Active Users:1167 Time:22/11/2024 08:49:57 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 2076 Views
Well... - 15/11/2012 07:02:45 PM 1113 Views
Hmm... - 15/11/2012 07:25:34 PM 1215 Views
see we CAN agree on stuff - 15/11/2012 07:56:12 PM 1066 Views
- 18/11/2012 08:37:22 PM 959 Views
We've always been close with everything except the scale - 18/11/2012 10:29:07 PM 996 Views
Re: - 18/11/2012 11:07:17 PM 1164 Views
Re: - 19/11/2012 05:16:00 AM 993 Views
Re: - 19/11/2012 03:13:01 PM 997 Views
They only reject 37.5%, not 62.5% - 19/11/2012 03:19:19 PM 1001 Views
Re: They only reject 37.5%, not 62.5% - 19/11/2012 04:01:43 PM 1207 Views
Re: They only reject 37.5%, not 62.5% - 19/11/2012 09:04:04 PM 952 Views
Hmmm... - 20/11/2012 02:08:40 AM 1020 Views
Perhaps, but Egwene is also being a bit dramatic in the scene as she managed - 20/11/2012 04:28:57 AM 977 Views
Nope... - 20/11/2012 03:13:13 PM 1028 Views
I believe she is being over dramatic - 20/11/2012 03:26:24 PM 927 Views
Keep believing that... - 20/11/2012 03:30:14 PM 1057 Views
*shrugs* - 20/11/2012 03:49:10 PM 1005 Views
Tired and forkroot are the same now? - 20/11/2012 03:55:22 PM 913 Views
No it's the literary device - 20/11/2012 04:04:28 PM 1034 Views
This is getting ridiculous... - 20/11/2012 04:43:13 PM 913 Views
You are missing my point completely - 20/11/2012 04:50:46 PM 874 Views
Impossible. Daigian is exactly 0.32SD below the mean - 19/11/2012 11:06:04 AM 977 Views
You keep saying that, but it is either a linear or a non-linear distribution - 19/11/2012 09:09:32 PM 1031 Views
That's the whole point. Thanks for finally seeing it. - 19/11/2012 09:43:27 PM 995 Views
keep believing that ... but you making up numbers isn't really relevant *NM* - 20/11/2012 04:29:44 AM 655 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 957 Views
Go read Fionwe's post about it *NM* - 20/11/2012 02:33:19 PM 670 Views
Is that before or after she started juicing? - 15/11/2012 11:04:14 PM 972 Views
Wouldn't it be 1 in 105 million? - 21/11/2012 04:56:19 PM 822 Views
Are you sure that it is a normal distribution? - 16/11/2012 04:21:02 PM 1045 Views
Ugh. I hate power level discussions. For real world applications, it should be kind of meaningless - 16/11/2012 10:28:49 PM 949 Views
I don't really agree - 18/11/2012 08:40:53 PM 891 Views
Perhaps, but we've seen that a MUCH weaker Channeler can win in a duel - 19/11/2012 09:13:48 PM 963 Views
Re: Perhaps, but we've seen that a MUCH weaker Channeler can win in a duel - 20/11/2012 08:10:01 AM 934 Views
probably ... Lanfear/Cyndane is clearly remarkably skilled - 20/11/2012 02:35:09 PM 973 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 990 Views
You have proven nothing, except that you have an opinion *NM* - 18/11/2012 02:21:35 AM 638 Views
You simply don't get it. It is mathematically a fact. There is no opinion involved. - 18/11/2012 02:19:40 PM 837 Views
Only because you've assigned numeric values. That you created. - 18/11/2012 02:40:51 PM 961 Views
It doesn't matter what figure you use... - 18/11/2012 03:01:56 PM 840 Views
What if Daigian is one third Lanfear's strength? - 18/11/2012 04:37:58 PM 983 Views
We have a limit for Daigian's strength, as you well know. - 18/11/2012 05:41:49 PM 932 Views
Are you kidding me? - 18/11/2012 09:07:38 PM 1095 Views
Sure you can - 18/11/2012 10:09:31 PM 994 Views
Re: Sure you can - 18/11/2012 10:54:50 PM 943 Views
You're right, though its 37.5% - 19/11/2012 12:21:29 AM 907 Views
Oops, typo! - 19/11/2012 02:54:25 AM 979 Views
Again, not possible, due to Daigian being just 0.3SD below the Mean - 19/11/2012 08:37:01 AM 929 Views
Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys... - 19/11/2012 04:05:12 PM 874 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys... - 19/11/2012 05:55:02 PM 800 Views
Egwene is about as strong as Melaine and Amys combined - 19/11/2012 09:19:50 PM 918 Views
Re: Egwene is about as strong as Melaine and Amys combined - 20/11/2012 02:11:26 AM 947 Views
Forkroot in every case - 20/11/2012 04:32:26 AM 927 Views
No! - 20/11/2012 03:15:16 PM 908 Views
I'm not going to go re-read the books to you on this - 20/11/2012 03:39:46 PM 926 Views
You need to read it for yourself, since you're completely confused. - 20/11/2012 03:54:26 PM 890 Views
Not going to argue this with you. - 20/11/2012 04:09:44 PM 864 Views
Your own example disproved your point... - 20/11/2012 04:39:25 PM 960 Views
let's see, she's both asleep and would need hours to regain her strength - 20/11/2012 04:43:17 PM 851 Views
Enough! - 20/11/2012 05:04:06 PM 939 Views
LOL ... whatever. You go on believing that ... no one else sees it this way. *NM* - 20/11/2012 05:20:52 PM 626 Views
What a brilliant argument! - 20/11/2012 05:25:18 PM 973 Views
this is why I refuse to continue this debate - 20/11/2012 05:31:11 PM 887 Views
Re: Your own example disproved your point... - 20/11/2012 05:10:15 PM 982 Views
Barasine + Katerine isn't that much less than - 20/11/2012 05:26:31 PM 986 Views
Re: Barasine + Katerine isn't that much less than - 20/11/2012 05:31:50 PM 926 Views
Re: Barasine + Katerine isn't that much less than - 20/11/2012 05:42:53 PM 924 Views
Excuse me? - 20/11/2012 05:28:48 PM 977 Views
see we can agree on the relative strength of Egwene v. Forsaken - 20/11/2012 05:35:07 PM 928 Views
??? - 20/11/2012 05:37:01 PM 1004 Views
2 middling sisters - 20/11/2012 05:45:27 PM 949 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys... - 20/11/2012 02:26:47 AM 861 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys... - 20/11/2012 09:03:40 AM 909 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys... - 20/11/2012 02:59:08 PM 944 Views
None of this is backed by any evidence... - 20/11/2012 03:24:12 PM 860 Views
who said Cadsuane was 1.5x Moiraine or more? - 20/11/2012 04:03:13 PM 862 Views
Nope... - 20/11/2012 04:41:35 PM 904 Views
wrong - 20/11/2012 04:48:50 PM 839 Views
My bad. Mized up 1/3 and 2/3. - 20/11/2012 05:05:05 PM 931 Views
gotcha *NM* - 20/11/2012 05:46:21 PM 585 Views
Better evidence? LOL! - 20/11/2012 03:18:55 PM 909 Views
Huh? How did you come to that conclusion? - 20/11/2012 04:40:56 PM 902 Views
Exactly *NM* - 20/11/2012 04:55:28 PM 875 Views
BEcause Cadsuane is close on the heels of Egwene? - 20/11/2012 05:10:50 PM 819 Views
I'm not arguing that. I agree that Cadsuane is pretty close to Egwene - 20/11/2012 05:50:34 PM 927 Views
Re: Better evidence? LOL! - 20/11/2012 05:00:47 PM 832 Views
Interesting, but let's go with your figures... - 19/11/2012 06:54:54 AM 973 Views
Indeed - 19/11/2012 08:16:44 AM 1014 Views
Rand is sort of a special case - 20/11/2012 04:25:02 AM 841 Views
Regarding Mesaana... - 20/11/2012 08:42:56 AM 911 Views
You continue to mix two things - 20/11/2012 03:24:44 PM 840 Views
No - 20/11/2012 04:54:19 PM 1060 Views
You are mistaken - 20/11/2012 05:04:40 PM 920 Views
Yes she did Darius! - 20/11/2012 05:27:36 PM 857 Views
Yet there is no duel - 20/11/2012 06:01:17 PM 839 Views
Explain the .3xSD thing to me... - 19/11/2012 04:58:57 PM 1083 Views
Probably, but the AS have no idea what 37.5% means - 19/11/2012 02:59:26 AM 865 Views
It's irrelevant - 19/11/2012 03:46:42 AM 936 Views
Agreed. Daigian is the marker of the absolute bottom of Aes Sedai strength. - 19/11/2012 06:55:41 AM 900 Views
Daigian - 19/11/2012 08:12:19 AM 922 Views
It is a direct marker due to RJ's quote - 19/11/2012 08:50:26 AM 947 Views
You missed my point - 19/11/2012 09:08:42 AM 879 Views
Re: You missed my point - 19/11/2012 02:18:33 PM 952 Views
Asmodean would never have made the comment about 13 weakest AS - 20/11/2012 04:41:11 AM 889 Views
Re: Asmodean would never have made the comment about 13 weakest AS - 20/11/2012 09:07:49 AM 866 Views
Which would make an average AS around a 30 - 20/11/2012 04:58:56 PM 738 Views
Re: Sure you can - 19/11/2012 09:22:09 AM 1009 Views
Care to explain this... - 19/11/2012 05:06:28 PM 850 Views
Indeed - 20/11/2012 07:16:37 AM 1071 Views
Explained far better than I ever could. Bravo. - 20/11/2012 07:30:29 AM 888 Views
Well duh. - 20/11/2012 02:57:24 PM 995 Views
Incorrect. - 20/11/2012 04:28:07 PM 981 Views
No - 20/11/2012 04:44:16 PM 955 Views
Re: No - 20/11/2012 04:48:36 PM 951 Views
That depends... - 20/11/2012 05:18:46 PM 822 Views
Re: That depends... - 20/11/2012 05:31:03 PM 1249 Views
You're integrating without lower limits... - 20/11/2012 02:55:06 PM 930 Views
Re: You're integrating without lower limits... - 20/11/2012 04:37:57 PM 963 Views
It matters. - 20/11/2012 05:22:40 PM 928 Views
We are not talking about a normal distribution in any case - 20/11/2012 04:44:24 AM 775 Views
Re: We are not talking about a normal distribution in any case - 20/11/2012 07:02:47 AM 966 Views
You must tell me of this special math... - 20/11/2012 03:10:09 PM 862 Views
Re: You must tell me of this special math... - 20/11/2012 04:29:40 PM 897 Views
Morghase is a placeholder... - 20/11/2012 04:45:42 PM 965 Views
Re: Morghase is a placeholder... - 20/11/2012 04:49:54 PM 1151 Views
Why? - 20/11/2012 05:23:29 PM 943 Views
Re: Why? - 20/11/2012 05:36:45 PM 1120 Views
Well... - 18/11/2012 08:43:59 PM 998 Views
Re: Well... - 19/11/2012 03:40:44 PM 978 Views
Wow. - 19/11/2012 03:53:47 PM 1023 Views
Re: Wow. - 19/11/2012 04:26:09 PM 1031 Views
Some points - 19/11/2012 06:03:00 PM 1034 Views
Well then you're both wrong I'm afraid - 19/11/2012 06:09:36 PM 874 Views
Re: Well then you're both wrong I'm afraid - 19/11/2012 07:42:58 PM 776 Views
this is why I think all of the Forsaken are very close in Power - 20/11/2012 04:51:20 AM 969 Views
Agreed - 20/11/2012 08:13:37 AM 999 Views
probably - 20/11/2012 06:18:45 PM 880 Views
Re: this is why I think all of the Forsaken are very close in Power - 20/11/2012 02:45:18 PM 911 Views
I think RJ went out of his way to keep strength a bit of a mystery - 20/11/2012 08:42:44 PM 915 Views
Indeed... - 21/11/2012 05:44:18 PM 891 Views
I agree - 22/11/2012 01:43:02 AM 1140 Views
Math gurus...Is it possible to find the missing variable... - 21/11/2012 05:12:24 PM 921 Views
the problem is that the Mean is not going to tell us much really - 22/11/2012 02:55:03 AM 982 Views
Re: the problem is that the Mean is not going to tell us much really - 22/11/2012 03:15:33 AM 1275 Views
I do not think you can calculate the Mean without knowing the Units of Power - 22/11/2012 03:53:59 AM 1074 Views
Re: Math gurus...Is it possible to find the missing variable... - 23/11/2012 02:59:12 PM 1205 Views
Disregard this post *NM* - 23/11/2012 03:02:24 PM 840 Views

Reply to Message