your comment is ignored as outlined in [Msg=251]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-26-2015 11:42 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 393 (756751)
04-26-2015 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Dubreuil
04-26-2015 11:53 AM


wouldn't say a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is nothing.
Your assignment of uncertainty is not correct. It is indeed nothing.
The actual origin of this was only discussed short. There is not that much evidence to discuss this question.
Yet you did it anyway. And titled the paper as though something along this line had been accomplished.
I still have yet to convince your probability assessments are wrong. I think you have too much invested in your work to consider the argument. So here is an experiment. Describe a hypothetical scene in which P.Ya is counter to what you predict. Let's see if we can understand why such a scene might not make into a Star Trek episode without invoking any supernatural entity to make it so.
Currently you can flip a coin. If heads, then there might be a triune God, if tails, then probably not.
Say what?
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 257 by Dubreuil, posted 04-26-2015 11:53 AM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Dubreuil, posted 04-26-2015 5:41 PM NoNukes has replied

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


Message 261 of 393 (756757)
04-26-2015 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by NoNukes
04-26-2015 2:55 PM


NoNukes writes:
wouldn't say a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is nothing.
Your assignment of uncertainty is not correct. It is indeed nothing.
Oh, c'mon. If I would be interested in opinions, then I would discuss with people like Cat Sci. You say it is nothing, then you have maybe a reason for this claim? If you have a reason for this claim, then you maybe want to name this reason/reasons? Chance would create P.Go=P.Ya(3) with a probability of 1/13. There are 13 persons possible. Chance would create P.Go=P.Je=P.Bi=P.Ya(3) with a probability of (1/13)^3=1/2197. Do you even want to participate in a scientific discussion about this topic?
You did not answered the four questions. I assume you don't want to discuss about this topic?
NoNukes writes:
Describe a hypothetical scene in which P.Ya is counter to what you predict. Let's see if we can understand why such a scene might not make into a Star Trek episode without invoking any supernatural entity to make it so.
I could describe a lot.
1. P.Ya and P.WeC appear simultaneous then P.Ya is positively affected (for example commended)
2. Any person appears then M14 appears then P.Ya and P.Tr appear simultaneous then M13 appears
3. Any person appears then P.LF appear then P.Da appears then P.Ri appears then P.Ya appears then P.Ri appears then P.Ya is positively affected (for example commended)
is:
P.ap: any person (13 possibilities)
1. {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}, P.Ya+
2. *P.ap, M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}, M13
3. *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+
doesn't fit with the pattern:
1.
E1: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}??
E3: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}??
E4: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}??
E5: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}, P.Ya+??
2.
E1: *P.ap, M14??
E3: *P.ap /E9: M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}, M13??
E4: *P.ap /E5: M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}??
E5: *P.ap, M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}??
3.
E1: *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da /E2: *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+??
E3: *P.ap /E9: *P.LF /E11: *P.Da, *P.Ri /E12: *P.Ya /E13: *P.Ri, P.Ya+??
E4: *P.ap /E5: *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+??
E5: *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+??
You are seemingly new to this discussion. It maybe take you a month to completely understand the pattern. I think RAZD understand it already. You should not getting started with it, if you don't want to invest that much time in it.
Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by NoNukes, posted 04-26-2015 2:55 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by NoNukes, posted 04-26-2015 6:25 PM Dubreuil has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 393 (756759)
04-26-2015 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Dubreuil
04-26-2015 5:41 PM


Oh, c'mon. If I would be interested in opinions, then I would discuss with people like Cat Sci. You say it is nothing, then you have maybe a reason for this claim?
I've given my reason repeatedly. It is the same reason given by RAZD, Dr. Adequate and Cat Sci.
Chance would create P.Go=P.Ya(3) with a probability of 1/13. There are 13 persons possible.
Episodes are not created by chance. Star Trek TNG episodes are part action but mainly soap opera type character development where interactions between characters are developed by switching from scene to scene. A lot of the interactions and stories about who affects who and how are built up over long periods of time.
I could describe a lot.
1. P.Ya and P.WeC appear simultaneous then P.Ya is positively affected (for example commended)
2. Any person appears then M14 appears then P.Ya and P.Tr appear simultaneous then M13 appears
3. Any person appears then P.LF appear then P.Da appears then P.Ri appears then P.Ya appears then P.Ri appears then P.Ya is positively affected (for example commended)
Not what I asked you for. I want you to describe a scene. I'm not asking you to string P.LF's and "positively affected" together.
You are seemingly new to this discussion.
No. I am not interested in the part of the discussion where you categorize and calculate. I'm discussing your results from a level of abstraction above that. And from there you do not make any sense.
Since I cannot get you to answer my question, how about you tell me the season/episode of the three or so episodes you used to validate your P.Ya. I'll watch those episodes myself over the next few days.

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 261 by Dubreuil, posted 04-26-2015 5:41 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Dubreuil, posted 04-27-2015 12:34 PM NoNukes has replied

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


Message 263 of 393 (756791)
04-27-2015 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by NoNukes
04-26-2015 6:25 PM


NoNukes writes:
I could describe a lot.
1. P.Ya and P.WeC appear simultaneous then P.Ya is positively affected (for example commended)
2. Any person appears then M14 appears then P.Ya and P.Tr appear simultaneous then M13 appears
3. Any person appears then P.LF appear then P.Da appears then P.Ri appears then P.Ya appears then P.Ri appears then P.Ya is positively affected (for example commended)
Not what I asked you for. I want you to describe a scene. I'm not asking you to string P.LF's and "positively affected" together.
No reason to be harsh. Scene's:
From page 3:
"Jean-Luc Picard = P.Pi
William Riker = P.Ri
Geordi La Forge = P.LF
Worf = P.Wo
Deanna Troi = P.Tr
Data = P.Da
Beverly Crusher = P.BeC
Wesley Crusher = P.WeC
Tasha Yar = P.Ya
1. P.Ya and P.WeC appear at the beginning simultaneous. Then a conversation:
P.WeC: "You did a great job"
P.Ya: "Thanks"
is: {*P.Ya, *P.WeC}, P.Ya+
2. Any person appears, for example P.Wo, then he walks toward a conduction of gas with a leak. Then the scene changes to an other room. P.Ya and P.Tr are shown in this other room to repair the malfunction too. Then a conversation:
P.Ya: "This will take a long time".
is: *P.ap, M14, {*P.Ya, *P.Tr}, M13
3. Any person, for example P.Da, appears. Then P.LF joins. Then a conversation:
P.Da: "Hi."
Then P.Ri and P.Ya join. First P.Ri joins them, then P.Ya. Then a conversation:
P.Ri: "You did a great job"
P.Ya: "Thanks"
is: *P.ap, *P.LF, *P.Da, *P.Ri, *P.Ya, *P.Ri, P.Ya+
NoNukes writes:
I've given my reason repeatedly. It is the same reason given by RAZD, Dr. Adequate and Cat Sci.
"Dr Adequate" and "Cat Sci" are not a good reference. If I would still discuss with "Dr Adequate", then he would still insult me. If I would still discuss with "Cat Sci", then we would still throw excrements after each other. The only time RAZD referred to this was:
RAZD writes:
RAZD writes:
How about 3 invisible pigs?
was sarcasm regarding your assumption of a triune god/s. (a combination of "when pigs fly" with "the three little pigs" and "invisible unicorns")
in [Msg=153]. Do you refer to this opinion?
NoNukes writes:
Chance would create P.Go=P.Ya(3) with a probability of 1/13. There are 13 persons possible.
Episodes are not created by chance. Star Trek TNG episodes are part action but mainly soap opera type character development where interactions between characters are developed by switching from scene to scene. A lot of the interactions and stories about who affects who and how are built up over long periods of time.
Yes. But I don't refer to a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10 or 1:10^2, I refer to patterns with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 and 1:10^7. I agree with your statements about these normal patterns until now. To arguing with comments I agree with will not be helpful here.
NoNukes writes:
No. I am not interested in the part of the discussion where you categorize and calculate. I'm discussing your results from a level of abstraction above that. And from there you do not make any sense.
Well, the questions about the possible/non-possible origins is answered with mathematical arguments. We can't discuss about this, if you don't want to discuss about this. I suggest you answer the four questions in [Msg=257]. I already asked you four times for it. I ask you now a fifth time. A discussion means, that you are also able to answer to questions. I wouldn't see a reason to reply again to your comments until you answered this four Yes/No questions. If you don't want to answer questions, then there can't be a well balanced discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by NoNukes, posted 04-26-2015 6:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-27-2015 9:31 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 274 by NoNukes, posted 04-28-2015 6:21 PM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 391 by tsig, posted 10-14-2015 12:57 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 264 of 393 (756794)
04-27-2015 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Dubreuil
04-25-2015 11:30 AM


more problems
There are only 4 real different predictions. The sub-variations can't be chosen arbitrary. Only in this cases are more than one sub-variation possible:
E4-E8:
M4 appears at E3. M4 is part of E4 and E9, but not part of E3. This has never happened.
That something has not happened does not mean it has to be excluded from your calculations if it is possible under your rules.
What you CAN do is go through the episodes and class them by the 24 possible cases and then calculate the Root Mean Square Error for the whole data set. Here is the table again, with the events listed so you can compare them:
Table A
Case
No
Description events
per case
15E
error
15E
error^2
11E
error
11E
error^2
10E
error
10E
error^2
1 E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15 15 +0 0 +4 16 +5 25
2 E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15 14 -1 1 +3 9 +4 16
3 E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15 14 -1 1 +3 9 +4 16
4 E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15 13 -2 4 +2 4 +3 9
5 E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15 10 -5 25 -1 1 0 0
6 E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15 9 -6 36 -2 4 -1 1
7 E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15 9 -6 36 -2 4 -1 1
8 E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15 8 -7 49 -3 9 -2 4
9 ,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15 13 -2 4 +2 4 +3 9
10 ,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15 12 -3 9 +1 1 +2 4
11 ,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15 12 -3 9 +1 1 +2 4
12 ,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15 11 -4 16 0 0 +1 1
13 ,,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15 8 -7 49 -3 9 -2 4
14 ,,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15 7 -8 64 -4 16 -3 9
15 ,,E3,,,,,,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15 7 -8 64 -4 16 -3 9
16 ,,E3,,,,,,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15 6 -9 81 -5 25 -4 16
17 ,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15 12 -3 9 +1 1 +2 4
18 ,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15 11 -4 16 0 0 +1 1
19 ,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15 11 -4 16 0 0 +1 1
20 ,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15 10 -5 25 -1 1 0 0
21 ,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15 11 -4 16 0 0 +1 1
22 ,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15 10 -5 25 -1 1 0 0
23 ,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15 10 -5 25 -1 1 0 0
24 ,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15 9 -6 36 -2 4 -1 1
sum -108 616 -12 136 +12 136
average -4.50 -0.50 0.50
Erms +/-5.07 +/-2.38 +/-2.38
And I have gone through the season 1 episodes in Appendix A and extracted the event chronology per your descriptions there:
Table B
EpisodeEvents ListedCase No
1x01 Encounter At Farpoint (1)E3, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1515
1x02 Encounter At Farpoint (2)(Continuation of 1x01)na
1x03 The Naked NowE4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1517
1x04 Code Of HonorE3, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1515
1x05 The Last OutpostE3, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1515
1x06 Where No One Has Gone BeforeE4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1519
1x07 Lonely Among UsE4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10, E12, E13, E14, E1518
1x08 JusticeE3, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1515
1x09 The BattleE3, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1515
1x10 Hide And QE1, E2, E3, E9, E12, E13, E14, E158
1x11 HavenE4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1519
1x12 The Big GoodbyeE4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1519
1x13 DataloreE3, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1515
1x14 Angel OneE3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E12, E13, E14, E1512
1x15 11001001E3, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1515
1x16 Too Short A SeasonE3, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1515
1x17 When The Bough BreaksE5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1523
1x18 Home SoilE3, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1515
1x19 Coming of AgeE3, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1515
1x20 Heart Of GloryE4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1519
1x21 The Arsenal Of FreedomE1, E2, E3, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E157
1x22 SymbiosisE4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1519
1x23 Skin Of EvilE3, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1515
1x24 We'll Always Have ParisE4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E12, E13, E14, E1519
1x25 ConspiracyE3, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1515
1x26 The Neutral ZoneE4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E11, E12, E13, E14, E1519
So now we can combine tables A and B to see how well your "pattern" fits the first season:
Table C
Case Description num
occurs
events
per case
15E
error
num*15E
error^2
11E
error
num*11E
error^2
10E
error
num*10E
error^2
1 E1-E15 0 - - - - - - -
2 E1-E10,,E12-E15 0 - - - - - - -
3 E1-E9,,E11-E15 0 - - - - - - -
4 E1-E9,,,E12-E15 0 - - - - - - -
5 E1-E3,,,,,,E9-E15 0 - - - - - - -
6 E1-E3,,,,,,E9,E10,,E12-E15 0 - - - - - - -
7 E1-E3,,,,,,E9,,E11-E15 1 9 -6 36 -2 4 -1 1
8 E1-E3,,,,,,E9,,,E12-E15 1 8 -7 49 -3 9 -2 4
9 ,,E3-E15 0 - - - - - - -
10 ,,E3-E10,,E12-E15 0 - - - - - - -
11 ,,E3-E9,,E11-E15 0 - - - - - - -
12 ,,E3-E9,,,E12-E15 1 11 -4 16 0 0 +1 1
13 ,,E3,,,,,,E9-E15 0 - - - - - - -
14 ,,E3,,,,,,E9,E10-E15 0 - - - - - - -
15 ,,E3,,,,,,E9,,E11-E15 12 7 -96 768 -48 192 -36 108
17 ,,,E4-E15 1 12 -3 9 +1 1 +2 4
18 ,,,E4-E10,,E12-E15 1 11 -4 16 0 0 +1 1
19 ,,,E4-E9,,E11-E15 7 11 -28 112 0 0 +7 7
20 ,,,E4-E9,,,E12-E15 0 - - - - - - -
21 ,,,,E5-E15 0 - - - - - - -
22 ,,,,E5-E10,,E12-E15 0 - - - - - - -
23 ,,,,E5-E9,,E11-E15 1 10 -5 25 -1 1 0 0
24 ,,,,E5-E9,,,E12-E15 0 - - - - - - -
sums 252 -153 1031 -53 207 -28 126
sum/num -0.61 4.09 -0.21 0.82 -0.11 0.50
Erms +/-2.02 +/-0.91 +/-0.71
Curiously I note that the most common pattern is Case 15, covering 12 of the 24 episodes, yet it still results in relatively high error counts for the three models here.
And 23 of the 24 episodes did not have E10.
Based on my analysis I would combine E1, E2 and E3 into one event, E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8 into one event and E10 and E11 into one event, which I would designate
S1 (E1, E2 and E3), S2 ( E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8), S3 (E9), S4 (E10 and E11), S5 (E12), S6 (E13), S7 (E14) and S8 (E15) and the pattern would be:
S1(y/n), S2(y/n), S3, S4(y/n), S5, S6, S7, S8 ... ie 8 variations ...
... based on your division of events in the episodes as you have recorded.
Yes, you have accounted 616 errors ...
That was the sum of the errors square so that the Erms could be calculated.
Curiously I find that the similarity of Erms for the different models means that there is a large variation from each one -- and that this is seen with none of them being close to the most common case, case 15. In the revised system with eight sequences (S1 to S8) there would be one error (S4 missing), so I would expect much closer results using these sequences.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : col

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 244 by Dubreuil, posted 04-25-2015 11:30 AM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Dubreuil, posted 04-27-2015 2:51 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2015 6:29 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 265 of 393 (756805)
04-27-2015 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by RAZD
04-27-2015 2:05 PM


Re: more problems
RAZD writes:
Curiously I note that the most common pattern is Case 15, covering 12 of the 24 episodes, yet it still results in relatively high error counts for the three models here.
Yes, your models cause relatively high error counts. Is there a reason you want to replace the multi(4)-pattern model with a high predictive power and a low residual uncertainty with a new 10E, 11E or 15E model with a lower predictive power and a high residual uncertainty, probably 1:10?
RAZD writes:
S1 (E1, E2 and E3), S2 ( E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8), S3 (E9), S4 (E10 and E11), S5 (E12), S6 (E13), S7 (E14) and S8 (E15) and the pattern would be:
Then you would have for P.Wo for example:
S1: *, +
S2: *, +, -
or P.Pi:
S1: *, -
S2: *, +, -
That wouldn't be distinct.
RAZD writes:
S1(y/n), S2(y/n), S3, S4(y/n), S5, S6, S7, S8 ... ie 8 variations ...
That's still more than 4 variations.
RAZD writes:
There are only 4 real different predictions. The sub-variations can't be chosen arbitrary. Only in this cases are more than one sub-variation possible:
E4-E8:
M4 appears at E3. M4 is part of E4 and E9, but not part of E3. This has never happened.
That something has not happened does not mean it has to be excluded from your calculations if it is possible under your rules.
Yes, the overall probability is maybe about 1% for this to happen. It increases the average of possible variations maybe to 4.05 possible variations. An overall average for the possible variations (E10/E11 included) is maybe 4.5 possible variations for every row of appearances. You have to refute 8 variations for every row of appearance with your selfmade pattern.
At E3:
There are 2 transitions which trigger E4 only.
There are 14 transitions which trigger E9 only.
There is 1 transition which triggers E4 and E9 both. (Never happened yet)
At E9:
There are 7 transitions which trigger E12 only.
There are 6 transitions which trigger E11 only.
There are 2 transitions which trigger E10 only.
There are 0 transition which trigger E10 and E12 both.
There are 0 transition which trigger E11 and E12 both.
There are 3 transition which trigger E11 and E10 both.
At E10:
There are 13 transitions which trigger E12 only.
There are 11 transitions which trigger E11 only.
There are 0 transition which trigger E11 and E12 both.
There are 55 fixed transitions and only 4 transition which allow an additional subvariation. The average of possible variations is far below 8 as in your theoretical pattern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2015 2:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2015 1:31 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 266 of 393 (756823)
04-27-2015 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by RAZD
04-27-2015 2:05 PM


Re: more problems (continued)
Continuing on from the revised pattern to include 8 appearance sequences, the variations would be
  1. S1 (E1, E2 and E3), S2 ( E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8), S3 (E9), S4 (E10 and E11), S5 (E12), S6 (E13), S7 (E14) and S8 (E15) ,
  2. S1 (E1, E2 and E3), S2 ( E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8), S3 (E9), S4 (E10 and E11), S5 (E12), S6 (E13), S7 (E14) and S8 (E15) ,
  3. S1 (E1, E2 and E3), S2 ( E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8), S3 (E9), (E10 and E11), S4, S5 (E12), S6 (E13), S7 (E14) and S8 (E15) ,
  4. S1 (E1, E2 and E3), S2 ( E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8), S3 (E9), S4 (E10 and E11), S5 (E12), S6 (E13), S7 (E14) and S8 (E15) ,
  5. S1 (E1, E2 and E3), S2 ( E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8), S3 (E9), S4 (E10 and E11), S5 (E12), S6 (E13), S7 (E14) and S8 (E15) ,
  6. S1 (E1, E2 and E3), S2 ( E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8), S3 (E9), S4 (E10 and E11), S5 (E12), S6 (E13), S7 (E14) and S8 (E15) ,
  7. S1 (E1, E2 and E3), S2 ( E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8), S3 (E9), (E10 and E11), S4, S5 (E12), S6 (E13), S7 (E14) and S8 (E15) ,
  8. S1 (E1, E2 and E3), S2 ( E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8), S3 (E9), S4 (E10 and E11), S5 (E12), S6 (E13), S7 (E14) and S8 (E15) .
Table A
Sequence
No
Description events per
sequence
8S
error
8S
error^2
7S
error
7S
error^2
6S
error
6S
error^2
1 S1,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8 8 +0 0 +1 1 +2 4
2 S1,S2,S3, ,S5,S6,S7,S8 7 -1 0 +0 0 +1 1
3 S1, ,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8 7-1 0 +0 0 +1 1
4 S1, ,S3, ,S5,S6,S7,S8 6 -2 4 -1 1 +0 0
5 ,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8 7-1 0 +0 0 +1 1
6 ,S2,S3, ,S5,S6,S7,S8 6-2 4 -1 1 +0 0
7 , ,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8 6-2 4 -1 1 +0 0
8 , ,S3, ,S5,S6,S7,S8 5 -3 9 -2 4 -1 1
sumS -12 21 -4 8 +4 8
average -1.50 -0.50 0.50
Erms +/-1.63 +/-1.0 +/-1.0
And I have gone through the season 1 episodes in Appendix A and extracted the event chronology per your descriptions there:
Table B
EpisodeEvents ListedSequence
No
1x01 Encounter At Farpoint (1)S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S83
1x02 Encounter At Farpoint (2)(Continuation of 1x01)na
1x03 The Naked Now, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S85
1x04 Code Of HonorS1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S83
1x05 The Last OutpostS1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S83
1x06 Where No One Has Gone Before, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S85
1x07 Lonely Among Us, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S85
1x08 JusticeS1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S83
1x09 The BattleS1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S83
1x10 Hide And QS1, S3, , S5, S6, S7, S84
1x11 Haven, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S85
1x12 The Big Goodbye, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S85
1x13 DataloreS1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S83
1x14 Angel OneS1, S2, S3, , S5, S6, S7, S82
1x15 11001001S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S83
1x16 Too Short A SeasonS1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S83
1x17 When The Bough Breaks, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S85
1x18 Home SoilS1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S83
1x19 Coming of AgeS1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S83
1x20 Heart Of Glory, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S85
1x21 The Arsenal Of FreedomS1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S83
1x22 Symbiosis, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S85
1x23 Skin Of EvilS1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S83
1x24 We'll Always Have Paris, S2, S3, , S5, S6, S7, S86
1x25 ConspiracyS1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S83
1x26 The Neutral Zone, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S85
And as before, accounting for the frequency of sequences in the first season:
Table C
Sequence
No
Description events per
sequence
freq,
f
8S
error
8S
error^2
7S
error
7S
error^2
6S
error
6S
error^2
Sequence Description num f err err^2 err err^2 err err^2
1 S1,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 S1,S2,S3,,S5,S6,S7,S8 7 1 -1 1 0 0 1 1
3 S1,,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8 7 13 -13 13 0 0 13 13
4 S1,,S3,,S5,S6,S7,S8 6 1 -2 4 -1 1 0 0
5 ,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8 7 9 -9 9 0 0 9 9
6 ,S2,S3,,S5,S6,S7,S8 6 1 -2 4 -1 1 0 0
7 ,,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 ,,S3,,S5,S6,S7,S8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUMS 52 25 -27 31 -2 2 23 23
SUMS/num 1 -1.08 -0.08 0.92
Erms 1.11 0.28 0.96
This tells us that one of the 7 sequence patterns is better than either the 8 sequence or the 6 sequence patterns and that it is better that the event patterns, but it is still a simplistic analysis: in reality two different 7 sequence patterns differ from each other at two points, not 0, and which one is better at matching the episode data would take another analysis with absolute values for departures, not +/- values.
That is best done with a modified table B to compare each episode with the three 7 sequence patterns SN2, SN3 and SN5:
Table D
Episode Description Sequence No's |err|:
SQN2
|err|:
SQN2^2
|err|:
SQN3
|err|:
SQN3^2
|err|:
SN5
|err|:
SQN5^2
1x01 Encounter At Farpoint (1) S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 3 2 4 0 0 2 4
1x02 Encounter At Farpoint (2) (Continuation of 1x01)
1x03 The Naked Now , S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 5 2 4 2 4 0 0
1x04 Code Of Honor S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 3 2 4 0 0 2 4
1x05 The Last Outpost S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 3 2 4 0 0 2 4
1x06 Where No One Has Gone Before , S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 5 2 4 2 4 0 0
1x07 Lonely Among Us , S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 5 2 4 2 4 0 0
1x08 Justice S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 3 2 4 0 0 2 4
1x09 The Battle S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 3 2 4 0 0 2 4
1x10 Hide And Q S1, , S3, , S5, S6, S7, S8 4 1 1 1 1 3 9
1x11 Haven , S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 5 2 4 2 4 0 0
1x12 The Big Goodbye , S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 5 2 4 2 4 0 0
1x13 Datalore S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 3 2 4 0 0 2 4
1x14 Angel One S1, S2, S3, , S5, S6, S7, S8 2 0 0 2 4 0 0
1x15 11001001 S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 3 2 4 0 0 2 4
1x16 Too Short A Season S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 3 2 4 0 0 2 4
1x17 When The Bough Breaks , S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 5 2 4 2 4 0 0
1x18 Home Soil S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 3 2 4 0 0 2 4
1x19 Coming of Age S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 3 2 4 0 0 2 4
1x20 Heart Of Glory , S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 5 2 4 2 4 0 0
1x21 The Arsenal Of Freedom S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 3 2 4 0 0 2 4
1x22 Symbiosis , S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 5 2 4 2 4 0 0
1x23 Skin Of Evil S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 3 2 4 0 0 2 4
1x24 We'll Always Have Paris , S2, S3, , S5, S6, S7, S8 6 1 1 3 9 1 1
1x25 Conspiracy S1, , S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 3 2 4 0 0 2 4
1x26 The Neutral Zone , S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 5 2 4 2 4 0 0
sums 25 46 90 24 50 30 62
average 1.84 0.96 1.2
Erms 1.90 1.41 1.57
Percent Accuracy* 7 74% 73% 86% 80% 83% 78%
* The accuracy of predicting the 7 sequence pattern is calculated from the average and Erms values by dividing by 7 and subtracting from 100%.
With this analysis we can see that none of the 7 sequence patterns are a good match to the episodes ... even though the previous analysis looked good (but did not properly account for |departure| from the pattern) ... this essentially predicts 1 to 2 errors of matching an episode to a specific 7 sequence pattern ...
Curiously I do not find this a compelling "pattern" in this regard. Nor do I see any value in lumping the three 7 sequence patterns into an uber 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 264 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2015 2:05 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Dubreuil, posted 04-28-2015 11:45 AM RAZD has replied

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


(2)
Message 267 of 393 (756825)
04-27-2015 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Dubreuil
04-27-2015 12:34 PM


"Dr Adequate" and "Cat Sci" are not a good reference. If I would still discuss with "Dr Adequate", then he would still insult me.
Worse yet, I'd point out clear errors in your reasoning in a way that you apparently still find unanswerable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Dubreuil, posted 04-27-2015 12:34 PM Dubreuil has not replied

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


Message 268 of 393 (756828)
04-28-2015 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by RAZD
04-27-2015 6:29 PM


Re: more problems (continued)
RAZD writes:
With this analysis we can see that none of the 7 sequence patterns are a good match to the episodes
Seriously, why do you create your own patterns? Shall I review your selfmade patterns? Yes, your new patterns are not a good match. Do you want to hear more about your revised patterns?
RAZD writes:
Nor do I see any value in lumping the three 7 sequence patterns into an uber pattern.
Do you refer to the E1-E15 pattern with "uber pattern"? If so, then maybe because of the predictive power? You successfully managed to convert the E1-E15 pattern with 4 variations to other revised patterns with less predictive power. It's like to say: Look at the fossil record. There are simple lifeforms first and then more complex lifeforms. That means, that God created in 6 days first simple lifeforms and then more complex lifeforms. A theory of evolution might have a higher predictive power but we don't care about uber patterns. We will take a pattern with a lower predictive power and believe in creation. We don't care about uber patterns the fossil record might exhibit.
I don't see any value in lumping an uber pattern into three 7 sequence patterns with a much less predictive power and a much higher residual uncertainty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2015 6:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2015 2:22 PM Dubreuil has replied

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


Message 269 of 393 (756837)
04-28-2015 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Dubreuil
04-27-2015 2:51 PM


Re: more problems
RAZD writes:
Curiously I note that the most common pattern is Case 15, covering 12 of the 24 episodes, yet it still results in relatively high error counts for the three models here.
Yes, your models cause relatively high error counts. Is there a reason you want to replace the multi(4)-pattern model with a high predictive power and a low residual uncertainty with a new 10E, 11E or 15E model with a lower predictive power and a high residual uncertainty, probably 1:10?
Curiously what I am doing is reviewing your "pattern" by breaking it down into a more understandable form and looking at the probabilities for each version.
RAZD writes:
S1 (E1, E2 and E3), S2 ( E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8), S3 (E9), S4 (E10 and E11), S5 (E12), S6 (E13), S7 (E14) and S8 (E15) and the pattern would be:
Then you would have for P.Wo for example:
S1: *, +
S2: *, +, -
or P.Pi:
S1: *, -
S2: *, +, -
That wouldn't be distinct.
It appears that you are not understanding what the Sn's are -- or I am not understanding your comment.
For clarity, Sn's are like your En's but with the elements grouped into fewer categories to make the uber pattern simpler.
For example S1 = E1 elements + E2 elements + E3 elements 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-.
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-.
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+.
So S1: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-,
& P.Al, P.BeC, P.LF, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Ya, M4, M5, P.BW-, P.Da-
& 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+.
As you can see this adds P.BeC, P.Ri, P.Ya, M4, P.BW- and P.Da- from E2, with P.En, M3, P.Pi- and P.Wo+ additional from E3. removing duplicates and rearranging S1 becomes:
S1: 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.WSA, P.Ya, M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.BW-, P.Da-, P.Pi-, P.Tr+, P.WeC-, P.Wo+.
Then you would have for P.Wo for example:
S1: *, +
S2: *, +, -
or P.Pi:
S1: *, -
S2: *, +, -
That wouldn't be distinct.
If you are talking about the transition from S1 to S2, then it doesn't appear to me to be any different than the transition from E3 to E4 (or E9).
That's still more than 4 variations.
Except that you have 24 variations, not 4, that are allowed by your rules.
There are 55 fixed transitions and only 4 transition which allow an additional subvariation. The average of possible variations is far below 8 as in your theoretical pattern.
If you have additional rules than what has already been discussed then you need to spell them out. Simply. Every one.
if x(1) then y(1)
if x(2) then y(2)
if x(3) then y(3)
etc.
What I currently understand is that if an element is observed that is not a member of the current event caste (including predecessors) then it triggers a transition to the next event that contains that element.
There is no reason I can seen where they wouldn't apply to the 8 sequence 8 variation pattern and your 15 event 24 variation pattern.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : corrected first E3 to E2
per msg 265 comment

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 265 by Dubreuil, posted 04-27-2015 2:51 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 270 of 393 (756839)
04-28-2015 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Dubreuil
04-28-2015 11:45 AM


Re: more problems (continued)
RAZD writes:
With this analysis we can see that none of the 7 sequence patterns are a good match to the episodes
Seriously, why do you create your own patterns? Shall I review your selfmade patterns? Yes, your new patterns are not a good match. Do you want to hear more about your revised patterns?
Oh please do. Here it is in more detail:

  • OPTION : scene #1 can be SKIPPED; IF NOT Skipped, then S1: 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.WSA, P.Ya, M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M13, P.Al-, P.BW+, P.BW-, P.Da-, P.Pi-, P.Tr+, P.WeC-, P.Wo+.
  • OPTION : scene #2 can be SKIPPED; IF NOT Skipped, then S2: 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, M1, M2, M4, M5, M6, M7, M10, M13, M14, P.Al-, P.BW-, P.BW+, P.LF-, P.Pi-, P.Pi+, P.Ri-, P.Tr+, P.WeC-, P.Wo-, P.Wo+,
  • scene #3, S3: 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+.
  • OPTION : scene #4 can be SKIPPED; - IF NOT Skipped - S4: Elements are observed, either singly or in combinations and all with possible repeated appearances -- P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, P.Ya, P.LF+, P.Wo+, M1, M6, M7, P.Da+, P.En-, P.Pi-, P.Ri+, P.WeC-, P.Wo-.
  • scene #5, S5: 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-.
  • scene #6, S6: 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-.
  • scene #7, S7: 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-.
  • scene #8, S8: 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+.
Do you refer to the E1-E15 pattern with "uber pattern"? If so, then maybe because of the predictive power? ...
No, just that it is the "over" pattern that is made up from 24 sub-patterns and arbitrary rules.
... You successfully managed to convert the E1-E15 pattern with 4 variations to other revised patterns with less predictive power. It's like to say: Look at the fossil record. There are simple lifeforms first and then more complex lifeforms. That means, that God created in 6 days first simple lifeforms and then more complex lifeforms. A theory of evolution might have a higher predictive power but we don't care about uber patterns. We will take a pattern with a lower predictive power and believe in creation. We don't care about uber patterns the fossil record might exhibit.
I don't see any value in lumping an uber pattern into three 7 sequence patterns with a much less predictive power and a much higher residual uncertainty.
Your opinion. Curiously I think it has better predictive power without all the extra exceptions of your "pattern" -- when every single episode in the first season doesn't match your "pattern" without invoking one or more exceptions to your pattern, most with different exceptions.
Your "pattern" is like a deck of cards that you can arrange in many different ways, but only the jokers don't fit the pattern composed of all those different arrangements.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : dup comment
Edited by RAZD, : correct scene 1 here as well per comment
Edited by RAZD, : bullet

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 268 by Dubreuil, posted 04-28-2015 11:45 AM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Dubreuil, posted 04-28-2015 2:33 PM RAZD 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