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
U(0,3) means a uniform distribution that outputs values between 0 and 3. Xi refers to the values of samples pulled from distribution X. The maximum value of the variables from a sample converges on 3 as the sample size (n) goes to infinity.
Nice try though.
Xbar means the mean of the sample pulled from distribution X. X is normally distributed with a mean of 0. That means as n->inf x-bar goes to 0. This is literally a parody of the central limit theorem which you’ve clearly never read in your life. You can see it here:
https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/d269e67503670688dba6d8c25481f5e63c0b1d5b
Nice try though.
Sorry I took you for someone smart. You just made an extremely simple problem sound complicated, and I gave you the benefit of doubt for it. Of course the x max in U(0, 3) is 3 (answer is clearly in the notation of the distribution), and for the second part:
This basically covers it. You don’t even need to know the CLT, which what was one of the approaches I was thinking about using. You just need to know what the normal distribution is (and its basic notation). Nice try in trying to skip my answer though (quoted above).
I actually laughed so hard. I can’t believe I gave you the benefit of doubt that you were giving me a difficult problem. Thank you for being so horrifically dense. Good luck trying to figure out why you can’t magically extend your binomial distribution argument from a sample of 5 to 100 games. Surely you can figure it out with your legendary statistics degree.
Oh and:
I was right all along LOL
2 Likes
Reading statistical notation = complicated. Hmmm. It’s almost as if you can’t even read the formulae let alone understand the math concepts.
Kid you have literally no clue what you are talking about. You never contribute anything of substance to any conversation. It’s always “you’re wrong because I say so” and that’s it. The only difference is that you write a 1,000 word essay to convey the same message those 6 words did. I have never seen you post anything with substance.
OK mr tough guy. Please calculate the statistical distribution of the numbers iterated in the Collatz conjecture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collatz_conjecture
For your first problem, you may as well have asked me what the maximum value is on the open interval (0,3) (in terms of a series question of course). Even then, I was confused because you used capital X. You should have used a lowercase x, in which case, I was scratching my head at why you framed it in terms of a distribution question. Literally no one asks a series question framed under a distribution unless they want to make use of the distribution (which you didn’t do).
You are operating on some fundamental delusion that whatever you say holds absolutely true (so anything/everyone else must be false). The reality is that almost everything you say is filled with flaws. If you are too dense to understand what I am saying, then I am sorry but you should just stick to pure whining and not think about anything that’s too difficult for you to understand. It’s clear that when anything goes beyond 1+1, you start to fall apart because you don’t understand there’s more to this world than an addition symbol and the number 1. Hint: I’ll tell you what you are missing. It’s called an open mind.
BatZ: looks up “difficult statistics problem”
result: this thing LOL
Hey, real talk. You need to get some help. Look here:
ht tps://www.webmd.co m/mental-health/dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder
4 Likes
Uh no. Xi or Xn is used to denote samples taken from distribution X where i is from 0 to n. I prefer Xi because it makes it clearer than Xn since n can also mean the sample size. That’s how it’s done everywhere.
Right. So you are going to dodge the moment I ask you a slightly harder problem, right after trash talking me for not providing you with a harder problem? Thanks for proving my point.
The collatz conjecture is easy because you pick a number. If it is odd you multiply by three and add one. If it’s even you divide by two. So all you need to know is what proportion of numbers are even and odd, which decides the first step. The second step is then what probability you have of moving to an even or odd number for each operation. Once you know how common evens and odds are, you can calculate the probability the number goes up (by 3x + 1) or down (x / 2).
Correction
BatZ: looks up “unsolved math problems”
result: hands it to me
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
You are legitimately wasting my time at this point. I played along with you, but you won’t play along with me. You can’t tell me why you can’t go from 5 to 100, so instead of figuring that out, you are wasting my time by throwing more problems at me just so you can get some “AHA” moment out of this. I answered you first (and second). It’s been your turn to answer me. If you’re not going to entertain the very first point that came out of this thread, then don’t waste my time anymore. Either answer the first point or drink another bottle of vodka until you pass out and forget that you lost yet another argument with me.
1 Like
Collatz conjecture is that ALL numbers eventually converge to 1. The probability distribution is well known, however:
11. Conclusion
The convergence process of the function was proven over its elements up to 236 by identifying a sequence of the function’s positive even integers that produces a probability of 50:50 of the division of the integers by 2 more than once as opposed to their division by 2 once with a ratio of about 3:1. For any positive odd integer, the collective divisions by 2 more than once that produced a total decrease of the start number in the function’s trajectory were found to exceed the total increase of the start number produced by division by 2 once. The process indicates a systematic global decrease until one event matches an even number on the symmetrical line and collapses to 1 and loops the cycle 1-4-2-1, presuming that the function yields no other cycles.
Basically there is a delta function that is defined by A) how much you change per iteration and B) the probability of that situation occurring. Since there are two situations, one that makes the number go up and one that makes it go down, it’s a matter of if the up delta is bigger than the down delta. The down delta is larger and so the algorithm iterates to 1.
Are you going to answer my first point or not? At this point you are seriously just making nothing out of this
Edit: stop trying to explain the Collatz conjecture. I genuinely do not care at this point as none of these things have anything to do with the original point of your thread. Either address the flaws in your original post or stop copying off of google for explanations surrounding popular and unsolved problems in mathematics.
1 Like
You first kid. You asked for a hard problem now you’ve got it.
List them or stop talking about them.
Case and point. Once again another thread gone to waste because the man child can’t accept defeat.
They are literally within this thread. It’s my first and second responses JUST under your original post. Hey. Real talk again. I know the answer to this already, but are you genuinely this dumb?
3 Likes
- Claims there are mistakes.
- Can’t list the mistakes.
Taken directly from my first two responses WITHIN THIS THREAD. I’m not even going to bother anymore at this point. Sorry. I didn’t know you weren’t smart enough to scroll in a thread either. Even your average homeless person is smarter than you are. I think it’s foolish on my part to argue with someone who can’t read the first response in his OWN POST.
2 Likes
- Claims there are mistakes.
- Can’t list the mistakes.
It is, but that does not mean that if incorrectly applied it would give correct results. Applying something in the wrong way would yield wrong results.
It’s the proverbial case of that stupid doctor that learned about averages. He took the temperature of all patients with fever as well as corpses at the hospital morgue and his “average” was…36.5 degree Celcius.
He then discharged all patients as totally healthy people.
1 Like
LOL, it reminds me the old days at University. The joke of that day was the “duel” between two of the most illustrious heads of Mathematics and Physics Departments. The first gave to the second a very difficult equation to solve and he did it, then the second gave to his “opponent” a special problem…
Days passed and nothing was happening…
At the end of the week the Physicist sent word to his friend that the “special problem” was one that it was proofed that solutions did …not exist.
Batman isn’t Batz. He’s some kind of abusive whine terran.
1 Like
I agree, BatZ and Rasputin are the same, Batman is a 2-cent (tattooed) whineterran of lesser importance.
Soon BatZ will go into a long vacation. He has to create a new account if he does not like to wait for 3021 to post.
3 Likes
You have to have 3-5 accounts to cycle through to avoid the report abuse on these forums. If you double the number of accounts then you halve the number of reports per account. You also make it harder for abusive trolls to follow you around and mass flag your posts because they don’t know what accounts are what. There are many more reasons. Modern problems require modern solutions.
This is a good example of the report abuse. I knew the account would get banned for this post even though it broke 0 rules. I created a parody of another post, keeping it as close as possible while changing the joke from anti-terran to anti-protoss. The anti-terran post was kept up and never removed, my post was nuked from orbit.
https://i.imgur.com/re5JuK7.png
1 Like