Bob (Reef Fish) unthinkable case of STUPIDITY

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

  1. 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
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Now Bob prove that 8>16



    It´s your turn LOL,LOL, LOL.

    (I suppose you have to flight to the WONDARLAND)

    ______licas (Luis A. Afonso)
     
    \Luis A. Afonso\, Jul 11, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bob I shall go to help you


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

    I made my part. It is your turn...

    ______licas (Luis A. Afonso)
     
    \Luis A. Afonso\, Jul 11, 2006
    #3
  4. \Luis A. Afonso\

    Reef Fish Guest

    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.
    your stupid, senile head into the head (toilet) where you
    belong.

    Ciao,

    -- Reef Fish Bob.
     
    Reef Fish, Jul 11, 2006
    #4
  5. \Luis A. Afonso\

    Reef Fish Guest

    For once, Afonso the Troll was speechless.

     
    Reef Fish, Jul 11, 2006
    #5
  6. 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 Bob´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.***

    My answer

    __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 Bob´s *farewell*?



    _____licas (Luis A. Afonso)
     
    \Luis A. Afonso\, Jul 11, 2006
    #6
  7. \Luis A. Afonso\

    Reef Fish Guest

    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
    #7
  8. \Luis A. Afonso\

    Paul Sanchez Guest

    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
    #8
  9. 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, obvious… and of no worth. To have an idea of the parameter’s magnitude we must draw a sample.

    __3___
    Following the Bob´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 something´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
    #9
  10. \Luis A. Afonso\

    illywhacker 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 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
    #10
  11. *** 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
    #11
  12. \Luis A. Afonso\

    Reef Fish Guest

    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.

    I even made the post "A NEW Discovery about Afonso"

    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
    #12
  13. \Luis A. Afonso\

    Reef Fish Guest


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

    See:
    http://groups.google.com/group/sci....693ba22f806/d3b66211f1ccf996#d3b66211f1ccf996

    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
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.