Talk:2118: Normal Distribution - Revision history

Lamty101 at 08:23, 21 August 2020

2020-08-21T08:23:10Z

Lamty101 at 08:17, 21 August 2020

2020-08-21T08:17:56Z

Lamty101 at 08:13, 21 August 2020

2020-08-21T08:13:34Z

Lamty101 at 08:12, 21 August 2020

2020-08-21T08:12:11Z

Hawthorn at 10:26, 20 March 2019

2019-03-20T10:26:09Z

162.158.79.113 at 13:06, 5 March 2019

2019-03-05T13:06:48Z

162.158.79.113: pictures

2019-03-05T13:05:26Z

pictures

Jonhaug at 14:12, 4 March 2019

2019-03-04T14:12:49Z

Cjgeyer: now a statistician in the house

2019-03-03T22:56:08Z

now a statistician in the house

Seebert at 15:14, 3 March 2019

2019-03-03T15:14:28Z

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 : Feh. You merely have to integrate something like Sqrt[Log[x]] which I'm too lazy for and use Mathematica instead which gives...<covers eyes>...what was #2117 about again? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.2|162.158.94.2]] 11:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 :: There's a way to (attempt to) symbolically integrate functions involving things like e^(-x^2) like you have with the normal distribution (Cherry's extension of the Risch algorithm, see his thesis or his 1985 paper), but I have no idea how to apply it here. It's definitely a very complex procedure. As I understand even Mathematica has not implemented it in full. - [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|talk]]) 03:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
-::: I found this calculation of the number 52.7% from wolfram community https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/1623478. I found the area subtraction diagram near the middle most useful for understanding the basic idea of it. [[User:Lamty101|Lamty101]] ([[User talk:Lamty101|talk]]) 08:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
+::: I found this calculation of the number 52.7% from wolfram community. https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/1623478 I found the area subtraction diagram near the middle most useful for understanding the basic idea of it. Also, a related question in quora. https://www.quora.com/In-the-xkcd-comic-Normal-Distribution-how-was-the-number-52-7-calculated [[User:Lamty101|Lamty101]] ([[User talk:Lamty101|talk]]) 08:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 How to annoy a Democratic Liberal Statician- Point out that every identity group that they're trying to make "normal" falls to the far left or the far right of the normal distribution curve.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 : Feh. You merely have to integrate something like Sqrt[Log[x]] which I'm too lazy for and use Mathematica instead which gives...<covers eyes>...what was #2117 about again? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.2|162.158.94.2]] 11:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 :: There's a way to (attempt to) symbolically integrate functions involving things like e^(-x^2) like you have with the normal distribution (Cherry's extension of the Risch algorithm, see his thesis or his 1985 paper), but I have no idea how to apply it here. It's definitely a very complex procedure. As I understand even Mathematica has not implemented it in full. - [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|talk]]) 03:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 How to annoy a Democratic Liberal Statician- Point out that every identity group that they're trying to make "normal" falls to the far left or the far right of the normal distribution curve.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 :As somebody who happens to be all 3 of those things, I can confirm that your comment annoyed me. But only for bringing politics into a discussion that isn't political, and for misusing "normal" in a way like Randall's alt-text. The actual "edgy" political content of your post I find wrong but not particularly annoying. YMMV. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.244|162.158.63.244]] 16:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 ::All statistics are ultimately political, in that they are used to politically argue for predetermined conclusions.  Statistics aren't very useful at actually discovering anything not previously determined to be true.  And it isn't me has misused the word normal, it's those ~2% of the population identity groups that are now using the courts to claim to be normal, when mathematically, they'll never be normal.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 '''"Completely meaningless?"'''<br>

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 ::All statistics are ultimately political, in that they are used to politically argue for predetermined conclusions.  Statistics aren't very useful at actually discovering anything not previously determined to be true.  And it isn't me has misused the word normal, it's those ~2% of the population identity groups that are now using the courts to claim to be normal, when mathematically, they'll never be normal.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
-I found this calculation on the number 52.7% from wolfram community https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/1623478. I think the area subtraction diagram near the middle is the most useful for understanding the idea of it without too much math symbols. [[User:Lamty101|Lamty101]] ([[User talk:Lamty101|talk]]) 08:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
+I found this calculation on the number 52.7% from wolfram community https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/1623478. I think the area subtraction diagram near the middle is the most useful for understanding the basic idea of it. [[User:Lamty101|Lamty101]] ([[User talk:Lamty101|talk]]) 08:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 '''"Completely meaningless?"'''<br>

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 :As somebody who happens to be all 3 of those things, I can confirm that your comment annoyed me. But only for bringing politics into a discussion that isn't political, and for misusing "normal" in a way like Randall's alt-text. The actual "edgy" political content of your post I find wrong but not particularly annoying. YMMV. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.244|162.158.63.244]] 16:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 ::All statistics are ultimately political, in that they are used to politically argue for predetermined conclusions.  Statistics aren't very useful at actually discovering anything not previously determined to be true.  And it isn't me has misused the word normal, it's those ~2% of the population identity groups that are now using the courts to claim to be normal, when mathematically, they'll never be normal.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 '''"Completely meaningless?"'''<br>

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:26, 20 March 2019
Line 52:		Line 52:
	'''Pictures'''<br>		'''Pictures'''<br>
	Hey @Zom-b, you changed the picture I set and gave the comment "I don't know what that other curve is, but it's not normal. (no) pun intended." The two pictures appear to have exactly the same curve in them. I was wondering what you meant by your comment? This is the first picture I've ever set in a wiki, and I worry I could have made an error. Here are the two pictures: [[File:Empirical_Rule.PNG\|64px]] [[File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg\|64px]]. I like the first one, mine, because the lines extend beyond the graph as Randall's do. I like the second one, yours, because it includes percentages over the graph as Randall's has. But the curves both appear normal, in both senses, to me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113\|162.158.79.113]] 13:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)		Hey @Zom-b, you changed the picture I set and gave the comment "I don't know what that other curve is, but it's not normal. (no) pun intended." The two pictures appear to have exactly the same curve in them. I was wondering what you meant by your comment? This is the first picture I've ever set in a wiki, and I worry I could have made an error. Here are the two pictures: [[File:Empirical_Rule.PNG\|64px]] [[File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg\|64px]]. I like the first one, mine, because the lines extend beyond the graph as Randall's do. I like the second one, yours, because it includes percentages over the graph as Randall's has. But the curves both appear normal, in both senses, to me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113\|162.158.79.113]] 13:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Regarding "infinitely narrow", I disagree that this is sloppy wording; it is concisely describing something that tends to zero at the limit of infinity, which is useful information. [[User:Hawthorn\|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn\|talk]]) 10:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:06, 5 March 2019
Line 50:		Line 50:
	What I don't like, are phrases like: "To turn that bar chart into a distribution, you'd get an infinite number of people, put them into age bins that are infinitely narrow, [...]". Infinitely narrow is actually zero or 0. No other interpretation exists.		What I don't like, are phrases like: "To turn that bar chart into a distribution, you'd get an infinite number of people, put them into age bins that are infinitely narrow, [...]". Infinitely narrow is actually zero or 0. No other interpretation exists.

		+	'''Pictures'''<br>
	Hey @Zom-b, you changed the picture I set and gave the comment "I don't know what that other curve is, but it's not normal. (no) pun intended." The two pictures appear to have exactly the same curve in them. I was wondering what you meant by your comment? This is the first picture I've ever set in a wiki, and I worry I could have made an error. Here are the two pictures: [[File:Empirical_Rule.PNG\|64px]] [[File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg\|64px]]. I like the first one, mine, because the lines extend beyond the graph as Randall's do. I like the second one, yours, because it includes percentages over the graph as Randall's has. But the curves both appear normal, in both senses, to me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113\|162.158.79.113]] 13:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)		Hey @Zom-b, you changed the picture I set and gave the comment "I don't know what that other curve is, but it's not normal. (no) pun intended." The two pictures appear to have exactly the same curve in them. I was wondering what you meant by your comment? This is the first picture I've ever set in a wiki, and I worry I could have made an error. Here are the two pictures: [[File:Empirical_Rule.PNG\|64px]] [[File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg\|64px]]. I like the first one, mine, because the lines extend beyond the graph as Randall's do. I like the second one, yours, because it includes percentages over the graph as Randall's has. But the curves both appear normal, in both senses, to me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113\|162.158.79.113]] 13:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:05, 5 March 2019
Line 49:		Line 49:
	'''Sloppy explanation'''<br>		'''Sloppy explanation'''<br>
	What I don't like, are phrases like: "To turn that bar chart into a distribution, you'd get an infinite number of people, put them into age bins that are infinitely narrow, [...]". Infinitely narrow is actually zero or 0. No other interpretation exists.		What I don't like, are phrases like: "To turn that bar chart into a distribution, you'd get an infinite number of people, put them into age bins that are infinitely narrow, [...]". Infinitely narrow is actually zero or 0. No other interpretation exists.
		+
		+	Hey @Zom-b, you changed the picture I set and gave the comment "I don't know what that other curve is, but it's not normal. (no) pun intended." The two pictures appear to have exactly the same curve in them. I was wondering what you meant by your comment? This is the first picture I've ever set in a wiki, and I worry I could have made an error. Here are the two pictures: [[File:Empirical_Rule.PNG\|64px]] [[File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg\|64px]]. I like the first one, mine, because the lines extend beyond the graph as Randall's do. I like the second one, yours, because it includes percentages over the graph as Randall's has. But the curves both appear normal, in both senses, to me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113\|162.158.79.113]] 13:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:12, 4 March 2019
Line 46:		Line 46:

	There is now a statistician in the house. I have added two paragraphs that discuss some of the fine points. This is wrong (which, of course, Randall knows) in so many ways! I tried to keep what I said simple, but it may need some expansion. I also don't think we need the graphic in the explanation because, as I say in the text I added, that is the ''wrong way'' to describe a nonsymmetric distribution like the "tangent distribution". [[User:Cjgeyer\|Cjgeyer]] ([[User talk:Cjgeyer\|talk]]) 22:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)		There is now a statistician in the house. I have added two paragraphs that discuss some of the fine points. This is wrong (which, of course, Randall knows) in so many ways! I tried to keep what I said simple, but it may need some expansion. I also don't think we need the graphic in the explanation because, as I say in the text I added, that is the ''wrong way'' to describe a nonsymmetric distribution like the "tangent distribution". [[User:Cjgeyer\|Cjgeyer]] ([[User talk:Cjgeyer\|talk]]) 22:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	'''Sloppy explanation'''<br>
		+	What I don't like, are phrases like: "To turn that bar chart into a distribution, you'd get an infinite number of people, put them into age bins that are infinitely narrow, [...]". Infinitely narrow is actually zero or 0. No other interpretation exists.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 3 March 2019
Line 44:		Line 44:

	The horizontal division is vaguely reminiscent of Lebesgue integration. I wonder if that was intentional. [[User:Dfeuer\|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer\|talk]]) 06:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)		The horizontal division is vaguely reminiscent of Lebesgue integration. I wonder if that was intentional. [[User:Dfeuer\|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer\|talk]]) 06:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	There is now a statistician in the house. I have added two paragraphs that discuss some of the fine points. This is wrong (which, of course, Randall knows) in so many ways! I tried to keep what I said simple, but it may need some expansion. I also don't think we need the graphic in the explanation because, as I say in the text I added, that is the ''wrong way'' to describe a nonsymmetric distribution like the "tangent distribution". [[User:Cjgeyer\|Cjgeyer]] ([[User talk:Cjgeyer\|talk]]) 22:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)