Active Users:650 Time:02/08/2025 08:23:57 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
That's incorrect... Shannow Send a noteboard - 29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM
A Bell Curve by definition means that the distance from the weakest to the strongest channeler is intersected at exactly the 50% mark by the mean (the average channeler). Any skewing of the distribution would mean that the term “Bell Curve” cannot be applied to the distribution. Instead, it would then be either a positively or negatively skewed distribution. But not a Bell Curve.


This is simply wrong. First of all, when people say bell curve, or Gaussian distribution or whatever, they never mean it literally. Nothing can ever have a perfect Gaussian distribution, as you would need an infinite sample size. However, loads of things are described to an excellent approximation by a bell curve. That is what people mean when they say something is described by a bell curve.

Secondly, there is no reason to assume the average is at half the maximum value. You can very well have a distribution which is symmetric, aside from being truncated at zero. In that case, the average strength would be slightly shifted away from the most likely strength (the top of the curve). However, it could still be perfectly reasonable to call it a bell curve.


A Bell Curve is a perfectly normal distribution. Perfectly symmetrical. Otherwises it's not a Bell Curve.

EDIT:

Copied from statistics.com

There are several features of bell curves that are important and distinguishes them from other curves in statistics:

•A bell curve has one mode, which coincides with the mean and median. This is the center of the curve where it is at its highest.
•A bell curve is symmetric. If it were folded along a vertical line at the mean, both halves would match perfectly because they are mirror images of each other.
•A bell curve follows the 68-95-99.7 rule, which provides a convenient way to carry out estimated calculations:
•Approximately 68% of all of the data lies within one standard deviation of the mean.
•Approximately 95% of all the data is within two standard deviations of the mean.
•Approximately 99.7% of the data is within three standard deviations of the mean.
This message last edited by Shannow on 29/10/2012 at 10:31:11 AM
Reply to message
The Bell Curve revisited Shannow - 29/10/2012 09:44:09 AM 1541 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited Tor - 29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM 925 Views
That's incorrect... Shannow - 29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM 1501 Views
Re: That's incorrect... Tor - 29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM 924 Views
Re: That's incorrect... Shannow - 29/10/2012 10:40:27 AM 777 Views
Re: That's incorrect... Tor - 29/10/2012 10:42:57 AM 771 Views
Hehe...There are a few disputing it vocally. Whether they're in their right mind, well... Shannow - 29/10/2012 10:45:07 AM 859 Views
Re: Hehe...There are a few disputing it vocally. Whether they're in their right mind, well... Tor - 29/10/2012 10:49:49 AM 762 Views
Re: Hehe...There are a few disputing it vocally. Whether they're in their right mind, well... Shannow - 29/10/2012 10:56:37 AM 840 Views
It's only as skewed as it seems when you make the assumption that the Forsaken darius_sedai - 31/10/2012 04:34:11 AM 1062 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... fionwe1987 - 29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM 843 Views
Response to a few of your poorly researched points... Shannow - 29/10/2012 02:31:17 PM 786 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... Tor - 29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM 804 Views
Exactly... Shannow - 29/10/2012 02:39:30 PM 802 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this darius_sedai - 29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM 819 Views
Excellent point. fionwe1987 - 29/10/2012 08:24:37 PM 853 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this Tor - 29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM 752 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM 729 Views
Re: Again I don't argue that genetics play no role Tor - 30/10/2012 07:07:17 AM 757 Views
I don't think it plays much role in the plot darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 03:17:55 PM 904 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM 767 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population? fionwe1987 - 29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM 706 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength? Tor - 29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM 713 Views
Absolutely no reason... fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM 808 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason... Tor - 30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM 715 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not. fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM 800 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random. Tor - 30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM 723 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM 738 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! Tor - 30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM 736 Views
Go read a stats text will you? fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM 729 Views
Done Tor - 31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM 1469 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... fionwe1987 - 10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM 989 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... Tor - 11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM 831 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... fionwe1987 - 11/11/2012 07:14:48 PM 690 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... Tor - 11/11/2012 08:33:59 PM 1501 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... Tor - 11/11/2012 08:43:19 PM 1043 Views
Seriously? I went and looked at some statistics books, and you won't even reply? Tor - 01/11/2012 12:13:49 PM 838 Views
Still nothing? Tor - 10/11/2012 03:33:15 PM 816 Views
Still doesn't explain the difference Praziquantel - 30/10/2012 07:01:53 PM 678 Views
Re: Still doesn't explain the difference fionwe1987 - 10/11/2012 10:21:00 PM 757 Views
Yes that totally makes sense Sidious - 30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM 847 Views
Thank you! *NM* Tor - 30/10/2012 10:19:15 AM 394 Views
That's not what happened... fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM 776 Views
Re: That's not what happened... Tor - 30/10/2012 02:15:57 PM 734 Views
Who said it would? fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:44:17 PM 735 Views
let's not mix up "random" and "representative" darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 05:28:09 PM 806 Views
Doesn't mean RJ applied it to his series Sidious - 30/10/2012 08:23:29 AM 819 Views
But of course he did.. fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:13:07 PM 840 Views
I hate to get into these things HousealThor - 29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM 880 Views
I would love for you to be right, because it would solve all our problems, but 0 is the challenge... Shannow - 29/10/2012 07:56:34 PM 835 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed HousealThor - 29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM 860 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM* fionwe1987 - 29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM 428 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic... Shannow - 29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM 777 Views
You're pathetic... fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM 718 Views
The quote isn't specific Sidious - 30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM 838 Views
Its highly specific... fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:15:38 PM 677 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM 1325 Views
Honestly! darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 02:07:37 AM 773 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed Tor - 29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM 777 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it HousealThor - 30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM 719 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? TheCrownless - 30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM 921 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? Tor - 30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM 845 Views
Are you sure about that? TheCrownless - 30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM 842 Views
Re: Are you sure about that? Tor - 30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM 748 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me TheCrownless - 30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM 1081 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM 859 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola TheCrownless - 30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM 737 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM 870 Views
Re: We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers TheCrownless - 31/10/2012 12:30:52 AM 819 Views
A handful of examples are all we have and we have proof that an extremely strong Channeler darius_sedai - 31/10/2012 02:58:57 AM 695 Views
you're confusing 2 things Zaphod - 30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM 985 Views
+1 *NM* Sidious - 30/10/2012 09:17:07 AM 847 Views
Re: you're confusing 2 things Simon - 30/10/2012 09:21:39 AM 820 Views
Not true... Shannow - 30/10/2012 11:49:57 AM 830 Views
One thing HousealThor - 30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM 806 Views
That's the problem. The BC RJ has "built" has a minimum and a maximum value darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 05:48:55 PM 822 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes