Active Users:372 Time:16/09/2025 09:40:52 PM
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 1560 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited Tor - 29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM 945 Views
That's incorrect... Shannow - 29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM 1525 Views
Re: That's incorrect... Tor - 29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM 938 Views
Re: That's incorrect... Shannow - 29/10/2012 10:40:27 AM 799 Views
Re: That's incorrect... Tor - 29/10/2012 10:42:57 AM 787 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 884 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 783 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 863 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 1087 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... fionwe1987 - 29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM 864 Views
Response to a few of your poorly researched points... Shannow - 29/10/2012 02:31:17 PM 810 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... Tor - 29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM 821 Views
Exactly... Shannow - 29/10/2012 02:39:30 PM 817 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this darius_sedai - 29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM 833 Views
Excellent point. fionwe1987 - 29/10/2012 08:24:37 PM 869 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this Tor - 29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM 778 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM 754 Views
Re: Again I don't argue that genetics play no role Tor - 30/10/2012 07:07:17 AM 773 Views
I don't think it plays much role in the plot darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 03:17:55 PM 920 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM 781 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population? fionwe1987 - 29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM 720 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength? Tor - 29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM 731 Views
Absolutely no reason... fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM 824 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason... Tor - 30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM 727 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not. fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM 822 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random. Tor - 30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM 740 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM 756 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! Tor - 30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM 756 Views
Go read a stats text will you? fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM 742 Views
Done Tor - 31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM 1487 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... fionwe1987 - 10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM 1011 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... Tor - 11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM 848 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... fionwe1987 - 11/11/2012 07:14:48 PM 706 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... Tor - 11/11/2012 08:33:59 PM 1516 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... Tor - 11/11/2012 08:43:19 PM 1063 Views
Seriously? I went and looked at some statistics books, and you won't even reply? Tor - 01/11/2012 12:13:49 PM 858 Views
Still nothing? Tor - 10/11/2012 03:33:15 PM 837 Views
Still doesn't explain the difference Praziquantel - 30/10/2012 07:01:53 PM 693 Views
Re: Still doesn't explain the difference fionwe1987 - 10/11/2012 10:21:00 PM 776 Views
Yes that totally makes sense Sidious - 30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM 866 Views
Thank you! *NM* Tor - 30/10/2012 10:19:15 AM 401 Views
That's not what happened... fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM 810 Views
Re: That's not what happened... Tor - 30/10/2012 02:15:57 PM 749 Views
Who said it would? fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:44:17 PM 753 Views
let's not mix up "random" and "representative" darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 05:28:09 PM 822 Views
Doesn't mean RJ applied it to his series Sidious - 30/10/2012 08:23:29 AM 830 Views
But of course he did.. fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:13:07 PM 860 Views
I hate to get into these things HousealThor - 29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM 899 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 860 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed HousealThor - 29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM 883 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM* fionwe1987 - 29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM 452 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic... Shannow - 29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM 803 Views
You're pathetic... fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM 741 Views
The quote isn't specific Sidious - 30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM 856 Views
Its highly specific... fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:15:38 PM 694 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM 1343 Views
Honestly! darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 02:07:37 AM 791 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed Tor - 29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM 800 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it HousealThor - 30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM 755 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? TheCrownless - 30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM 938 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? Tor - 30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM 868 Views
Are you sure about that? TheCrownless - 30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM 862 Views
Re: Are you sure about that? Tor - 30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM 771 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me TheCrownless - 30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM 1099 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM 873 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola TheCrownless - 30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM 751 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM 885 Views
Re: We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers TheCrownless - 31/10/2012 12:30:52 AM 841 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 724 Views
you're confusing 2 things Zaphod - 30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM 1005 Views
+1 *NM* Sidious - 30/10/2012 09:17:07 AM 871 Views
Re: you're confusing 2 things Simon - 30/10/2012 09:21:39 AM 847 Views
Not true... Shannow - 30/10/2012 11:49:57 AM 844 Views
One thing HousealThor - 30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM 831 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 846 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes