What user has changed the most since he started posting here?

[Jake]

Which will hardly replace the money lost due to higher wages and there will be no benefit.

Don't tell me you're in the other 12% too.

I won't if you shut the fcuk up.

[jokerman]

I would think a fair coin would be 50-50.  The odds of it hitting heads 940 times out of 1000 are very rare, I would think, and I would personally think the coin is a cheat.

What's the controversy?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You're just a parrot. How could you change much?

Come back to us when you know more economic theory than lame insults.

What insult?  You still quote the DailyKos.

What's so bad about that, Mr. 940-heads-and-60-tails-are-not-statistically-significant? You're too partisan to even admit basic statistical facts.

You support the actions of a Democrat that had the effect of killing several hundred people, mostly poor and Black.  This is JFRAUD's Democratic party; fortunately, it's not the real one.

Of course, even on those threads you don't read, people criticize  your "statistics," without any solicitation.

You can quit straw manning me. Anyone who knows any statitistics will realize that you're a moron for still disagreeing with the following statement:

"A sample of 940 heads and 60 tails is statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin at the 95% confidence level".

You've had 9 months to figure that out, and you're still 100% wrong. If you can't admit defeat on basic statistical facts, why should anyone trust you on anything? You have zero intellectual integrity.

The Atlas has passed it judgment on that, repeatedly, and you've earned the nickname JFRAUD.  People are now volunteering to say you're wrong without any prompting from me.  I told a aquantence who writes and sells statistical programs (and actually has a doctorate in the subject) about your statements and we, laugh and laugh and laugh.

Please tell me why you support actions that had the effect of killing and injuring several hundred people, mostly poor and Black?

I doubt you clearly stated the problem. The fact is, 940 heads and 60 tails are definitely statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin at the 95% confidence level, and no amount of spin can possible change that. It's a fact.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I would think a fair coin would be 50-50.  The odds of it hitting heads 940 times out of 1000 are very rare, I would think, and I would personally think the coin is a cheat.

What's the controversy?

J.J. doesn't understand statistical significance. You assume a null hypothesis of a fair coin, find the MOE for the 95% confidenece interval, and if you are out of that MOE you must reject the null hypothesis with 95% confidence. Anyone who has taken a basic statistics course should understand that, but J.J. still doesn't 9 months later.

[J. J.]

I would think a fair coin would be 50-50.  The odds of it hitting heads 940 times out of 1000 are very rare, I would think, and I would personally think the coin is a cheat.

What's the controversy?

J.J. doesn't understand statistical significance. You assume a null hypothesis of a fair coin, find the MOE for the 95% confidenece interval, and if you are out of that MOE you must reject the null hypothesis with 95% confidence. Anyone who has taken a basic statistics course should understand that, but J.J. still doesn't 9 months later.

The problem is that JFRAUD does not understand the the difference between the odds and statistical significance.  You can read all about it:
For the statistical matters the answer to your question can be found here,

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

Oh, and of course here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

[WMS]

I would think a fair coin would be 50-50.  The odds of it hitting heads 940 times out of 1000 are very rare, I would think, and I would personally think the coin is a cheat.

What's the controversy?

Run away, Preston! Run away! Save yourself!

[J. J.]

Oh, and here is one completely gratuitous:

You don't look like you're 20

I'm blessed by young looks I suppose. It certainly was a buggar when I was younger when I couldn't get served in bars when I was 17.

Do you go to Oxford University.  (If the answer is yes, I will be exceptionally impressed.)

Yes. Oriel College. I study Mathematics, something which I rarely talk about here (for example, I am abundantly qualified to talk about how you are right are Jfraud is wrong on the 94% thing). This can be confirmed if anybody is skeptical.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is that JFRAUD does not understand the the difference between the odds and statistical significance.  You can read all about it:
For the statistical matters the answer to your question can be found here,

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

Oh, and of course here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0
[/quote]

There you go again, being a typical dishonest Republican. The question we were arguing about for the last 9 months was whether 940 heads and 60 tails are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. You'd like to make the discusison more complicated, a typical Republican tactict when they are wrong, but the fact is that you've been arguing this wrong position for 9 months.

Also, you and Tredrick were both busted on the similar problem of whether a 94% linear correlation can be statistically significant. Once you have enough data points, it has to be. Biased opinion polls that Tredrick made are irreleveant to mathematical fact. Might I mention that you did even better in a matchup against me? Some Republicans agreed with me on the statistics, like Erc. It's nice to know that there are a couple of Republicans who aren't 100% intellectually dishonest.

[J. J.]

I would also not that this is ample evidence that JFRAUD has not changed very much.  ;-)

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is that JFRAUD does not understand the the difference between the odds and statistical significance.  You can read all about it:
For the statistical matters the answer to your question can be found here,

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

Oh, and of course here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

There you go again, being a typical dishonest Republican. The question we were arguing about for the last 9 months was whether 940 heads and 60 tails are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. You'd like to make the discusison more complicated, a typical Republican tactict when they are wrong, but the fact is that you've been arguing this wrong position for 9 months.

Also, you and Tredrick were both busted on the similar problem of whether a 94% linear correlation can be statistically significant. Once you have enough data points, it has to be. Biased opinion polls that Tredrick made are irreleveant to mathematical fact. Might I mention that you did even better in a matchup against me? Some Republicans agreed with me on the statistics, like Erc. It's nice to know that there are a couple of Republicans who aren't 100% intellectually dishonest.
[/quote]

No actually we've been arguing if you could claim, with 95% certainty, that this coin will come up heads.  Do you?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is that JFRAUD does not understand the the difference between the odds and statistical significance.  You can read all about it:
For the statistical matters the answer to your question can be found here,

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

Oh, and of course here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

There you go again, being a typical dishonest Republican. The question we were arguing about for the last 9 months was whether 940 heads and 60 tails are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. You'd like to make the discusison more complicated, a typical Republican tactict when they are wrong, but the fact is that you've been arguing this wrong position for 9 months.

Also, you and Tredrick were both busted on the similar problem of whether a 94% linear correlation can be statistically significant. Once you have enough data points, it has to be. Biased opinion polls that Tredrick made are irreleveant to mathematical fact. Might I mention that you did even better in a matchup against me? Some Republicans agreed with me on the statistics, like Erc. It's nice to know that there are a couple of Republicans who aren't 100% intellectually dishonest.

No actually we've been arguing if you could claim, with 95% certainty, that this coin will come up heads.  Do you?
[/quote]

That's not what we were arguing, you lying shthead. I repeat what we've been arguing is whether the following statement is true.


"A sample of 940 heads and 60 tails is statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin at the 95% confidence level".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh, and here is one completely gratuitous:

You don't look like you're 20

I'm blessed by young looks I suppose. It certainly was a buggar when I was younger when I couldn't get served in bars when I was 17.

Do you go to Oxford University.  (If the answer is yes, I will be exceptionally impressed.)

Yes. Oriel College. I study Mathematics, something which I rarely talk about here (for example, I am abundantly qualified to talk about how you are right are Jfraud is wrong on the 94% thing). This can be confirmed if anybody is skeptical.

Irrelevant. Lots of people who are majoring in math don't understand statistics.

[Inmate Trump]

I think I've changed a lot.  I used to post a lot of stuff actually regarding politics.  I rarely do now.

As others have stated, I used to be "GWBFan."  Not anymore.

I've gone through several personal changes too.

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is that JFRAUD does not understand the the difference between the odds and statistical significance.  You can read all about it:
For the statistical matters the answer to your question can be found here,

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

Oh, and of course here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

There you go again, being a typical dishonest Republican. The question we were arguing about for the last 9 months was whether 940 heads and 60 tails are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. You'd like to make the discusison more complicated, a typical Republican tactict when they are wrong, but the fact is that you've been arguing this wrong position for 9 months.

Also, you and Tredrick were both busted on the similar problem of whether a 94% linear correlation can be statistically significant. Once you have enough data points, it has to be. Biased opinion polls that Tredrick made are irreleveant to mathematical fact. Might I mention that you did even better in a matchup against me? Some Republicans agreed with me on the statistics, like Erc. It's nice to know that there are a couple of Republicans who aren't 100% intellectually dishonest.

No actually we've been arguing if you could claim, with 95% certainty, that this coin will come up heads.  Do you?

That's not what we were arguing, you lying shthead. I repeat what we've been arguing is whether the following statement is true.


"A sample of 940 heads and 60 tails is statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin at the 95% confidence level".
[/quote]

Actually, it's explained on the first page of this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

IIRC it's my first post on that thread.

All sorts of interesting things on those threads, like one of the "you all hate me comments."  To date, you are the only the member that I've posted a message to stating that I don't hate you.  I had to do it twice!

Another one is where I explained how a calendar works.

Don't blame me; you keep bringing it up.  Are you doing it to hide your support for someone whose policies had the effect of killing mostly poor and mostly Black people?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is that JFRAUD does not understand the the difference between the odds and statistical significance.  You can read all about it:
For the statistical matters the answer to your question can be found here,

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

Oh, and of course here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

There you go again, being a typical dishonest Republican. The question we were arguing about for the last 9 months was whether 940 heads and 60 tails are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. You'd like to make the discusison more complicated, a typical Republican tactict when they are wrong, but the fact is that you've been arguing this wrong position for 9 months.

Also, you and Tredrick were both busted on the similar problem of whether a 94% linear correlation can be statistically significant. Once you have enough data points, it has to be. Biased opinion polls that Tredrick made are irreleveant to mathematical fact. Might I mention that you did even better in a matchup against me? Some Republicans agreed with me on the statistics, like Erc. It's nice to know that there are a couple of Republicans who aren't 100% intellectually dishonest.

No actually we've been arguing if you could claim, with 95% certainty, that this coin will come up heads.  Do you?

That's not what we were arguing, you lying shthead. I repeat what we've been arguing is whether the following statement is true.


"A sample of 940 heads and 60 tails is statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin at the 95% confidence level".

Actually, it's explained on the first page of this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

IIRC it's my first post on that thread.

All sorts of interesting things on those threads, like one of the "you all hate me comments."  To date, you are the only the member that I've posted a message to stating that I don't hate you.  I had to do it twice!

Another one is where I explained how a calendar works.

Don't blame me; you keep bringing it up.  Are you doing it to hide your support for someone whose policies had the effect of killing mostly poor and mostly Black people?
[/quote]

I see a whole lot of attempts to make it seem like we were arguing about something else. The thing we have been arguing about for the last 9 months is whether a relation of 94% can be statistically significant. The most common form was the 940 heads and 60 tails. Other examples were the linear correlation of 94%, and an opinion poll with 94% Kerry and 6% Bush. The coin tossing problem is the best, since it's the easiest to understand everything involved.

Anyways, you already posted a link to that biased poll by someone else who also thinks that a linear correlation of 94% can never be statistically significant.

[J. J.]

JFRAUD here is exactly what I posted, you will note more than five months ago:

This is a polling question, as stated

The question is who is right here?

1. I  say that a sample of 940 heads and 60 tails is statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin at the 95% confidence level, that's p=5% of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. Actually you can make p be much smaller. J.J. claims that a sample  940 heads and 60 tails is not statistically different from that of a fair coin

A mistatement of the question at hand, but one that illustrates the statistical problem.  We are looking at a poll, which is a subset of a population, a sample drawn from that population.

The first problem is:  The coin toss does represents the population as a whole, not a sample.   A poll, unless it includes the entire population, will be a sample the population as a whole.   The basic analogy fails.  A sample, which will likely not be perfectly accurate, and only a small part of the population, is what is needed.  Any poll construction must take that into account.

The second problem is the assumption that the poll makes an asumption that the result should be 50% for each candidate, like a coin toss.  The poll, to yield accurate results, must assume to be a representation of the population as a whole.  While that might be a 50/50 split, assuming only two candidates, it might not.  The key to determining if the poll is accurate is how well it represents that whole population.  This will work the same if there are more than two candidates.

Now, I'll tell you, flat out that there is a problem with polling.  There is a likelihood that and poll will not accurately represent the population.  It will make no difference what the results say, as there will always be the same likelihood that the result will not be accurate.  At the [confidence level I will suggest (95%), there will always be a 5% chance that the poll is wrong; this will be called an "outrider poll."  If the result after sampling 1000 people is 940 to 60, or 600 to 400, or 500 to 500, there is still a 5% likelihood that the poll is wrong, i.e. the poll will does not represent the population accurately.


Assuming that the poll really does use accurately represent the population as a whole (it isn't an "outrider") we will be able to calculate a range where the the "score" or the precentage that the candidate gets, will really lie.  This is called the "confidence interval" or "margin of error (MOE)."  The MOE will depend on what the candidate scores, the sample size, and the confidence level we use (planned at 95%).   It cannot be calculated until we get the results.

This is exceptionally important.  The MOE has no effect on if this poll is one of those of 5% that is completely wrong.  It assumes that it is, but it might not be the case.

Now, what part of this are you having a conceptual problem with?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

JFRAUD here is exactly what I posted, you will note more than five months ago:

quote author=J. J. link=topic=20985.msg449919#msg449919 date=1114666369]
This is a polling question, as stated

The question is who is right here?

1. I  say that a sample of 940 heads and 60 tails is statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin at the 95% confidence level, that's p=5% of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. Actually you can make p be much smaller. J.J. claims that a sample  940 heads and 60 tails is not statistically different from that of a fair coin

A mistatement of the question at hand, but one that illustrates the statistical problem.  We are looking at a poll, which is a subset of a population, a sample drawn from that population.

The first problem is:  The coin toss does represents the population as a whole, not a sample.   A poll, unless it includes the entire population, will be a sample the population as a whole.   The basic analogy fails.  A sample, which will likely not be perfectly accurate, and only a small part of the population, is what is needed.  Any poll construction must take that into account.

The second problem is the assumption that the poll makes an asumption that the result should be 50% for each candidate, like a coin toss.  The poll, to yield accurate results, must assume to be a representation of the population as a whole.  While that might be a 50/50 split, assuming only two candidates, it might not.  The key to determining if the poll is accurate is how well it represents that whole population.  This will work the same if there are more than two candidates.

Now, I'll tell you, flat out that there is a problem with polling.  There is a likelihood that and poll will not accurately represent the population.  It will make no difference what the results say, as there will always be the same likelihood that the result will not be accurate.  At the [confidence level I will suggest (95%), there will always be a 5% chance that the poll is wrong; this will be called an "outrider poll."  If the result after sampling 1000 people is 940 to 60, or 600 to 400, or 500 to 500, there is still a 5% likelihood that the poll is wrong, i.e. the poll will does not represent the population accurately.


Assuming that the poll really does use accurately represent the population as a whole (it isn't an "outrider") we will be able to calculate a range where the the "score" or the precentage that the candidate gets, will really lie.  This is called the "confidence interval" or "margin of error (MOE)."  The MOE will depend on what the candidate scores, the sample size, and the confidence level we use (planned at 95%).   It cannot be calculated until we get the results.

This is exceptionally important.  The MOE has no effect on if this poll is one of those of 5% that is completely wrong.  It assumes that it is, but it might not be the case.

Now, what part of this are you having a conceptual problem with?
[/quote]

1. The set of all possible coin flips is infinite, so none of your post applies
2. Even if it was finite, it would still be statistically significant.
3. When I say that it's statistically significantly different at the 95% confidence level, that means that if
a) The null hypothesis is correct
then I falsely reject it at most 5% of the time. You don't seem to understand that. You say "5% chance that the poll is wrong", but who cares, it's irrelevant to statistical significance at the 95% confidence level, and you can't just say the poll has a 5% chance of being wrong anyways, it's a 5% chance of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis, which is meaningless if the null hypothesis is false.

[J. J.]

1. The set of all possible coin flips is infinite, so none of your post applies
2. Even if it was finite, it would still be statistically significant.
3. When I say that it's statistically significantly different at the 95% confidence level, that means that if
a) The null hypothesis is correct
then I falsely reject it at most 5% of the time. You don't seem to understand that. You say "5% chance that the poll is wrong", but who cares, it's irrelevant to statistical significance at the 95% confidence level, and you can't just say the poll has a 5% chance of being wrong anyways, it's a 5% chance of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis, which is meaningless if the null hypothesis is false.

1.  We are discussing a sample, 1000 tosses.

2.  You could not determine that, with a 95% chance of certainty, that the coin will come up heads.  The theory that is being tested is, does the coin always come up heads, not if the coin beats the odds.

You are referring to probability, not statistics.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1. The set of all possible coin flips is infinite, so none of your post applies
2. Even if it was finite, it would still be statistically significant.
3. When I say that it's statistically significantly different at the 95% confidence level, that means that if
a) The null hypothesis is correct
then I falsely reject it at most 5% of the time. You don't seem to understand that. You say "5% chance that the poll is wrong", but who cares, it's irrelevant to statistical significance at the 95% confidence level, and you can't just say the poll has a 5% chance of being wrong anyways, it's a 5% chance of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis, which is meaningless if the null hypothesis is false.

1.  We are discussing a sample, 1000 tosses.

2.  You could not determine that, with a 95% chance of certainty, that the coin will come up heads.  The theory that is being tested is, does the coin always come up heads, not if the coin beats the odds.

You are referring to probability, not statistics.

1. 1000 coin tosses is a sample of 1000 from an infinite population.

2. I never said that you'd be 95% certain that the next coin would be heads. That's not what were were arguing about. That's not required to conclude that there are statistically significantly more heads than tails (with 95% confidence). If it was 50.000001% heads, and I did 10^100 coin tosses, I should basically always reject the null hypothesis of a fair coin. 

[Everett]

OH MY GOD SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

[Lephi]

OH MY GOD SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

SAVE US FROM THE HORRORS OF AN OLD AND MOULDY FORUM ARGUMENT, JOE! I HAVE SENT THESE TWO TO HELP YOU ALONG:

Beautiful rabbits you have there!  I have three of my own, wonderful animals

[angus]

wonderful animals

tasty too. 

[dazzleman]

wonderful animals

tasty too. 

  But I don't think the domesticated ones taste as good as wild rabbits...

[Max Power]

OH MY GOD SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

[angus]

wonderful animals

tasty too. 

  But I don't think the domesticated ones taste as good as wild rabbits...

possibly.  wouldn't know.  I've only had it three times.  Once in Montreal at a Restaurant called Le Lapin Sautee (the sauteed rabbit).  There it was fattening and buttery.  Once in Dallas at a Portuguese Restaurant.  There it had lots of oregano (where's that portuguese poster.  he can tell us what's portuguese for oregano.  I can't remember, but whatever the word is, the name of the dish was basically portuguese for "rabbit with oregano")  And once in The Sezchuan Garden in Boston.  As you might imagine, as with all sezchuan cuisine, this rabbit was very oily, and very spicy.  Came in a tongue-burning red sauce.  Tud-ze is mandarin for rabbit.  It's one of the first chinese words I ever learned.  All three were delicious.  I've always assumed all three were raised in cages, and not caught in a forest.  but who knows?