If Daigian is 25, as you suggest above, with the mean at 50, it would mean that 0.3 SD = 25 (the distance between Daigian's strength and the Mean). This would mean that 1 SD = 3 x 25. Hence, 1SD = 75!
How do you figure that 0.3 SD = 25 here? Obviously, Daigian HAS to be less than 1 SD away from the mean, since Mean-1 SD encompasses more than the 68% in the 68-95-99.7 rule, yet at the same time, 67.5% of women will be stronger than Daigian. But I don't see any evidence for that number below 1 to be as low as 0.3.
Also, your math is entirely off. If 0.3 SD = 25, then 1 SD is 25
0.3), which gives the number as 83.33. On the other hand, if Daigian is about .73 SD from the mean, it works out perfectly. This would mean that 68% of the population is between strength 15.75 and 84.25. 67.5% of the population falls betwen 25 and 100. The bell curve is cut off below 0, and correspondingly above 100, so the rest of the population is all under two SD's from the mean. Remember that the 3 sigma rule doesn't stop there. You can go on until as many SDs as you want, with the probability of finding someone more SDs from the mean becoming increasingly impossible. In actual practice, one never needs to find people further and further from the mean to prove a normal distribution. To disprove normal distribution, you need to find many people occupying levels many SDs away from the mean.
Whether we take 25 to be 0.3SD or .73 SD or any other value below one, the only way it would disprove a normal distribution (and hence a bell curve) is if more people were found at the outer edges rather than at the mean. All people being within one sigma is actually a good indicator of normal distribution.
That would mean that every channeler alive falls less than 1 SD from the mean.
Clearly, that refutes a Normal Distribution, which only has 68% of a population within 1 SD from the Mean.
Clearly, that refutes a Normal Distribution, which only has 68% of a population within 1 SD from the Mean.
That is not true at all. The 68% value comes from the probability of finding someone in the range on +/1 1 SD from the mean. And it takes into account an open reference range with no limits. In practice, when you restrict a normal distribution to a reference range (0-100 in this case), nothing says that the probabilities of all values a set SD value from the mean will follow the three sigma rule in the range.
For example, take SAT scores. You can't go below 200 or above 800. You're restricting the range here, and since no one can go above or below these values, the bell curve will obviously not approach 0. The SD is 100, the mean is 500, so by the 3 sigma rule, 99.7% of the population is within 3 sigmas, so between 200 and 800. But obviously, 0.3% of the population is NOT above 800 or below 200!
Once again, the figures don't matter. Daigian's placement at 0.3SD from the mean disproves a Normal Distribution.
Nope. You're getting this completely wrong.
It's so simple that it should be obvious, really.
It is, actually. If you stop making preposterous assumptions.
How many standard deviations is Lanfear
- 15/11/2012 06:04:39 PM
2468 Views
Hmm...
- 15/11/2012 07:25:34 PM
1566 Views
see we CAN agree on stuff
- 15/11/2012 07:56:12 PM
1414 Views
- 18/11/2012 08:37:22 PM
1266 Views
- 15/11/2012 07:56:12 PM
1414 Views
- 18/11/2012 08:37:22 PM
1266 Views
Re:
- 18/11/2012 11:07:17 PM
1479 Views
- 18/11/2012 11:07:17 PM
1479 Views
Re:
- 19/11/2012 05:16:00 AM
1325 Views
- 19/11/2012 05:16:00 AM
1325 Views
Re:
- 19/11/2012 03:13:01 PM
1318 Views
- 19/11/2012 03:13:01 PM
1318 Views
They only reject 37.5%, not 62.5%
- 19/11/2012 03:19:19 PM
1346 Views
Re: They only reject 37.5%, not 62.5%
- 19/11/2012 04:01:43 PM
1538 Views
Re: They only reject 37.5%, not 62.5%
- 19/11/2012 09:04:04 PM
1305 Views
Hmmm...
- 20/11/2012 02:08:40 AM
1355 Views
Perhaps, but Egwene is also being a bit dramatic in the scene as she managed
- 20/11/2012 04:28:57 AM
1335 Views
Nope...
- 20/11/2012 03:13:13 PM
1404 Views
I believe she is being over dramatic
- 20/11/2012 03:26:24 PM
1248 Views
Keep believing that...
- 20/11/2012 03:30:14 PM
1402 Views
*shrugs*
- 20/11/2012 03:49:10 PM
1379 Views
Tired and forkroot are the same now?
- 20/11/2012 03:55:22 PM
1266 Views
No it's the literary device
- 20/11/2012 04:04:28 PM
1379 Views
Impossible. Daigian is exactly 0.32SD below the mean
- 19/11/2012 11:06:04 AM
1315 Views
You keep saying that, but it is either a linear or a non-linear distribution
- 19/11/2012 09:09:32 PM
1389 Views
That's the whole point. Thanks for finally seeing it.
- 19/11/2012 09:43:27 PM
1353 Views
keep believing that ... but you making up numbers isn't really relevant *NM*
- 20/11/2012 04:29:44 AM
828 Views
Please show me a number that is made up. The 0.32SD for Daigian is a rule of statistics.
- 20/11/2012 07:15:48 AM
1260 Views
Ugh. I hate power level discussions. For real world applications, it should be kind of meaningless
- 16/11/2012 10:28:49 PM
1256 Views
I don't really agree
- 18/11/2012 08:40:53 PM
1239 Views
Perhaps, but we've seen that a MUCH weaker Channeler can win in a duel
- 19/11/2012 09:13:48 PM
1267 Views
Re: Perhaps, but we've seen that a MUCH weaker Channeler can win in a duel
- 20/11/2012 08:10:01 AM
1252 Views
Since I've proven that it's not a normal distribution in units of absolute strength, SDs don't apply
- 17/11/2012 07:48:21 PM
1334 Views
You have proven nothing, except that you have an opinion *NM*
- 18/11/2012 02:21:35 AM
810 Views
You simply don't get it. It is mathematically a fact. There is no opinion involved.
- 18/11/2012 02:19:40 PM
1128 Views
Only because you've assigned numeric values. That you created.
- 18/11/2012 02:40:51 PM
1304 Views
It doesn't matter what figure you use...
- 18/11/2012 03:01:56 PM
1181 Views
What if Daigian is one third Lanfear's strength?
- 18/11/2012 04:37:58 PM
1325 Views
Sure you can
- 18/11/2012 10:09:31 PM
1309 Views
Re: Sure you can
- 18/11/2012 10:54:50 PM
1314 Views
You're right, though its 37.5%
- 19/11/2012 12:21:29 AM
1268 Views
Oops, typo!
- 19/11/2012 02:54:25 AM
1307 Views
Again, not possible, due to Daigian being just 0.3SD below the Mean
- 19/11/2012 08:37:01 AM
1265 Views
Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys...
- 19/11/2012 04:05:12 PM
1173 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys...
- 19/11/2012 05:55:02 PM
1118 Views
Egwene is about as strong as Melaine and Amys combined
- 19/11/2012 09:19:50 PM
1243 Views
Re: Egwene is about as strong as Melaine and Amys combined
- 20/11/2012 02:11:26 AM
1315 Views
Forkroot in every case
- 20/11/2012 04:32:26 AM
1255 Views
No!
- 20/11/2012 03:15:16 PM
1243 Views
I'm not going to go re-read the books to you on this
- 20/11/2012 03:39:46 PM
1252 Views
You need to read it for yourself, since you're completely confused.
- 20/11/2012 03:54:26 PM
1251 Views
Not going to argue this with you.
- 20/11/2012 04:09:44 PM
1160 Views
Your own example disproved your point...
- 20/11/2012 04:39:25 PM
1307 Views
let's see, she's both asleep and would need hours to regain her strength
- 20/11/2012 04:43:17 PM
1194 Views
Enough!
- 20/11/2012 05:04:06 PM
1265 Views
LOL ... whatever. You go on believing that ... no one else sees it this way. *NM*
- 20/11/2012 05:20:52 PM
801 Views
Re: Your own example disproved your point...
- 20/11/2012 05:10:15 PM
1280 Views
Barasine + Katerine isn't that much less than
- 20/11/2012 05:26:31 PM
1284 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys...
- 20/11/2012 02:26:47 AM
1205 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys...
- 20/11/2012 09:03:40 AM
1231 Views
Re: Egwene is definitely not 2x Amys...
- 20/11/2012 02:59:08 PM
1256 Views
None of this is backed by any evidence...
- 20/11/2012 03:24:12 PM
1181 Views
who said Cadsuane was 1.5x Moiraine or more?
- 20/11/2012 04:03:13 PM
1197 Views
Nope...
- 20/11/2012 04:41:35 PM
1213 Views
wrong
- 20/11/2012 04:48:50 PM
1181 Views
Better evidence? LOL!
- 20/11/2012 03:18:55 PM
1244 Views
Huh? How did you come to that conclusion?
- 20/11/2012 04:40:56 PM
1241 Views
BEcause Cadsuane is close on the heels of Egwene?
- 20/11/2012 05:10:50 PM
1144 Views
I'm not arguing that. I agree that Cadsuane is pretty close to Egwene
- 20/11/2012 05:50:34 PM
1298 Views
Interesting, but let's go with your figures...
- 19/11/2012 06:54:54 AM
1323 Views
Indeed
- 19/11/2012 08:16:44 AM
1348 Views
Rand is sort of a special case
- 20/11/2012 04:25:02 AM
1218 Views
Regarding Mesaana...
- 20/11/2012 08:42:56 AM
1247 Views
You continue to mix two things
- 20/11/2012 03:24:44 PM
1148 Views
No
- 20/11/2012 04:54:19 PM
1413 Views
You are mistaken
- 20/11/2012 05:04:40 PM
1223 Views
Explain the .3xSD thing to me...
- 19/11/2012 04:58:57 PM
1406 Views
Probably, but the AS have no idea what 37.5% means
- 19/11/2012 02:59:26 AM
1184 Views
It's irrelevant
- 19/11/2012 03:46:42 AM
1282 Views
Agreed. Daigian is the marker of the absolute bottom of Aes Sedai strength.
- 19/11/2012 06:55:41 AM
1235 Views
Daigian
- 19/11/2012 08:12:19 AM
1238 Views
It is a direct marker due to RJ's quote
- 19/11/2012 08:50:26 AM
1281 Views
You missed my point
- 19/11/2012 09:08:42 AM
1204 Views
Asmodean would never have made the comment about 13 weakest AS
- 20/11/2012 04:41:11 AM
1207 Views
Re: Asmodean would never have made the comment about 13 weakest AS
- 20/11/2012 09:07:49 AM
1172 Views
Re: Sure you can
- 19/11/2012 09:22:09 AM
1339 Views
Care to explain this...
- 19/11/2012 05:06:28 PM
1141 Views
Indeed
- 20/11/2012 07:16:37 AM
1347 Views
Explained far better than I ever could. Bravo.
- 20/11/2012 07:30:29 AM
1214 Views
Well duh.
- 20/11/2012 02:57:24 PM
1305 Views
Incorrect.
- 20/11/2012 04:28:07 PM
1318 Views
No
- 20/11/2012 04:44:16 PM
1285 Views
You're integrating without lower limits...
- 20/11/2012 02:55:06 PM
1253 Views
We are not talking about a normal distribution in any case
- 20/11/2012 04:44:24 AM
1098 Views
Re: We are not talking about a normal distribution in any case
- 20/11/2012 07:02:47 AM
1294 Views
You must tell me of this special math...
- 20/11/2012 03:10:09 PM
1173 Views
Re: You must tell me of this special math...
- 20/11/2012 04:29:40 PM
1249 Views
Morghase is a placeholder...
- 20/11/2012 04:45:42 PM
1328 Views
Well...
- 18/11/2012 08:43:59 PM
1310 Views
Re: Well...
- 19/11/2012 03:40:44 PM
1289 Views
Wow.
- 19/11/2012 03:53:47 PM
1302 Views
Well then you're both wrong I'm afraid
- 19/11/2012 06:09:36 PM
1237 Views
Re: Well then you're both wrong I'm afraid
- 19/11/2012 07:42:58 PM
1115 Views
this is why I think all of the Forsaken are very close in Power
- 20/11/2012 04:51:20 AM
1303 Views
Re: this is why I think all of the Forsaken are very close in Power
- 20/11/2012 02:45:18 PM
1227 Views
I think RJ went out of his way to keep strength a bit of a mystery
- 20/11/2012 08:42:44 PM
1268 Views
Math gurus...Is it possible to find the missing variable...
- 21/11/2012 05:12:24 PM
1248 Views
the problem is that the Mean is not going to tell us much really
- 22/11/2012 02:55:03 AM
1327 Views
Re: the problem is that the Mean is not going to tell us much really
- 22/11/2012 03:15:33 AM
1604 Views
I do not think you can calculate the Mean without knowing the Units of Power
- 22/11/2012 03:53:59 AM
1384 Views
