Active Users:769 Time:23/02/2025 04:46:02 AM
Explain the .3xSD thing to me... fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 19/11/2012 04:58:57 PM

If Daigian is 25, as you suggest above, with the mean at 50, it would mean that 0.3 SD = 25 (the distance between Daigian's strength and the Mean). This would mean that 1 SD = 3 x 25. Hence, 1SD = 75!


How do you figure that 0.3 SD = 25 here? Obviously, Daigian HAS to be less than 1 SD away from the mean, since Mean-1 SD encompasses more than the 68% in the 68-95-99.7 rule, yet at the same time, 67.5% of women will be stronger than Daigian. But I don't see any evidence for that number below 1 to be as low as 0.3.

Also, your math is entirely off. If 0.3 SD = 25, then 1 SD is 25/(0.3), which gives the number as 83.33.

On the other hand, if Daigian is about .73 SD from the mean, it works out perfectly. This would mean that 68% of the population is between strength 15.75 and 84.25. 67.5% of the population falls betwen 25 and 100. The bell curve is cut off below 0, and correspondingly above 100, so the rest of the population is all under two SD's from the mean. Remember that the 3 sigma rule doesn't stop there. You can go on until as many SDs as you want, with the probability of finding someone more SDs from the mean becoming increasingly impossible. In actual practice, one never needs to find people further and further from the mean to prove a normal distribution. To disprove normal distribution, you need to find many people occupying levels many SDs away from the mean.

Whether we take 25 to be 0.3SD or .73 SD or any other value below one, the only way it would disprove a normal distribution (and hence a bell curve) is if more people were found at the outer edges rather than at the mean. All people being within one sigma is actually a good indicator of normal distribution.

That would mean that every channeler alive falls less than 1 SD from the mean.

Clearly, that refutes a Normal Distribution, which only has 68% of a population within 1 SD from the Mean.

That is not true at all. The 68% value comes from the probability of finding someone in the range on +/1 1 SD from the mean. And it takes into account an open reference range with no limits. In practice, when you restrict a normal distribution to a reference range (0-100 in this case), nothing says that the probabilities of all values a set SD value from the mean will follow the three sigma rule in the range.

For example, take SAT scores. You can't go below 200 or above 800. You're restricting the range here, and since no one can go above or below these values, the bell curve will obviously not approach 0. The SD is 100, the mean is 500, so by the 3 sigma rule, 99.7% of the population is within 3 sigmas, so between 200 and 800. But obviously, 0.3% of the population is NOT above 800 or below 200!

Once again, the figures don't matter. Daigian's placement at 0.3SD from the mean disproves a Normal Distribution.

Nope. You're getting this completely wrong.

It's so simple that it should be obvious, really.

It is, actually. If you stop making preposterous assumptions.
Reply to message
How many standard deviations is Lanfear - 15/11/2012 06:04:39 PM 2160 Views
Well... - 15/11/2012 07:02:45 PM 1188 Views
Hmm... - 15/11/2012 07:25:34 PM 1306 Views
see we CAN agree on stuff - 15/11/2012 07:56:12 PM 1144 Views
- 18/11/2012 08:37:22 PM 1023 Views
We've always been close with everything except the scale - 18/11/2012 10:29:07 PM 1062 Views
Re: - 18/11/2012 11:07:17 PM 1235 Views
Re: - 19/11/2012 05:16:00 AM 1062 Views
Re: - 19/11/2012 03:13:01 PM 1067 Views
They only reject 37.5%, not 62.5% - 19/11/2012 03:19:19 PM 1079 Views
Re: They only reject 37.5%, not 62.5% - 19/11/2012 04:01:43 PM 1274 Views
Re: They only reject 37.5%, not 62.5% - 19/11/2012 09:04:04 PM 1027 Views
Hmmm... - 20/11/2012 02:08:40 AM 1094 Views
Perhaps, but Egwene is also being a bit dramatic in the scene as she managed - 20/11/2012 04:28:57 AM 1037 Views
Nope... - 20/11/2012 03:13:13 PM 1103 Views
I believe she is being over dramatic - 20/11/2012 03:26:24 PM 990 Views
Keep believing that... - 20/11/2012 03:30:14 PM 1126 Views
*shrugs* - 20/11/2012 03:49:10 PM 1078 Views
Tired and forkroot are the same now? - 20/11/2012 03:55:22 PM 979 Views
No it's the literary device - 20/11/2012 04:04:28 PM 1100 Views
This is getting ridiculous... - 20/11/2012 04:43:13 PM 980 Views
You are missing my point completely - 20/11/2012 04:50:46 PM 949 Views
Impossible. Daigian is exactly 0.32SD below the mean - 19/11/2012 11:06:04 AM 1052 Views
You keep saying that, but it is either a linear or a non-linear distribution - 19/11/2012 09:09:32 PM 1095 Views
That's the whole point. Thanks for finally seeing it. - 19/11/2012 09:43:27 PM 1063 Views
keep believing that ... but you making up numbers isn't really relevant *NM* - 20/11/2012 04:29:44 AM 685 Views
Please show me a number that is made up. The 0.32SD for Daigian is a rule of statistics. - 20/11/2012 07:15:48 AM 1034 Views
Go read Fionwe's post about it *NM* - 20/11/2012 02:33:19 PM 686 Views
Is that before or after she started juicing? - 15/11/2012 11:04:14 PM 1051 Views
Wouldn't it be 1 in 105 million? - 21/11/2012 04:56:19 PM 906 Views
Are you sure that it is a normal distribution? - 16/11/2012 04:21:02 PM 1116 Views
Ugh. I hate power level discussions. For real world applications, it should be kind of meaningless - 16/11/2012 10:28:49 PM 1008 Views
I don't really agree - 18/11/2012 08:40:53 PM 968 Views
Perhaps, but we've seen that a MUCH weaker Channeler can win in a duel - 19/11/2012 09:13:48 PM 1032 Views
Re: Perhaps, but we've seen that a MUCH weaker Channeler can win in a duel - 20/11/2012 08:10:01 AM 1000 Views
probably ... Lanfear/Cyndane is clearly remarkably skilled - 20/11/2012 02:35:09 PM 1045 Views
Since I've proven that it's not a normal distribution in units of absolute strength, SDs don't apply - 17/11/2012 07:48:21 PM 1052 Views
You have proven nothing, except that you have an opinion *NM* - 18/11/2012 02:21:35 AM 663 Views
You simply don't get it. It is mathematically a fact. There is no opinion involved. - 18/11/2012 02:19:40 PM 908 Views
Only because you've assigned numeric values. That you created. - 18/11/2012 02:40:51 PM 1026 Views
It doesn't matter what figure you use... - 18/11/2012 03:01:56 PM 903 Views
What if Daigian is one third Lanfear's strength? - 18/11/2012 04:37:58 PM 1051 Views
We have a limit for Daigian's strength, as you well know. - 18/11/2012 05:41:49 PM 1017 Views
Are you kidding me? - 18/11/2012 09:07:38 PM 1164 Views
Sure you can - 18/11/2012 10:09:31 PM 1059 Views
Re: Sure you can - 18/11/2012 10:54:50 PM 1006 Views
You're right, though its 37.5% - 19/11/2012 12:21:29 AM 974 Views
Oops, typo! - 19/11/2012 02:54:25 AM 1045 Views
Again, not possible, due to Daigian being just 0.3SD below the Mean - 19/11/2012 08:37:01 AM 1004 Views
Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys... - 19/11/2012 04:05:12 PM 906 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys... - 19/11/2012 05:55:02 PM 867 Views
Egwene is about as strong as Melaine and Amys combined - 19/11/2012 09:19:50 PM 986 Views
Re: Egwene is about as strong as Melaine and Amys combined - 20/11/2012 02:11:26 AM 1021 Views
Forkroot in every case - 20/11/2012 04:32:26 AM 994 Views
No! - 20/11/2012 03:15:16 PM 969 Views
I'm not going to go re-read the books to you on this - 20/11/2012 03:39:46 PM 997 Views
You need to read it for yourself, since you're completely confused. - 20/11/2012 03:54:26 PM 963 Views
Not going to argue this with you. - 20/11/2012 04:09:44 PM 908 Views
Your own example disproved your point... - 20/11/2012 04:39:25 PM 1031 Views
let's see, she's both asleep and would need hours to regain her strength - 20/11/2012 04:43:17 PM 928 Views
Enough! - 20/11/2012 05:04:06 PM 1003 Views
LOL ... whatever. You go on believing that ... no one else sees it this way. *NM* - 20/11/2012 05:20:52 PM 648 Views
What a brilliant argument! - 20/11/2012 05:25:18 PM 1018 Views
this is why I refuse to continue this debate - 20/11/2012 05:31:11 PM 959 Views
Re: Your own example disproved your point... - 20/11/2012 05:10:15 PM 1052 Views
Barasine + Katerine isn't that much less than - 20/11/2012 05:26:31 PM 1026 Views
Re: Barasine + Katerine isn't that much less than - 20/11/2012 05:31:50 PM 1000 Views
Re: Barasine + Katerine isn't that much less than - 20/11/2012 05:42:53 PM 988 Views
Excuse me? - 20/11/2012 05:28:48 PM 1050 Views
see we can agree on the relative strength of Egwene v. Forsaken - 20/11/2012 05:35:07 PM 1002 Views
??? - 20/11/2012 05:37:01 PM 1111 Views
2 middling sisters - 20/11/2012 05:45:27 PM 1016 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys... - 20/11/2012 02:26:47 AM 930 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys... - 20/11/2012 09:03:40 AM 980 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys... - 20/11/2012 02:59:08 PM 1004 Views
None of this is backed by any evidence... - 20/11/2012 03:24:12 PM 936 Views
who said Cadsuane was 1.5x Moiraine or more? - 20/11/2012 04:03:13 PM 940 Views
Nope... - 20/11/2012 04:41:35 PM 965 Views
wrong - 20/11/2012 04:48:50 PM 908 Views
My bad. Mized up 1/3 and 2/3. - 20/11/2012 05:05:05 PM 1005 Views
gotcha *NM* - 20/11/2012 05:46:21 PM 620 Views
Better evidence? LOL! - 20/11/2012 03:18:55 PM 988 Views
Huh? How did you come to that conclusion? - 20/11/2012 04:40:56 PM 968 Views
Exactly *NM* - 20/11/2012 04:55:28 PM 949 Views
BEcause Cadsuane is close on the heels of Egwene? - 20/11/2012 05:10:50 PM 884 Views
I'm not arguing that. I agree that Cadsuane is pretty close to Egwene - 20/11/2012 05:50:34 PM 988 Views
Re: Better evidence? LOL! - 20/11/2012 05:00:47 PM 901 Views
Interesting, but let's go with your figures... - 19/11/2012 06:54:54 AM 1034 Views
Indeed - 19/11/2012 08:16:44 AM 1093 Views
Rand is sort of a special case - 20/11/2012 04:25:02 AM 911 Views
Regarding Mesaana... - 20/11/2012 08:42:56 AM 985 Views
You continue to mix two things - 20/11/2012 03:24:44 PM 910 Views
No - 20/11/2012 04:54:19 PM 1137 Views
You are mistaken - 20/11/2012 05:04:40 PM 991 Views
Yes she did Darius! - 20/11/2012 05:27:36 PM 928 Views
Yet there is no duel - 20/11/2012 06:01:17 PM 912 Views
Explain the .3xSD thing to me... - 19/11/2012 04:58:57 PM 1147 Views
Probably, but the AS have no idea what 37.5% means - 19/11/2012 02:59:26 AM 926 Views
It's irrelevant - 19/11/2012 03:46:42 AM 1007 Views
Agreed. Daigian is the marker of the absolute bottom of Aes Sedai strength. - 19/11/2012 06:55:41 AM 958 Views
Daigian - 19/11/2012 08:12:19 AM 993 Views
It is a direct marker due to RJ's quote - 19/11/2012 08:50:26 AM 1016 Views
You missed my point - 19/11/2012 09:08:42 AM 941 Views
Re: You missed my point - 19/11/2012 02:18:33 PM 1031 Views
Asmodean would never have made the comment about 13 weakest AS - 20/11/2012 04:41:11 AM 952 Views
Re: Asmodean would never have made the comment about 13 weakest AS - 20/11/2012 09:07:49 AM 939 Views
Which would make an average AS around a 30 - 20/11/2012 04:58:56 PM 808 Views
Re: Sure you can - 19/11/2012 09:22:09 AM 1070 Views
Care to explain this... - 19/11/2012 05:06:28 PM 906 Views
Indeed - 20/11/2012 07:16:37 AM 1098 Views
Explained far better than I ever could. Bravo. - 20/11/2012 07:30:29 AM 949 Views
Well duh. - 20/11/2012 02:57:24 PM 1065 Views
Incorrect. - 20/11/2012 04:28:07 PM 1045 Views
No - 20/11/2012 04:44:16 PM 1026 Views
Re: No - 20/11/2012 04:48:36 PM 1021 Views
That depends... - 20/11/2012 05:18:46 PM 886 Views
Re: That depends... - 20/11/2012 05:31:03 PM 1289 Views
You're integrating without lower limits... - 20/11/2012 02:55:06 PM 997 Views
Re: You're integrating without lower limits... - 20/11/2012 04:37:57 PM 1040 Views
It matters. - 20/11/2012 05:22:40 PM 990 Views
We are not talking about a normal distribution in any case - 20/11/2012 04:44:24 AM 851 Views
Re: We are not talking about a normal distribution in any case - 20/11/2012 07:02:47 AM 1036 Views
You must tell me of this special math... - 20/11/2012 03:10:09 PM 933 Views
Re: You must tell me of this special math... - 20/11/2012 04:29:40 PM 978 Views
Morghase is a placeholder... - 20/11/2012 04:45:42 PM 1062 Views
Re: Morghase is a placeholder... - 20/11/2012 04:49:54 PM 1222 Views
Why? - 20/11/2012 05:23:29 PM 1016 Views
Re: Why? - 20/11/2012 05:36:45 PM 1201 Views
Well... - 18/11/2012 08:43:59 PM 1052 Views
Re: Well... - 19/11/2012 03:40:44 PM 1041 Views
Wow. - 19/11/2012 03:53:47 PM 1071 Views
Re: Wow. - 19/11/2012 04:26:09 PM 1078 Views
Some points - 19/11/2012 06:03:00 PM 1107 Views
Well then you're both wrong I'm afraid - 19/11/2012 06:09:36 PM 952 Views
Re: Well then you're both wrong I'm afraid - 19/11/2012 07:42:58 PM 837 Views
this is why I think all of the Forsaken are very close in Power - 20/11/2012 04:51:20 AM 1042 Views
Agreed - 20/11/2012 08:13:37 AM 1084 Views
probably - 20/11/2012 06:18:45 PM 948 Views
Re: this is why I think all of the Forsaken are very close in Power - 20/11/2012 02:45:18 PM 965 Views
I think RJ went out of his way to keep strength a bit of a mystery - 20/11/2012 08:42:44 PM 979 Views
Indeed... - 21/11/2012 05:44:18 PM 964 Views
I agree - 22/11/2012 01:43:02 AM 1212 Views
Math gurus...Is it possible to find the missing variable... - 21/11/2012 05:12:24 PM 997 Views
the problem is that the Mean is not going to tell us much really - 22/11/2012 02:55:03 AM 1041 Views
Re: the problem is that the Mean is not going to tell us much really - 22/11/2012 03:15:33 AM 1352 Views
I do not think you can calculate the Mean without knowing the Units of Power - 22/11/2012 03:53:59 AM 1132 Views
Re: Math gurus...Is it possible to find the missing variable... - 23/11/2012 02:59:12 PM 1266 Views
Disregard this post *NM* - 23/11/2012 03:02:24 PM 868 Views

Reply to Message