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 250.3), 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.
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.
How many standard deviations is Lanfear
15/11/2012 06:04:39 PM
- 2090 Views
Hmm...
15/11/2012 07:25:34 PM
- 1232 Views
see we CAN agree on stuff
15/11/2012 07:56:12 PM
- 1077 Views
18/11/2012 08:37:22 PM
- 969 Views
Re:
18/11/2012 11:07:17 PM
- 1173 Views
Re:
19/11/2012 05:16:00 AM
- 1005 Views
Re:
19/11/2012 03:13:01 PM
- 1006 Views
They only reject 37.5%, not 62.5%
19/11/2012 03:19:19 PM
- 1015 Views
Re: They only reject 37.5%, not 62.5%
19/11/2012 04:01:43 PM
- 1219 Views
Re: They only reject 37.5%, not 62.5%
19/11/2012 09:04:04 PM
- 962 Views
Hmmm...
20/11/2012 02:08:40 AM
- 1032 Views
Perhaps, but Egwene is also being a bit dramatic in the scene as she managed
20/11/2012 04:28:57 AM
- 986 Views
Nope...
20/11/2012 03:13:13 PM
- 1035 Views
I believe she is being over dramatic
20/11/2012 03:26:24 PM
- 934 Views
Keep believing that...
20/11/2012 03:30:14 PM
- 1067 Views
*shrugs*
20/11/2012 03:49:10 PM
- 1015 Views
Tired and forkroot are the same now?
20/11/2012 03:55:22 PM
- 921 Views
No it's the literary device
20/11/2012 04:04:28 PM
- 1044 Views
Impossible. Daigian is exactly 0.32SD below the mean
19/11/2012 11:06:04 AM
- 992 Views
You keep saying that, but it is either a linear or a non-linear distribution
19/11/2012 09:09:32 PM
- 1047 Views
That's the whole point. Thanks for finally seeing it.
19/11/2012 09:43:27 PM
- 1006 Views
keep believing that ... but you making up numbers isn't really relevant *NM*
20/11/2012 04:29:44 AM
- 659 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
- 970 Views
Ugh. I hate power level discussions. For real world applications, it should be kind of meaningless
16/11/2012 10:28:49 PM
- 959 Views
I don't really agree
18/11/2012 08:40:53 PM
- 899 Views
Perhaps, but we've seen that a MUCH weaker Channeler can win in a duel
19/11/2012 09:13:48 PM
- 976 Views
Re: Perhaps, but we've seen that a MUCH weaker Channeler can win in a duel
20/11/2012 08:10:01 AM
- 942 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
- 996 Views
You have proven nothing, except that you have an opinion *NM*
18/11/2012 02:21:35 AM
- 641 Views
You simply don't get it. It is mathematically a fact. There is no opinion involved.
18/11/2012 02:19:40 PM
- 846 Views
Only because you've assigned numeric values. That you created.
18/11/2012 02:40:51 PM
- 971 Views
It doesn't matter what figure you use...
18/11/2012 03:01:56 PM
- 846 Views
What if Daigian is one third Lanfear's strength?
18/11/2012 04:37:58 PM
- 992 Views
Sure you can
18/11/2012 10:09:31 PM
- 1003 Views
Re: Sure you can
18/11/2012 10:54:50 PM
- 952 Views
You're right, though its 37.5%
19/11/2012 12:21:29 AM
- 920 Views
Oops, typo!
19/11/2012 02:54:25 AM
- 987 Views
Again, not possible, due to Daigian being just 0.3SD below the Mean
19/11/2012 08:37:01 AM
- 940 Views
Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys...
19/11/2012 04:05:12 PM
- 882 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys...
19/11/2012 05:55:02 PM
- 809 Views
Egwene is about as strong as Melaine and Amys combined
19/11/2012 09:19:50 PM
- 932 Views
Re: Egwene is about as strong as Melaine and Amys combined
20/11/2012 02:11:26 AM
- 956 Views
Forkroot in every case
20/11/2012 04:32:26 AM
- 937 Views
No!
20/11/2012 03:15:16 PM
- 917 Views
I'm not going to go re-read the books to you on this
20/11/2012 03:39:46 PM
- 936 Views
You need to read it for yourself, since you're completely confused.
20/11/2012 03:54:26 PM
- 900 Views
Not going to argue this with you.
20/11/2012 04:09:44 PM
- 877 Views
Your own example disproved your point...
20/11/2012 04:39:25 PM
- 981 Views
let's see, she's both asleep and would need hours to regain her strength
20/11/2012 04:43:17 PM
- 863 Views
Enough!
20/11/2012 05:04:06 PM
- 948 Views
LOL ... whatever. You go on believing that ... no one else sees it this way. *NM*
20/11/2012 05:20:52 PM
- 629 Views
Re: Your own example disproved your point...
20/11/2012 05:10:15 PM
- 992 Views
Barasine + Katerine isn't that much less than
20/11/2012 05:26:31 PM
- 998 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys...
20/11/2012 02:26:47 AM
- 869 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys...
20/11/2012 09:03:40 AM
- 920 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys...
20/11/2012 02:59:08 PM
- 954 Views
None of this is backed by any evidence...
20/11/2012 03:24:12 PM
- 873 Views
who said Cadsuane was 1.5x Moiraine or more?
20/11/2012 04:03:13 PM
- 883 Views
Nope...
20/11/2012 04:41:35 PM
- 910 Views
wrong
20/11/2012 04:48:50 PM
- 850 Views
Better evidence? LOL!
20/11/2012 03:18:55 PM
- 922 Views
Huh? How did you come to that conclusion?
20/11/2012 04:40:56 PM
- 915 Views
BEcause Cadsuane is close on the heels of Egwene?
20/11/2012 05:10:50 PM
- 831 Views
I'm not arguing that. I agree that Cadsuane is pretty close to Egwene
20/11/2012 05:50:34 PM
- 935 Views
Interesting, but let's go with your figures...
19/11/2012 06:54:54 AM
- 982 Views
Indeed
19/11/2012 08:16:44 AM
- 1029 Views
Rand is sort of a special case
20/11/2012 04:25:02 AM
- 853 Views
Regarding Mesaana...
20/11/2012 08:42:56 AM
- 929 Views
You continue to mix two things
20/11/2012 03:24:44 PM
- 850 Views
No
20/11/2012 04:54:19 PM
- 1076 Views
You are mistaken
20/11/2012 05:04:40 PM
- 929 Views
Explain the .3xSD thing to me...
19/11/2012 04:58:57 PM
- 1096 Views
Probably, but the AS have no idea what 37.5% means
19/11/2012 02:59:26 AM
- 876 Views
It's irrelevant
19/11/2012 03:46:42 AM
- 948 Views
Agreed. Daigian is the marker of the absolute bottom of Aes Sedai strength.
19/11/2012 06:55:41 AM
- 911 Views
Daigian
19/11/2012 08:12:19 AM
- 930 Views
It is a direct marker due to RJ's quote
19/11/2012 08:50:26 AM
- 963 Views
You missed my point
19/11/2012 09:08:42 AM
- 890 Views
Asmodean would never have made the comment about 13 weakest AS
20/11/2012 04:41:11 AM
- 904 Views
Re: Asmodean would never have made the comment about 13 weakest AS
20/11/2012 09:07:49 AM
- 880 Views
Re: Sure you can
19/11/2012 09:22:09 AM
- 1018 Views
Care to explain this...
19/11/2012 05:06:28 PM
- 858 Views
Indeed
20/11/2012 07:16:37 AM
- 1079 Views
Explained far better than I ever could. Bravo.
20/11/2012 07:30:29 AM
- 901 Views
Well duh.
20/11/2012 02:57:24 PM
- 1006 Views
Incorrect.
20/11/2012 04:28:07 PM
- 993 Views
No
20/11/2012 04:44:16 PM
- 969 Views
You're integrating without lower limits...
20/11/2012 02:55:06 PM
- 941 Views
We are not talking about a normal distribution in any case
20/11/2012 04:44:24 AM
- 790 Views
Re: We are not talking about a normal distribution in any case
20/11/2012 07:02:47 AM
- 979 Views
You must tell me of this special math...
20/11/2012 03:10:09 PM
- 874 Views
Re: You must tell me of this special math...
20/11/2012 04:29:40 PM
- 907 Views
Morghase is a placeholder...
20/11/2012 04:45:42 PM
- 974 Views
Well...
18/11/2012 08:43:59 PM
- 1005 Views
Re: Well...
19/11/2012 03:40:44 PM
- 988 Views
Wow.
19/11/2012 03:53:47 PM
- 1034 Views
Well then you're both wrong I'm afraid
19/11/2012 06:09:36 PM
- 890 Views
Re: Well then you're both wrong I'm afraid
19/11/2012 07:42:58 PM
- 788 Views
this is why I think all of the Forsaken are very close in Power
20/11/2012 04:51:20 AM
- 980 Views
Re: this is why I think all of the Forsaken are very close in Power
20/11/2012 02:45:18 PM
- 927 Views
I think RJ went out of his way to keep strength a bit of a mystery
20/11/2012 08:42:44 PM
- 927 Views
Math gurus...Is it possible to find the missing variable...
21/11/2012 05:12:24 PM
- 935 Views
the problem is that the Mean is not going to tell us much really
22/11/2012 02:55:03 AM
- 990 Views
Re: the problem is that the Mean is not going to tell us much really
22/11/2012 03:15:33 AM
- 1289 Views
I do not think you can calculate the Mean without knowing the Units of Power
22/11/2012 03:53:59 AM
- 1080 Views