Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 7890073" data-attributes="member: 72555">I said what math I did, not that it was &quot;correct&quot; because of the math.&nbsp; You seem to be projecting.I scaled them by the standard deviation.&nbsp; This, observably, had the effect I described.&nbsp; It wasn't &quot;correct&quot; because of the math I did, I did the math then I described the results.&nbsp; I then described why those results aren't all that surprising; that dividing by the ratio 2nd moment and subtracting the difference in the first leaves only higher order components, and those components are bounded in effect (small).We can formalize that if you want, but my argument has not and never did rely on that formilization.&nbsp; It relied on the actual graphs which I posted and the probabilities on those graphs and what those probabilities mean.&nbsp; (to sketch the formilzation argument using high school calc concepts: you'd basicaly mirror arguments like using the low order terms of a Taylor series, and how the tail of the series has a bounded contribution, so can be neglected if you are willing to accept a known error.&nbsp; Except with statistical moments instead of polynomials.&nbsp; I know this argument is plausible, but I am not claiming it is sufficient or nessicary.)You grabbed onto my description of why the results aren't surprising and started complaining, seemingly without even looking at the graphs, based on you changing your position once I posted screenshots.I hope this clears things up for you.&nbsp; Getting things backwards can be confusing, and maybe a reread would help.Have a nice day.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 7890073, member: 72555"] I said what math I did, not that it was "correct" because of the math. You seem to be projecting. I scaled them by the standard deviation. This, [b]observably[/b], had the effect I described. It wasn't "correct" because of the math I did, I did the math [b]then I described the results[/b]. I [b]then[/b] described why those results aren't all that surprising; that dividing by the ratio 2nd moment and subtracting the difference in the first leaves only higher order components, and those components are bounded in effect (small). We can formalize that if you want, but my argument has not and never did rely on that formilization. It relied on the actual graphs which I posted and the probabilities on those graphs and what those probabilities mean. (to sketch the formilzation argument using high school calc concepts: you'd basicaly mirror arguments like using the low order terms of a Taylor series, and how the tail of the series has a bounded contribution, so can be neglected if you are willing to accept a known error. Except with statistical moments instead of polynomials. I know this argument is [I]plausible[/I], but I am not claiming it is sufficient or nessicary.) You grabbed onto my description of why the results aren't surprising and started complaining, seemingly without even looking at the graphs, based on you changing your position once I posted screenshots. I hope this clears things up for you. Getting things backwards can be confusing, and maybe a reread would help. Have a nice day. [/QUOTE]

Verification