The "Process" of John Edward

Lurker said:


Hmm, when one looks around the room and notices that nobody else is laughing, a clueless person would continue laughing.

Lurker
Click to expand...

If you don't hear the derisive laughter, Lurker, I suggest Q-tips.
 
Around 20 pages after statistics were being talked about, and still no appropriate statistical analysis has been done of the JE counts.

Think some of the JREF board participants focus a little too much on rhetoric?

Nah!:k:
 
T'ai Chi said:
Around 20 pages after statistics were being talked about, and still no appropriate statistical analysis has been done of the JE counts.

Think some of the JREF board participants focus a little too much on rhetoric?

Nah!:k:
Click to expand...

This from one who insists on exhaustive induction? Righhhhht.
 
Bill,

Yes, I hear you laughing. Well done! Very good response. Now, when you finish laughing at my ineptitude, could you kindly show me your calculations on the problem I proposed?

Thanks!

Lurker
 
Mr. Hoyt -

Will you be answering my question regarding the applicability of Poisson to the present analysis?
 
Thanz said:
Mr. Hoyt -

Will you be answering my question regarding the applicability of Poisson to the present analysis?
Click to expand...

I tire of answering the same question over and over again. Please have somebody explain my answer to you.
 
Bill:

For me, all you have to do is a simple math exercise. As per your limitations, I promise there will be no integrals.

Lurker
 
BillHoyt said:


I tire of answering the same question over and over again. Please have somebody explain my answer to you.
Click to expand...
You know, I would ask someone else, but you are the only one who is advocating the use of Poisson. It was you who used Poisson for your analysis. I am trying to understand why.

I do not think that you have actually answered this question once, let alone "over and over again". I know that you don't think Poisson is "Binomial lite", and I know that you don't think that there is enough data for a chi square.

What I don't know is why JE guesses would be a Poisson process. Since it is your claim that Poisson is appropriate in this analysis, I must ask you to back up that claim and explain why.

I am sincerely trying to understand why you have used this particular analysis.
 
Lurker said:
Bill:

For me, all you have to do is a simple math exercise. As per your limitations, I promise there will be no integrals.

Lurker
Click to expand...

I told you the error. Poisson is not parameterized by N. The error is yours. Have somebody else explain this to you. Take a course. Whatever you need to get up to speed.
 
Bill, take the same problem you did in your "J" analysis. Change the p to 1.0. Apply that to the census data. Your expected value for the 85 is 85 right? Does Poisson predict this? Show the CDF.

Try again for p=0.9. Again for p=0.8.

Remember, same problem. All we have changed is the p from the census.

Do the math, Bill. Why are you afraid to do the math?

Lurker
 
Lurker said:
Bill, take the same problem you did in your "J" analysis. Change the p to 1.0. Apply that to the census data. Your expected value for the 85 is 85 right? Does Poisson predict this? Show the CDF.

Try again for p=0.9. Again for p=0.8.

Remember, same problem. All we have changed is the p from the census.

Do the math, Bill. Why are you afraid to do the math?

Lurker
Click to expand...

I told you the error. Poisson is not parameterized by N. The error is yours. Have somebody else explain this to you. Take a course. Whatever you need to get up to speed.
 
CFLarsen said:
Thanz,

Do you have a problem regarding getting attention? Or do you have a Claus-fetish? You seem to want to provoke discussions with me, no matter what, even if no subject exists.

I've said what I want to say here. I haven't made any claims here (other that I am not an expert on statistics - how do I prove that? Easy...!).

Find another playmate to pick fights with. I prefer discussions of some intellectual merit. You merely bore me.
Click to expand...

:roll: OMG, this never-ending pot calling the kettle black nonsense is too much to take at times! rofl Oh the irony of it all! Claus, sometimes you are sooooo funny. Guffaw! Especially when you are not at all aware of it. :roll: .....neo
 
Bil, Bil, Bill:

Still afraid to do the math? Show me the math. You continue to avoid the question. Do the math. p=1.0, 0.9, 0.8.

Do the exact same "J" analysis and use p as above and apply to your expected mean and your census data (which is how you got the p in the first place).

Do science a favor and do the math and quit ducking. You are giving us science people a bad name here.

Lurker
 
Lurker said:
Bil, Bil, Bill:

Still afraid to do the math? Show me the math. You continue to avoid the question. Do the math. p=1.0, 0.9, 0.8.

Do the exact same "J" analysis and use p as above and apply to your expected mean and your census data (which is how you got the p in the first place).

Do science a favor and do the math and quit ducking. You are giving us science people a bad name here.

Lurker
Click to expand...

:bs:
 
BillHoyt said:


:bs:
Click to expand...

I am trying to teach you something here, Bill. Why don't you just do the math. Or explain how the problem is ANY different than what you did.

Thanks,

Lurker
 
There are two sides here. One side wants to repeat the same problem with a different value of p. The other side refuses to try the exercise.

You tell me which you think represents the skeptical philosophy better?

In my opinion, Bill, you are starting to look a lot like Gary Schwartz.

Lurker
 
Lurker said:
Bill, take the same problem you did in your "J" analysis. Change the p to 1.0. Apply that to the census data. Your expected value for the 85 is 85 right? Does Poisson predict this? Show the CDF.

Try again for p=0.9. Again for p=0.8.

Remember, same problem. All we have changed is the p from the census.

Do the math, Bill. Why are you afraid to do the math?

Lurker
Click to expand...
I'll do some math!

I can calculate the expected number for our sample of 85, but I don't know what number you want me to use for the observed number of events. Are we using 17 still?
 
Thanz said:

I'll do some math!

I can calculate the expected number for our sample of 85, but I don't know what number you want me to use for the observed number of events. Are we using 17 still?
Click to expand...

Thanz:

I must admit I am a bit flummoxed by Bill. I have tried being nice. I have tried being snide. I have tried being damn annoying. For someone who seems to pride himself on being a skeptic he sure dodges simple questions.

As to the problem, the 17 count is immaterial. For p=0.9, and using the 85 sample size, what is the probability of getting 85 or less?

Simple. Why won't Bill show the math?

Lurker
 
Lurker said:
Thanz:

I must admit I am a bit flummoxed by Bill. I have tried being nice. I have tried being snide. I have tried being damn annoying. For someone who seems to pride himself on being a skeptic he sure dodges simple questions.

As to the problem, the 17 count is immaterial. For p=0.9, and using the 85 sample size, what is the probability of getting 85 or less?

Simple. Why won't Bill show the math?

Lurker
Click to expand...
Well, I have done the math. I'm prepared to post it if you are interested or if you think it will move the discussion along.
 
Say JE uses J more than expected. BUT, what if JE also uses some of the other high frequency letters less than expected?

Could we say anything meaningful here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom