# Bob (Reef Fish) unthinkable case of STUPIDITY

Discussion in 'Scientific Statistics Math' started by \Luis A. Afonso\, Jul 11, 2006.

1. ### \Luis A. Afonso\Guest

Bob (Reef Fish) unthinkable case of STUPIDITY

Let be the example Bob chose to *prove* I was wrong

__Suppose to items x1=0 , x2=4 from the Population N(0,1).

S0 ... sum squares deviation from the sample mean (=2):

__S0 = (0- 2)^2 + (4-2)^2 = 8

S ... ssd from the Population mean (=0)

__S = (0-0)^2 + (4-0)^2 = 16

As I said (with derivation) it MUST BE

_______S0 <= S

I hardly consider the episode in which it should necessary to do something alike here. The problem is that Bob (Reef Fish) is an unthinkable extreme of STUPIDITY.

______licas (Luis A. Afonso)

\Luis A. Afonso\, Jul 11, 2006

2. ### \Luis A. Afonso\Guest

Now Bob prove that 8>16

(I suppose you have to flight to the WONDARLAND)

______licas (Luis A. Afonso)

\Luis A. Afonso\, Jul 11, 2006

3. ### \Luis A. Afonso\Guest

___________ 16 <= 8
___________16/8 <= 8/8
___________2 <= 1
___________2 - 1 <= 1 -1
___________ 1 <= 0

______licas (Luis A. Afonso)

\Luis A. Afonso\, Jul 11, 2006
4. ### Reef FishGuest

So the SAMPLE variance is either 4 or 8 both of which are
greater than the N(0,1) population variance of 1.

I spelled that out step by step for Afonso in the SIX
question post which he never answered.

This is the LAST STRAW, Luis A. Afonso, the ignorant,
obnoxious, lunatic!

Don't expect any more help from me.
belong.

Ciao,

-- Reef Fish Bob.

Reef Fish, Jul 11, 2006
5. ### Reef FishGuest

For once, Afonso the Troll was speechless.

Reef Fish, Jul 11, 2006
6. ### \Luis A. Afonso\Guest

Reef Fish wrote

Let be the example Bob chose to *prove* I was wrong
__Suppose to items x1=0, x2=4 from the Population N(0,1).

S0 ... sum squares deviation from the sample mean (=2

__S0 = (0- 2)^2 + (4-2)^2 = 8

So the SAMPLE variance is either 4 or 8 both of which are greater than the N(0,1) population variance of 1.

I spelled that out step by step for Afonso in the SIX question post which he never answered.

This is the LAST STRAW, Luis A. Afonso, the ignorant, obnoxious, lunatic! Don't expect any more help from me.
From now on, it's just SLAM when you ERR. Slam Dunk your stupid, senile head into the head (toilet) where you belong.

Ciao,
-- Reef Fish Bob.***

My response

As prologue:

It was nice that someone could enter by the first time in this discussion: DO NOT FEAR BOB, HE DO NOT BITE.

__1__Bob supposed that the Population was N(0, 1) i.e. normal standard and based on the sample of size two: x1=0, x2=4 he intended to prove that S0, the sum of square deviations about the sample mean (m=2) could be larger than S the ssd about the Population mean M=0.
In a precedent post it was obtained that the BobÂ´s claim was WRONG : S0=8 and S=16.
Therefore he IS WRONG.

__2__Because Bob (Reef Fish) is the most unethical person ever alive he intend to make a shit detour saying:

*** So the SAMPLE variance is either 4 or 8 both of which are greater than the N(0,1) population variance of 1.***

__1___The unbiased estimation of the Population Variance is S0/(2-1) = 8 (and never 4).
__2___The p value for x2=4 is *only*
__________p(x2) = 0.9999683
In consequence the probability to found x2=4 from N(0,1) or larger is 0.0000317 (approximately).
In fact is evident that nobody BELIVES this value had the minimum likeliness to occur. The chance is monstrously short, 32 by one million.

In Conclusion

__1__Bob did not prove that the Theorem I derive, namely S0 <= S is false.
__2__Bob is unable to estimate what is a Population Variance from data.
__3__Bob is so criminal that use unfair *tricks* in a scientific discussion. If, by chance, someone violates the accepted principle of *bonna fide* must be unconditionally condemned.
__4__What is the meaning of BobÂ´s *farewell*?

_____licas (Luis A. Afonso)

\Luis A. Afonso\, Jul 11, 2006
7. ### Reef FishGuest

Obviously I DIDN'T write that horrendous English Afonso wrote,
Instead of QUOTING me, in the SIX-question post, he misquoted
me at one place and left out ALL of my explanations.

My challenge to everyone is this: Read the SUBSTANCE of what
I wrote (quoted from my post) that corresponded to Afonso's 4-lines.

If there is ANYONE in this group, in the world, or in the universe
who does NOT understand the substance of what *I* had said that
corresponded to Afonso's 4 lines, let's hear him/her speak.

Otherwise, the case is forever closed -- that Afonso is the ONLY
person in the universe who does NOT understand those simple
facts, when he stated, and argued ad infinitum:

LAA> the SAMPLE variance is always <= the POPULATION variance.

==========> Afonso's Line 1:
What I wrote was:

RF> Population: Standard Normal or N(0,1).
RF> Population Variance = 1.

RF> For simplicity of arithmetic, we'll consider a SAMPLE of size 2
RF> with data values 0 and 4.

==========> Afonso's Line 2 (HIS error; see mine below):
What I wrote was:

RF> The SAMPLE mean is 2.
RF> The POPULATION mean is IRRELEVANT.

RF> The Sum of Squares of Deviations (Afonso's S0) = 8
RF> because (0 - 2)^2 + (4 - 2)^2 = 8.

==========> Afonso's Line 3:

==========> Afonso's Line 4:
What I said was:
RF> The SAMPLE variance (if we use Afonso's form) = 4
RF> because N =2, and Afonso's sV = S0/N

RF> The SAMPLE variance (if we use the Unbiased estimate) = 8
RF> because N-1 = 1 and the SAMPLE variance = 8/1 = 8.

RF> Since the POPULATION variance is known to be 1, it matters
RF> not whether we use the MLE or the Unbiased form of the
RF> estimate, the SAMPLE variance (4 or 8) is GREATER
RF> than the POPULATION variance (1), and this constitutes
RF> a counterexample against Afonso's false claim LAAF.

RF> LAA> the SAMPLE variance is always <= the POPULATION variance.
RF> For ease of repeated reference to the false claim, I'll refer to
it as LAAF.

Instead, Afonso chose to misquote, misrepresent, and left out all
of my explanations to him -- most of them are reproduced above
to show what Afonso SHOULD have quoted, instead of his 4 lines.

The rest of Afonso's post is irrelevant garbage of his, including this:

Any comment from anyone is welcome, but I specifically ask, if
there's ANYONE who doesn't understand what I had explained to
Afonso (in the RF quotes above) to show WHY he was wrong in
his repeated assertion:

LAA> the SAMPLE variance is always <= the POPULATION variance.

I rest my case.

-- Reef Fish Bob.

Reef Fish, Jul 12, 2006
8. ### Paul SanchezGuest

Afonso has been shown enough counter-examples and given very clear
explanations. I see two possibilities at this point: 1) he has no
concept that population variance is a function of the distribution and
exists independent of sampling, in which case he's thick as a brick; or
2) he's a troll. Given the quantity and quality of explanations, and
his penchant for misrepresentating or ignoring those explanations
combined with the ongoing abuse, I vote for #2. Nobody could possibly
be that dense - we're way past neutronium here.

Paul Sanchez, Jul 12, 2006
9. ### \Luis A. Afonso\Guest

George Beyerle

__1___
I never denied that all the parameters of a Distribution (as the mean, the variance) pre-exists and are independent of any sampling. They do, of course.

__2___
The *Principle* above stated, is true, nice, obviousâ€¦ and of no worth. To have an idea of the parameterâ€™s magnitude we must draw a sample.

__3___
Following the BobÂ´s example x1=0, x2=4 from a Population N(0, 1) - normal standard - I ask Georg what he thinks about this:
___a) thinks nothing; he just shrugs your shoulders.
___b) or analyze how likely are these values, namely
_b1) was the sample drawn at random?
_b2) were the *measurements* properly performed?

__4__
Suppose that the two conditions above were fulfilled: sample drawn at random, values rightly obtained.
Myself I suspect that somethingÂ´s wrong. Those that accept as natural to got (randomly) whatever value because * the Population is N(0,1) * are unmistakably stupid.

__5__
To believe that are a-priori known Populations is equally stupid, IMO.

____licas (Luis A. Afonso)

\Luis A. Afonso\, Jul 12, 2006
10. ### illywhackerGuest

Dear Luis,

You do realize that this is merely a semantic question. No one is
denying that if you calculate the average squared deviation of a sample
from a fixed population mean (indeed from any number whatsoever), you
will end up with a number that is greater than or equal to the average
squared deviation from the sample mean. This is elementary mathematics.
However, the average squared deviation of a sample from a fixed
population mean is not normally called the 'population variance'. This
term is reserved for the mean squared deviation of all the elements of
the population from the fixed population mean. You may not like this
usage of the term, but there it is.

illywhacker;

illywhacker, Jul 12, 2006
11. ### \Luis A. Afonso\Guest

*** Dear Luis, You do realize that this is merely a semantic question. No one is denying that if you calculate the average squared deviation of a samplefrom a fixed population mean (indeed from any number whatsoever), you will end up with a number that is greater than or equal to the average squared deviation from the sample mean. This is elementary mathematics. However, the average squared deviation of a sample from a fixed population mean is not normally called the 'population variance'. This term is reserved for the mean squared deviation of all the elements of the population from the fixed population mean. You may not like this usage of the term, but there it is.

illywhacker ***

Yes: It is not more than a semantic question: I agree 100% what you are saying.
In what concerns the Population Variance, yes you are right.
In retrospective: Is was much better that I named my S/N not the Population Variance but somewhat like *the estimate of the Population Variance throughout the sample IF THE POPULATION MEAN is know.

Do you agree? Let me know.
(Bob could correct me till the beginning - using the terms you did: politely and directed to a consensus. However it is not his way).

Thank you

Regards

_______licas (Luis A. Afonso)

\Luis A. Afonso\, Jul 12, 2006
12. ### Reef FishGuest

That's OBVIOUS, and pointed out by everyone who tried to explain
that to him in the thread.
He is MUCH thicker than a brick.

I have read most of Afonso's posts since he began in February 2005.
about the same time I started participating in sci.stat.math. Most
readers simply had him killfiled so that they don't really know the
REAL Afonso, whom I'll call Afonso-1.

He did not qualify as a troll at all! Only one who was preoccupied
with writing sophomoric Qbasic problems for every little problem,
no matter how simple they were; even those that have elementary
analytic solutions. In the early days, about 75% if Afonso's posts
were monologues -- with NO follow-up by anyone.

No respectable TROLL could be that bad as a troll. :0)

He was simply ignorant, uneducated, and obnoxious, through all
of 2005 and much of 2006.

It wasn't until this VARIANCE thread that I finally gave serious
consideration that he (or another person posting in his name) is
a troll for exactly the same reason you gave:
But that's giving Afonso TOO MUCH CREDIT for being able to
TROLL so well. It's beyond HIS capability and limited mental
capacity.

From: Reef Fish
Date: Mon, Jul 10 2006 12:38 pm
Email: "Reef Fish" <>
Groups: sci.stat.math

That the current Afonso is actually an auto-reply bot, such as
A.L.I.C.E. a machine-generated response to any question by
anyone.

Given your TWO alternative theories, MY current theory is the THIRD:

3. Luis A. Afonso is more than one person. At least TWO, perhaps
three or more.

The first personna is the ignorant, uneducated, obnoxious Alfonso,
from 2005 through much of 2006.

The second person who posted under the name Luis A. Afonso is
the one who wrote nearly correct English -- that happened about
half a dozen times. This personna did not emerge until 2006.

The vocabulary, writing style, and content were clearly NOT that
of Afonso's. I accused him of copying from some textbook and
then realize that no textbook can make so many grammatical
errors (as a textbook) AND technical errors. But that Afonso
is definitely NOT Alfonso-1. by the written style alone.

The TROLL must be a THIRD person (or the improbable machine
bot). What identified the current TROLL is exactly the reason:
The TROLL writes English as badly as (sometimes worse) than
Alfonso-1. Clearly NOT the same style as Afonso-2 which is
almost real-author like.

As Sherlock Holmes said to Watson, "Once you eliminate the
impossible, ... whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the truth. ..."

I had eliminated Afonso-1 and Afonso-2 as being impossible for
the present TROLL, therefore, the theory that Luis A. Afonso is
AT LEAST two or three different posters must be the truth.

-- Reef Fish Bob.

Reef Fish, Jul 12, 2006
13. ### Reef FishGuest

This post was written NOT by Afonso-1, but definitely by
Afonso-3 the TROLL.

See:

If that URL is too long for your reader and gets truncated,

See: http://tinyurl.com/guq98

-- Reef Fish Bob.

Reef Fish, Jul 12, 2006