|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 62 responses total. |
nharmon
|
|
response 25 of 62:
| 
Aug 31 14:05 UTC 2007 |
Re 23:
If Rane was not filtering you, I think he would point out that you are
not using probability, but rather statistics. Probability is used to
predict future events, not past events. An example of using probability
in mechanical engineering would be determining something like mean time
between failure (MTBF) based on actual failure rates.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 26 of 62:
|
Aug 31 19:11 UTC 2007 |
Re #23: djdoboy is describing the statistical procedure involving "control
charts" and related analyses, for determing whether a manufacturing
process is within "specs". It is an interesting application, especially as
related to balancing "producer" and "consumer" risks.
I would not get into a debate between applications of "probability" and
"statistics", since the latter is based in the former. The formal
distinction is what a "statistic" is: a value created from measurments,
such as mean or a standard deviation or an F-ratio, etc. Probability
theory provides the bases for expectations of how statistics will behave.
(The general advice on Grex is to ignore jerks, though I do like to tease
them - but I don't recall what brought up the subject.)
|
djdoboy
|
|
response 27 of 62:
|
Sep 1 00:26 UTC 2007 |
nharmon, you never took a real engineering class in your entire life, so just
go back to writing more shit ass perl scripts. Also, you fucking moron, we
used average, but not the mean. And now to point three you fucking moron. The
data I collected was a statistical sample. When I used this data to predict
the chances of a failure using a certain type of hobbing machine, I was using
probability.
Now again, just shut the fuck up on nothing you know jack shit about. Just
sit here and get overwelmed by people that know what they are talking about
you fucking useless piece of shit.
|
djdoboy
|
|
response 28 of 62:
|
Sep 1 00:31 UTC 2007 |
Nharmon, does you stupid ass even know the difference between the average and
the mean and why we might possibly use the former and not the latter? I
thought so. Fucking idiot.
|
djdoboy
|
|
response 29 of 62:
|
Sep 1 00:39 UTC 2007 |
I think I need to quit having these discussions with certain grexers about
finding new ways to fill keesans email on this site with 38.4 Megs of spam
and maybe just write some kind of script that will automatically check my
spelling and correct it when I do a post on this forum.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 30 of 62:
|
Sep 1 03:32 UTC 2007 |
This response has been erased.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 31 of 62:
|
Sep 1 03:35 UTC 2007 |
Average: djdoboy's ability to offend.
Mean: djdoboy's behavior 23 hours a day.
Seriously, you used the AVERAGE and not the MEAN? That is pretty funny
because I was taught the mean is a method for finding average. If you
didn't use mean, what did you use? Mode? Midpoint? Median?
And it really is called "Mean Time Between Failure", here you can look
it up and learn something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBF. Of
course, it assumes a linear failure rate, when we all know computer
components do not have those. They usually either fail extremely early
(defect in manufacturing), or else they fail after a long time (wear and
tear). In such a case reliability usually forms an upside-down bell
curve. Oh wait a minute, you said you didn't use mean. So you took some
other way of calculating average, not mean, and used that to form your
gaussian distribution? I'm not sure your model would be reliable.
|
djdoboy
|
|
response 32 of 62:
|
Sep 1 16:01 UTC 2007 |
Listen nharmon, you stupid fucker. You have consistently shown that you don't
grasp what you have learned. This has been demonstrated in you fucking
pathetic attempt to solve a pretty simpe Perl problem in thread 85 and your
inablity to still build a chat bot, even after you've seen the source code
to what me and penis pump wrote.
Maybe this is why I worked as a Mechanical Engineer and you have yet to make
it beyond tech monkey. Second point. The bell curve is ONE method to model
what is going on. Second thing you fucking idiot. I was speaking of problems
that arose during production, not after the thing was already in the consumer
market. There is a difference you fucking moron.
I can't believe you are trying to speak of something you know nothing about.
You are a fucking waste on this forum. I normally don't wish people ill
fortune, but in your case, I hope you fucking get hit by a car. This world
would then have one less dumb ass. I'm done try to argue with a person that
can't make it beyond tech monkey.
Go off and fucking die you piece of shit. You are a fucking blemish on this
forum.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 33 of 62:
|
Sep 1 18:56 UTC 2007 |
From party:
trancequility: rite hite call it average, general electrical called
it average, american can called it average
nharmon: chad; called WHAT average??? WHAT??? median? mode?
midpoint?
trancequility: the one where you sum up the numbers and divide
nharmon: divide by what?
nharmon: the number of numbers?
trancequility: the one that you learn in 5the grade
So apparently when Chad wrote to me asking "does you stupid ass even
know the difference between the average and the mean", he himself didn't
really understand the difference. Actually, he understood there as not
being a difference.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 34 of 62:
|
Sep 1 19:55 UTC 2007 |
"The mean of a collection of numbers is their arithmetic average, computed
by adding them up and dividing by their number."
http://www.ptti.com/html/help/Mean_def.htm
(It is actuallly surprising that there isn't a difference between the
meanings hidden somewhere in statistical theory terminology. "Mean"
derives from its sense of "middle" (value), while "average" apparently
arose in maritime law in regard to the distribution of charges or expenses
by "the generally prevailing, or ruling, quantity, rate, or degree; the
`common run." (from OED).)
|
cross
|
|
response 35 of 62:
|
Sep 1 20:02 UTC 2007 |
What if I compute another type of average, such as a geometric average?
A professor once advised me not to look for sense in terminology and notation.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 36 of 62:
|
Sep 1 21:31 UTC 2007 |
The "geometric average" is the same as the "geometric mean". Likewise for
other types, such as "harmonic" and many varieties of "weighted".
I wasn't looking so much for *sense* in the terminology, but was observing
the mysterious failure to give different definitions to "mean" and "average".
That's not taking advantage of an opportunity to obfuscate conventional
usages.
|
cross
|
|
response 37 of 62:
|
Sep 1 21:33 UTC 2007 |
Regarding #36; We're talking about the meaning of the unadorned `mean' as per
the definition you posted. According to your definition, the mean is defined
specifically in terms of the arithmetic average; you never defined the
geometric mean.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 38 of 62:
|
Sep 1 21:41 UTC 2007 |
Are we talking about different things? I am observing that "average" = "mean"
in arithmetic usages, and that also applies to all kinds of averages and
means, including all those named. I don't understand what point you are trying
to make. Are you asking me to also define geometric and harmonic, and other,
means (averages)? That wasn't my point.
|
cross
|
|
response 39 of 62:
|
Sep 1 21:49 UTC 2007 |
I am pointing out that your definition is inadequate. In particular, you
defined mean (unnamed) in terms of a named average. It does not follow that
mean is in equivalence with average as a reult.
My latter point was that it doesn't really matter.
|
remmers
|
|
response 40 of 62:
|
Sep 1 22:48 UTC 2007 |
We are now moving very, very far away from the focus of this
conference. If you want to "debate" mathematical terminology, please
take it elsewhere.
|
cross
|
|
response 41 of 62:
|
Sep 1 22:57 UTC 2007 |
It's not terribly irrelevant to the topic of the conference, actually, since
much of computer science is an outgrowth of mathematics.
|
scholar
|
|
response 42 of 62:
|
Sep 1 23:51 UTC 2007 |
remmers, take yourself elsewhere
|
rcurl
|
|
response 43 of 62:
|
Sep 2 04:39 UTC 2007 |
I do not recall that I "defined mean (unnamed) in terms of a named average",
but if I did, it was not what I intended. My point is that the "xyz mean" is
the same as the "xyz average" (unless someone knows of an exception).
I thought the topic here was "This is irking me". Remmers is irked, so we are
successful.
|
cross
|
|
response 44 of 62:
|
Sep 2 04:52 UTC 2007 |
I do not disagree.
And indeed, I think we have been successful.
|
remmers
|
|
response 45 of 62:
|
Sep 2 14:48 UTC 2007 |
Nah, not irked, just bemused. Compare responses #13 and #40. I mean,
if an item is off-topic to begin with, then anything's fair game, right?
|
mary
|
|
response 46 of 62:
|
Sep 2 14:52 UTC 2007 |
These techie conferences sure are fun!
|
cross
|
|
response 47 of 62:
|
Sep 2 16:35 UTC 2007 |
Regarding #45; No. Religion is totally off topic, but mathematical notation
could very easily be considered on topic.
I find myself bemused that you don't see the difference.
|
remmers
|
|
response 48 of 62:
|
Sep 2 19:08 UTC 2007 |
What about brain function?
|
cross
|
|
response 49 of 62:
|
Sep 2 19:19 UTC 2007 |
Yes, use it! Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
|