Active Users:858 Time:02/11/2025 06:03:26 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 1604 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited Tor - 29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM 977 Views
That's incorrect... Shannow - 29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM 1564 Views
Re: That's incorrect... Tor - 29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM 960 Views
Re: That's incorrect... Shannow - 29/10/2012 10:40:27 AM 823 Views
Re: That's incorrect... Tor - 29/10/2012 10:42:57 AM 806 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 907 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 806 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 888 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 1126 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... fionwe1987 - 29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM 899 Views
Response to a few of your poorly researched points... Shannow - 29/10/2012 02:31:17 PM 845 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... Tor - 29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM 842 Views
Exactly... Shannow - 29/10/2012 02:39:30 PM 837 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this darius_sedai - 29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM 856 Views
Excellent point. fionwe1987 - 29/10/2012 08:24:37 PM 895 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this Tor - 29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM 801 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM 777 Views
Re: Again I don't argue that genetics play no role Tor - 30/10/2012 07:07:17 AM 793 Views
I don't think it plays much role in the plot darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 03:17:55 PM 945 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM 809 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population? fionwe1987 - 29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM 742 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength? Tor - 29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM 756 Views
Absolutely no reason... fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM 847 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason... Tor - 30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM 759 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not. fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM 845 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random. Tor - 30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM 771 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM 779 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! Tor - 30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM 781 Views
Go read a stats text will you? fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM 766 Views
Done Tor - 31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM 1535 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... fionwe1987 - 10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM 1049 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... Tor - 11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM 872 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... fionwe1987 - 11/11/2012 07:14:48 PM 728 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... Tor - 11/11/2012 08:33:59 PM 1549 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... Tor - 11/11/2012 08:43:19 PM 1105 Views
Seriously? I went and looked at some statistics books, and you won't even reply? Tor - 01/11/2012 12:13:49 PM 882 Views
Still nothing? Tor - 10/11/2012 03:33:15 PM 870 Views
Still doesn't explain the difference Praziquantel - 30/10/2012 07:01:53 PM 715 Views
Re: Still doesn't explain the difference fionwe1987 - 10/11/2012 10:21:00 PM 796 Views
Yes that totally makes sense Sidious - 30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM 891 Views
Thank you! *NM* Tor - 30/10/2012 10:19:15 AM 414 Views
That's not what happened... fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM 834 Views
Re: That's not what happened... Tor - 30/10/2012 02:15:57 PM 770 Views
Who said it would? fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:44:17 PM 783 Views
let's not mix up "random" and "representative" darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 05:28:09 PM 847 Views
Doesn't mean RJ applied it to his series Sidious - 30/10/2012 08:23:29 AM 858 Views
But of course he did.. fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:13:07 PM 890 Views
I hate to get into these things HousealThor - 29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM 926 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 902 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed HousealThor - 29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM 907 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM* fionwe1987 - 29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM 484 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic... Shannow - 29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM 830 Views
You're pathetic... fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM 762 Views
The quote isn't specific Sidious - 30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM 876 Views
Its highly specific... fionwe1987 - 30/10/2012 02:15:38 PM 718 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM 1380 Views
Honestly! darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 02:07:37 AM 817 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed Tor - 29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM 829 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it HousealThor - 30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM 780 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? TheCrownless - 30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM 956 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? Tor - 30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM 888 Views
Are you sure about that? TheCrownless - 30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM 881 Views
Re: Are you sure about that? Tor - 30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM 801 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me TheCrownless - 30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM 1121 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM 895 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola TheCrownless - 30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM 773 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers darius_sedai - 30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM 913 Views
Re: We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers TheCrownless - 31/10/2012 12:30:52 AM 867 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 762 Views
you're confusing 2 things Zaphod - 30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM 1037 Views
+1 *NM* Sidious - 30/10/2012 09:17:07 AM 914 Views
Re: you're confusing 2 things Simon - 30/10/2012 09:21:39 AM 892 Views
Not true... Shannow - 30/10/2012 11:49:57 AM 876 Views
One thing HousealThor - 30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM 862 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 868 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes