Active Users:2167 Time:24/10/2026 09:32:14 PM
Re: That's incorrect... Tor Send a noteboard - 29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM
A Bell Curve is a perfectly normal distribution. Perfectly symmetrical. Otherwises it's not a Bell Curve.


Yes, but as I said, no real data is ever a perfect bell curve. When people say "it's a bell curve", they actually mean "it's reasonably well described by a bell curve".

Edit:

In fact, as the curve is truncated at zero, it can't be a perfect bell curve in any case, as one of the properties of the normal distribution is that the probability never reaches zero.
Fram kamerater!
This message last edited by Tor on 29/10/2012 at 10:40:49 AM
Reply to message
The Bell Curve revisited - 29/10/2012 09:44:09 AM 1811 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited - 29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM 1176 Views
That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM 1746 Views
Re: That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM 1137 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM 1078 Views
Response to a few of your poorly researched points... - 29/10/2012 02:31:17 PM 1018 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM 1004 Views
Exactly... - 29/10/2012 02:39:30 PM 1007 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM 1030 Views
Excellent point. - 29/10/2012 08:24:37 PM 1065 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM 968 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM 961 Views
Re: Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 07:07:17 AM 970 Views
I don't think it plays much role in the plot - 30/10/2012 03:17:55 PM 1150 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength - 30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM 960 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population? - 29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM 902 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength? - 29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM 924 Views
Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM 1021 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM 933 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not. - 30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM 1023 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random. - 30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM 946 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM 936 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM 930 Views
Go read a stats text will you? - 30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM 920 Views
Done - 31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM 1727 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM 1229 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM 1049 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 07:14:48 PM 901 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:33:59 PM 1727 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:43:19 PM 1301 Views
Still nothing? - 10/11/2012 03:33:15 PM 1064 Views
Still doesn't explain the difference - 30/10/2012 07:01:53 PM 882 Views
Re: Still doesn't explain the difference - 10/11/2012 10:21:00 PM 964 Views
Yes that totally makes sense - 30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM 1045 Views
Thank you! *NM* - 30/10/2012 10:19:15 AM 498 Views
That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM 1025 Views
Re: That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:15:57 PM 930 Views
Who said it would? - 30/10/2012 02:44:17 PM 950 Views
let's not mix up "random" and "representative" - 30/10/2012 05:28:09 PM 1010 Views
Doesn't mean RJ applied it to his series - 30/10/2012 08:23:29 AM 1035 Views
But of course he did.. - 30/10/2012 02:13:07 PM 1083 Views
I hate to get into these things - 29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM 1109 Views
I would love for you to be right, because it would solve all our problems, but 0 is the challenge... - 29/10/2012 07:56:34 PM 1093 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM 1090 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM* - 29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM 568 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic... - 29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM 1022 Views
You're pathetic... - 30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM 933 Views
The quote isn't specific - 30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM 1056 Views
Its highly specific... - 30/10/2012 02:15:38 PM 878 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken - 30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM 1554 Views
Honestly! - 30/10/2012 02:07:37 AM 999 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM 997 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it - 30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM 948 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM 1152 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM 1078 Views
Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM 1055 Views
Re: Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM 971 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me - 30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM 1307 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM 1075 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM 941 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers - 30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM 1115 Views
you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM 1240 Views
+1 *NM* - 30/10/2012 09:17:07 AM 1105 Views
Re: you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 09:21:39 AM 1101 Views
Not true... - 30/10/2012 11:49:57 AM 1064 Views
One thing - 30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM 1033 Views
That's the problem. The BC RJ has "built" has a minimum and a maximum value - 30/10/2012 05:48:55 PM 1054 Views

Reply to Message