Sciencescience

Sun Jun 9, 2019, 06:13 PM

Now that we have learned that 2 + 3 x 4 does not equal 20

let’s move onto some advanced statistics.

Let’s examine very large sets of numbers of the form xxx.x, maybe temperatures from various ground-based stations. If we assume that the tenth of a degree digit is distributed uniformly (and there are no factors to indicate otherwise) and we round the data according to the following algorithm:

.1 - .4 rounds down
. 6 - .9 rounds up
.5 rounds to the nearest even number

And we take an average of the rounded numbers as opposed to the raw, or unrounded ones, is one average significantly more accurate than the other? Remember, we are dealing with millions of data points over repeated sets of data and time.

13 replies, 425 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Sun Jun 9, 2019, 06:43 PM

1. Who here claimed 2 + 3 x 4 equaled 20 ?

"Now that we have learned that 2 + 3 x 4 does not equal 20"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 9, 2019, 06:51 PM

2. I simplified it for the board BUT

our Creationist colleague claimed, and actually doubled down, on the results of a string of additions, subtractions, multiplications, and divisions that simply worked from left to right and did not take into consideration the order of precedence of operators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Sun Jun 9, 2019, 06:55 PM

3. lol @ the racist npc for missing the most important statstic for scientific data gathering

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 9, 2019, 07:01 PM

4. Enlighten me, oh knowledgable one!

The question is inthe OP. All you have to do is answer it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 9, 2019, 07:03 PM

5. I would be more than happy to educate you, all you have to do to pay for that education

 

Is to not be such a regressive leftard NPC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 9, 2019, 07:05 PM

6. In other words, you have no clue

but you seek your internets street cred with insults. Typical. Sad, but typical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 06:07 AM

7. lol @ the racist npc for thinking it has something

 

You see NPC you would have to be human for me to take you seriously

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:45 AM

10. You should really work on livening up your material

It’s getting pretty stale. I half expect you to say “Faux News Alert” any day now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:56 AM

12. Trying to teach him is a waste of time specs

He refuses to learn anything

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:31 AM

8. How dishonest of you

I did not participate in your infantile 2+3x4 little game. I happen to understand the rules.


I did, however, clearly explain to you the concept of significant figures. The product can be no more accurate than the data used. It's not that complicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:43 AM

9. Significant figures?? Nope, you explained a non-existing concept that you called

“significant numbers.” As to your little gotcha, well it fails miserably when one is dealing with very large datasets as the variance across that uniform distribution makes any differences statistically insignificant.

Moving on, do you now understand:

1. That there was a draft prior to the 1969 lottery and
2. Why Trumpie’s lottery number is irrelevant to a conversation regarding if he did or did not avoid the draft

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:53 AM

11. Obviously you paid no attention to how NOAA collects and calculates data

and you don't understand the concept of significant figures.

Sorry, I'm not taking the time and effort to teach you again. You had your one and only chance to learn.

There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:09 PM

13. He always acts like he knew something all along after being proven wrong.

Lmao.
Poor roflguy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience