They also say not to complain about others' posting.You may think so, I couldn't possibly comment
I once quoted Churchill here and got a warning...
Incidentally, forum rules say not to discuss moderation ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thanks for reminding me to continue to not do that. lolSo don't do that.
Not really interested in the errors of "science" prior to the 19th c. Too much reliance on "common sense" combined with limited naked-eye scale observation.
Nor am I, as an interested layperson, qualified to adjudicate between your view and the current orthodoxy. I do realize that science is somewhat institutionally conservative. But thats probably for the best on average. And if I'm caught out on the wrong side of an issue like this for a decade or two, its not that big of a deal.
Not necessarily.Do you believe it's possible to falsify the existing model without having a "replacement"?
You could have just said that you have nothing better.In other words, if the LCDM model is at odds with various observations (like those observations of mature objects at high redshift), is it reasonable in your opinion to choose to "lack/withhold belief" in the LCDM model without necessarily holding belief in any other particular model? Must there necessarily be a "new" model to replace it before choosing to "lack belief" in the old one?
Not necessarily.
You could have just said that you have nothing better.
46AND2 said:Sorry for the confusion. I did not mean that it took place on another forum, nor that ben was involved in the discussion on this board.
What I was asking is if the discussion to which you were referring was the recent conversation that referenced that thread with ben on the other forum?
Michael said:Nope. Different conversation.
Apologize for posting in the wrong thread, but the other one is closed for review...surprise, surprise.
I went back and looked at your "correction" of the math in that other thread...the only reason your "simplified" equation worked is because it was a coin toss, and obviously the square root of p^2 is just p, so one can just pull out the .5 from the parentheses. This happened to match your arbitrary placing of the successful probability outside the parentheses--or from under the root sign if you wish. (only because the probability of success and failure are equal in a coinflip)
If you all had been talking about rolling a die, your equation would not have worked. What "constant" would you have placed outside the parentheses in that situation?
My guess is you just googled the sigma for (specifically) a coin toss, and wrote down a simplified version where previous operations had already been performed for you...or something, I dunno.
Then you tried to say that Selfism got his equation wrong by changing what "np" represented. He clearly stated that n=number of flips, and p=probability of flipping heads (or tails). His equation was not wrong, you arbitrarily changed his variables, and expected him to follow your wacky syntax.
When, in math, are two letters ever the representation of one variable? I don't care what you use in programming, in math it isn't done because it causes confusion...clearly.
The ONLY thing you corrected was a clear typo.
I find it truly astounding that you would actually refer to that example...your equation is only true if the probability of success and failure are equal. If the probability of success is ANY VALUE other than .5, your equation does not work.
I would really like to know the answer to this question:
Using your formula:
.5(np)^.5 Where "np" equals number of flips.
How would it be different if it were the roll of a die (6-sided)?
Using the same format: constant(variable rolls)^(raised to a power)?
As a followup, how did you determine that constant?
Well, the constant outside of the sqrt function wouldn't have worked out to a nice round number like 1/2 in that instance, but the same basic principle applies.
Actually I just happened to remember that particular formula from high school.
Ya, my great "sin" was not really reading his whole post, not bothering to actually look up the formula on Google, and just noticing that his formulas didn't match each other on both sides of the = sign.
Admittedly, in this case, yes it certainly did, but as a programmer I never use single letter variables. The one exception is the letter i which I tend to use for doing iterations, which is a bad habit from originally learning basic as my first programming language.
True, and I also simplified the formula.
That same constant wouldn't work in every instance perhaps, but the formula could still be simplified by removing the probability constants from the sqrt function.
Well, let’s see. In that case:
Mean = NumberOfRolls/6
Sigma = Sqrt(NumberOfRolls * 1/6 * 5/6) = sqrt(NumberOfRolls * 5/36)
That would work out to sqrt(5)/6 * sqrt(NumberOfRolls)
Which roughly translates to .3727(sqrt(NumberOfRolls))
The constant outside of the sqrt function is essentially sqrt(Probability * (1 - Probability)) or alternatively you could say it's equal to the sqrt(SidesOfDie-1/SidesOfDie^2). If the number of sides of the die were 7, it would be sqrt(6/49) or roughly .3499. If the number of sides were 9, it would by sqrt(8/81) or roughly .3143. The constant changes slightly, but the concept is exactly the same.
And God help me if I made any typos......
The problem is that even after he corrected his typo, you still insisted he was wrong.
And you gave no indication how you came up with the .5 outside the radical. Then, when you left the p under the radical, he sees it as "n times p" not one variable.
And his formula DID match on both sides of the equal sign, based on how he defined the variables. But you saw it as off because you weren't reading it as n times p, like he was.
Surely you can see why there was confusion?
The *second* time (after he fixed the typo) they did match.
Yes I certainly do see why there was confusion, and part of it was in fact my own confusion because as I already admitted, I didn't bother to even read his entire post. I just read his math formulas, or I would have understood that he was using two variables and he made just one mistake on one side of the = sign. If you read the thread again, a few posts later I admitted that it depended on whether he was using one or two variables and he was probably right after he fixed the *one* error/typo. Had I bothered to actually look up the sigma calculation on Google, or bothered to read his previous paragraph I would have immediately recognized that he was using two variables, and he made just one typo in his original post.
The problem is that although I did in fact try to understand exactly what he did, he (and another individual) did everything they possibly could to avoid accepting the fact that I used a *single* variable rather than two, and I *simplified* the formula. The strawman nonsense continues to this day in fact.
As you can see from my answers to your questions, I do in fact understand the relevant concepts and the relevant math. As I also mentioned in the original thread, and in the thread that was closed, the whole conversation was an irrelevant distraction because at no time did I question the math related to the sigma calculation, just the fact that the sigma figure had no relevancy as it relates to the actual "cause" of the signal. Likewise I don't question the mathematical expressions of "space expansion" in GR theory, just the fact that they violate the conservation laws of energy.
The "do my math homework assignment on command" routine is "standard operating procedure" every single time that the mainstream gets questioned about their *qualitative* problems, and/or their procedural problems as with the original LIGO paper. It's a intentional attempt to deflect the conversation away from the *topics* and onto the individual. That's exactly why I refuse to "bark math on command" on message boards, particularly when it's blatantly obvious that it's an intentional attempt to defect the conversation away from the actual topic, and focus on the individual.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?