“Statistical proof” = “means nothing”. I stopped reading there. Math denial is not a valid argument.
2 Likes
That is rich coming from this clown in light of his debate (where he was obliterated) with Mercurial where this clown tried to riot against 1000 Year of mathematics.
This imbecile reduces mathematics to…computer science.
5 Likes
I’m not even going to speak to you if you can’t realize that extending your binomial calculation from 5 games to 100 means absolutely nothing, and that it has nothing to do with the second half of what you said. Not denying math, not denying statistical proof just yet. You are just an incoherent human being. If you can’t string your thoughts together nicely, don’t bother sharing them. Do you understand what I am saying or are you going to twist my words again?
6 Likes
OK so you can’t understand simple statistics. Blocked.
4 Likes
He’s not listening to me. And when he realizes something is wrong, he gets angry and reacts emotionally.
And then when I give him what he wants he gets angry…
Case and point once again… It’s a paradox where he HAS to be trolling, but at the same time, we know he’s not trolling.
5 Likes
what kind of “Statistical proof” have you provided other than the long a-s-s essay ?
1 Like
Admitting you lack the attention span to hold ideas in your memory between paragraphs isn’t the best way to defend your position.
1 Like
again, you still haven’t provided ANY “Statistical proof" other than your horse sh-it
1 Like
You know how in Ace Attorney if you present the wrong evidence for a prompt, and your character cant explain how its connected but sometimes they insist that it is?
Thats batz. Every day. All the time.
4 Likes
Blocked. 12345678901
Your inability to understand simple statistics != their validity. Do not blame your failures on others.
If nobody can understand your “simple” statistics and thinks theyre wrong, then a normal person would conclude that they were wrong. It takes a really egotistical and broken mind to literally be incapable of understanding the possibility that they dont know everything.
1 Like
Dude batz has a degree in university in statistics and you argue against him ? He simplified it well, I have trouble grasping what you don’t understand… what he did is simple math and association.
I have a degree in math/related fields too. Your point…? “He” is not even correct with the first half of what he’s saying.
2 Likes
Batman, Batz, Rasputin,… are just part of the same troll-account: both make an awful lot of posts containing nonsense/trolling, both are anti toss, both have hidden profile , both have the same profile picture, both have the same writing style, both don’t understand statistics and pull numbers out of thin air ,…
The part that he needs his alter ego to get to you already says enough 
.
3 Likes
That’s easy to test. What does max(Xi) converge on as n->inf for given X ~ U(0, 3)? What does x-bar converge on as n->inf for N(0, 3)?
If what you say is true, why do you not agree with him ? Mathematics is an exact science. There is no in between interpretations.
1 Like
Lmao I’m not batz or anybody else. I only have 1 alt account… please stop making assumptions out of your league.
1 Like
X ~ U(0, 3) I take it you are referring to the uniform distribution from 0 to 3. This max(Xi) part is throwing me off, probably due to the limited notation abilities for what you can do around here. Either you are asking for the max value of the distribution, in which case that is 1/3… But that is too simple, so it’s probably not what you want. You need to make it more clear what you are looking for, though I’m not really interested in drawing out potentially ridiculous statistics problems on a forum…
I hope you are talking about a new X ~ N(0, 3). I take it this is the normal distribution, and you are asking for the covergence of the mean values on the distribution. Also hoping this isn’t a 2 part problem, because that part is also unclear (would probably be incorrect anyway). Well this is either something strangely simple like the mean = 0, but based on the phrasing of the previous problem, and knowing you, it’s probably something also painfully drawn out as well.
I’m not interested in drawing out a long proof involving e or epsilon if that’s where you are trying to take me. And doing an in depth statistics proof is something you usually do when you are pursuing a master’s/phd anyway. Maybe it’s text limitations, but I’ve never come across a problem simply worded like yours yet so unclear in what it’s looking for. Never said I had a full degree in statistics either, if you’re wondering.
Because what he’s doing is incorrect? Simple as that.
Like I say here:
Also, this could also be why I’m struggling to fully understand the statistics problem he gave me. Could just be incoherent. In any case, I have obviously pointed out the point where I disagree with him. No I am not going to repeat myself. I don’t get why you people find things so hard to read through the first time.
1 Like