JSH: Random distributions and prime numbers
in [Physics]
|
From: JSH on 12 Feb 2010 21:27 On Feb 12, 5:59 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 8:46 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 11, 7:08 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > JSH: Well if the predictions are wrong then > > > JSH: there is no further argument. End of story. > > > > Are your predictions wrong? Please start your answer Yes or No. > > > Statistical arguments bore me. ... > > Try again. > > - William Hughes No. James Harris
From: William Hughes on 12 Feb 2010 23:21 On Feb 12, 10:27 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 5:59 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 8:46 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 11, 7:08 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > JSH: Well if the predictions are wrong then > > > > JSH: there is no further argument. End of story. > > > > > Are your predictions wrong? Please start your answer Yes or No. > > > > Statistical arguments bore me. ... > > > Try again. > > No. > Ok. Thats clear enough. You think that saying 1.12 is 1 is not wrong. - William Hughes
From: JSH on 13 Feb 2010 00:09 On Feb 12, 8:21 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 10:27 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 5:59 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 12, 8:46 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 11, 7:08 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > JSH: Well if the predictions are wrong then > > > > > JSH: there is no further argument. End of story. > > > > > > Are your predictions wrong? Please start your answer Yes or No.. > > > > > Statistical arguments bore me. ... > > > > Try again. > > > No. > > Ok. Thats clear enough. You think that saying > 1.12 is 1 is not wrong. > > - William Hughes Please elaborate for the physics people. What exactly do you mean with those numbers? James Harris
From: William Hughes on 13 Feb 2010 13:41 On Feb 13, 1:09 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 8:21 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 12, 10:27 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 12, 5:59 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 12, 8:46 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 11, 7:08 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > JSH: Well if the predictions are wrong then > > > > > > JSH: there is no further argument. End of story. > > > > > > > Are your predictions wrong? Please start your answer Yes or No. > > > > > > Statistical arguments bore me. ... > > > > > Try again. > > > > No. > > > Ok. Thats clear enough. You think that saying > > 1.12 is 1 is not wrong. > > > Please elaborate for the physics people. What exactly do you mean > with those numbers? To anyone who can draw a distinction between "not wrong" and "wrong but maybe close enough to be useful" (this group includes physics people) you are saying 1.12 is 1. - William Hughes
From: JSH on 14 Feb 2010 00:10
On Feb 13, 10:41 am, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 1:09 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 8:21 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 12, 10:27 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 12, 5:59 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 12, 8:46 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 7:08 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > JSH: Well if the predictions are wrong then > > > > > > > JSH: there is no further argument. End of story. > > > > > > > > Are your predictions wrong? Please start your answer Yes or No. > > > > > > > Statistical arguments bore me. ... > > > > > > Try again. > > > > > No. > > > > Ok. Thats clear enough. You think that saying > > > 1.12 is 1 is not wrong. > > > Please elaborate for the physics people. What exactly do you mean > > with those numbers? > > To anyone who can draw a distinction between "not wrong" > and "wrong but maybe close enough to be useful" > (this group includes physics people) you are saying 1.12 > is 1. > > - William Hughes In probability is anything 1? My point is your posts indicate you believe that 100% correctness is a reasonable goal for an event that is about probability, so you're saying that a 112% result is "wrong". Is that correct? Begin with yes, or no please. James Harris |