Active Users:702 Time:20/02/2026 02:56:53 PM
But on a Bell Curve the Mean IS 50% of Lanfear. You've just disproven your own contention. Shannow Send a noteboard - 02/11/2012 04:40:31 PM
You keep saying that Moiraine cannot be the Mean, and that's fine. I don't think she MUST be, in fact given the new Pevara quote I think it's likely that Moiraine is well above the Mean. I claim that she is about 45-50% of Lanfear, the Mean, could be around half that near 24-25, however, given a fixed max and min level and knowing Daigian must be stronger than about 30% of all Channelers lends credence to the Mean being much higher than you want to allow. T be honest I don't much care where the Mean actually falls, it's enough to know for fact that even Pevara's level is above it for Androl to consider her to be so strong.

Daigian at 16 makes her roughly 1/3 of Moiraine at 50 and allows for the right number of SD on BOTH sides of the Mean (3 up and 3 down). Your weakening of the AS to fit your notions of Forsaken godhood simply makes them outliers on the BC and ignores the fact that there should be as many Channelers on each side of the curve ... In your system we have the bottom part fully flushed out, but almost no one but massive outliers, like the Forsaken on the top half. That is not a Bell Curve. I shall dub it the Shannow Curvelike scale. :P

Your problem continues to be that you think raw power is what makes the Forsaken seem so strong. It's not. RJ made this abundantly clear throughout the series and in many interviews. Training/skill is what is most important in a match up. Moiraine at 50% of Lanfears strength would be CRUSHED in a duel. She'd not only be giving up Power, but to an even wider margin, skill. Lanfear at less than 1/2 of Alivia still held her own, why? SKILL. Egwene stood no chance at the docks not only because Lanfear was stronger, but because Lanfear was vastly more skilled. It wouldn't have mattered if Egwene was 10x Lanfear at that moment, Lanfear knew how to use her power to her own best advantage.

Again, I'll use the example of a PHD facing a child in a spelling bee. To take it a step further we'll say Lanfear v. Moiraine is like a PHD with a 200 IQ against a child with a 100 IQ ... Not much of a contest. Lanfear v. Alivia was a PHD with a 100 IQ facing a child with a 200+ IQ ... Makes it interesting, but in the end education held out over raw talent.

Only the AS in the entire series give any real note to strength other than a casual comment or a moment of surprise, which is why RJ created the 21 level list in the first place. Pretty much everyone stronger than Moiraine or weaker than Daigian don't much matter on that list IMO.

At any rate I'm tired of going in circles. I'll hold off on further commentary until someone brings a fresh perspective or we get new information from the books or author.


The new breakthrough - thanks to Daigian - is that I can categorically disprove ANY strength figure you put to me.

Let's take your latest suggestion. Moiraine at 50 and the Mean at 25.

Firstly, if it is a true Bell Curve as you advocate, then the Mean IS 50% of Lanfear, meaning that if you put Moiraine at 50, she must be the Mean. So it is impossible to put her at 50 and the Mean at 25 if you still want to cling to the pure Bell Curve idea.

In fact, the only way to symmetrically allow for as many SD's above as below the Mean, is to make the Mean 50.

Hence, it is impossible for Moiraine to be at 50 and not be the Mean.

With the Daigian = 0.32SD formula - which is fact, given RJ's statement - the Bell Curve is disproven in any possible symmetrical form.

Do you see now?

EDIT

The above disproved it with logic. Now I will do so with maths.

If Daigian is 0.32SD, and if Moiraine is at least 3 times her strength, then let's apply your new suggestion to the formula:

Moiraine at 50, means Daigian at 16. You suggest the Mean at 25.

That means 25-16 = 9 = 0.32SD. That means the SD is about 27.


That means that the SD is more than the Mean of 25, meaning you hit 0 before you even get to 1 SD on the lower side! That's even more extreme than my suggestion.

I thought you said we must have room for as many SD's on the lower side as on the upper? But the math shows that this is impossible, under the above scenario.

As I said. I've cracked it. The Bell Curve is disproved in its purely symmetrical form.
This message last edited by Shannow on 02/11/2012 at 05:07:07 PM
Reply to message
Addressing problems with the Bell Curve - 31/10/2012 11:30:42 AM 1716 Views
Who said RJ created a 100 point scale? I always assumed we did to make this easier to follow - 31/10/2012 02:22:51 PM 1054 Views
One more point here - 31/10/2012 03:02:34 PM 917 Views
I've think I've finally done it. I've solved the entire Curve. Daigian is the key... - 01/11/2012 09:20:57 AM 1171 Views
Did some playing with your numbers to make this work better - 01/11/2012 02:13:00 PM 1140 Views
The Mean and SD are set by Daigian's position. Your options are therefore not possible... - 02/11/2012 07:49:24 AM 1106 Views
Yet you have many more SD between the Mean and Lanfear than you do Morgase and the Mean - 02/11/2012 02:39:51 PM 917 Views
I absolutely agree. The lower side of the curve MUST be intersected by zero after 1 SD... - 02/11/2012 03:03:52 PM 819 Views
I am not convinced Moiraine is the Mean. Merely 50% of Lanfear - 02/11/2012 04:23:57 PM 998 Views
But on a Bell Curve the Mean IS 50% of Lanfear. You've just disproven your own contention. - 02/11/2012 04:40:31 PM 895 Views
OMG no it is NOT! - 02/11/2012 05:16:36 PM 807 Views
I agree with that. But please honestly look at the math I presented. It disproves the Bell Curve. - 02/11/2012 05:24:41 PM 1112 Views
It doesn't matter that you think the BC is disproved. - 02/11/2012 06:07:19 PM 951 Views
Confusing post... - 02/11/2012 06:30:40 PM 1016 Views
Dreadlord is essentially describing a lognormal distribution - 02/11/2012 07:21:39 PM 874 Views
If you choose to ignore the author go right ahead. I just think you are wrong - 02/11/2012 09:05:14 PM 1012 Views
A non-linear 21 point scale is fine... - 02/11/2012 11:02:48 PM 1082 Views
I've been operating off of the scale I described for years - 02/11/2012 11:25:27 PM 966 Views
Re: It doesn't matter that you think the BC is disproved. - 02/11/2012 07:11:57 PM 980 Views
Not true - 02/11/2012 08:52:42 PM 993 Views
Re: Not true - 03/11/2012 09:19:11 AM 987 Views
Read my other posts - 03/11/2012 04:19:15 PM 796 Views
Not quite - 03/11/2012 08:02:05 AM 972 Views
I think it's about skill not strength - 03/11/2012 04:38:07 PM 800 Views
I think the number is about 10 - 03/11/2012 08:42:08 AM 1014 Views
Nope - 03/11/2012 04:14:45 PM 943 Views
Re: Nope - 03/11/2012 04:39:07 PM 965 Views
Verin and Graendal each have angreal of unkown strength - 03/11/2012 06:15:49 PM 942 Views
Re: Verin and Graendal each have angreal of unkown strength - 03/11/2012 10:15:10 PM 961 Views
*shrugs* - 03/11/2012 10:25:18 PM 859 Views
Re: *shrugs* - 04/11/2012 07:12:21 AM 1059 Views
You have 4 markers and you should use them all - 10/11/2012 03:08:37 PM 788 Views
Indeed - 10/11/2012 03:59:51 PM 943 Views
Re: Addressing problems with the Bell Curve - 01/11/2012 06:23:07 PM 974 Views
Re: Addressing problems with the Bell Curve - 01/11/2012 09:48:04 PM 947 Views
Re: Addressing problems with the Bell Curve - 02/11/2012 09:02:58 PM 973 Views
Re: Addressing problems with the Bell Curve - 02/11/2012 09:56:50 PM 1036 Views
I'll have to disagree with much of this - 03/11/2012 07:46:31 AM 1005 Views
Why do you always think Strength is the point - 03/11/2012 04:35:26 PM 762 Views
I don't - I merely appreciate it as a factor - 03/11/2012 04:48:24 PM 865 Views
0 Evidence? Cyndane v. Alivia is plenty of evidence EDIT with exact quote - 03/11/2012 06:17:39 PM 897 Views
One other thing you have forgotten about - 03/11/2012 10:13:09 PM 862 Views
Your agenda blinds you to logic yet again...As I'll simply demonstrate with your example here... - 03/11/2012 11:08:13 PM 913 Views
Nope, the only experience she has in reality is against Rand - 03/11/2012 11:09:54 PM 836 Views
Nonsense. - 03/11/2012 11:11:05 PM 850 Views
Believe as you will - 03/11/2012 11:26:50 PM 1015 Views
That's a classic. - 04/11/2012 12:06:13 AM 887 Views
You misquote on a regular basis and have no grasp of the timeline in the series - 04/11/2012 01:36:37 AM 775 Views
Hmm... - 04/11/2012 07:08:04 AM 1101 Views
stop getting all indignant ... I'm really not trying to be nasty to you - 04/11/2012 04:20:06 PM 915 Views

Reply to Message