Danny Baker

[eFestivals]

if you've tossed a coin a hundred times, and each time it's landed 'tails', statistically, what are the odds for the next toss?

50/50.

And if you are going to toss a coin 101 times, what is the likelihood of throwing those 101 instances of tails? Extremely small.

The same thing looked at in different ways gives a different result, wonderful, eh?

Perhaps try looking at things as I've done, rather than using the basis I haven't and pretending that's what I meant?

Edited November 2, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

What on earth are you drivelling on about? This does not relate to what I've just said.

It does.

So you don't get something, what's new?

[ampersand]

neil, if cancer works on statistics, how many people need to have cancer before i can wipe my brow?

[worm]

Take two people, persons A and persons B. There is a probability of them getting cancer. A or B getting cancer are independent events! It really isn't too difficult to grasp that if person A gets cancer then that has no influence on whether person B gets cancer or not. i.e. P[A|B] = P[A]. For someone who calls people stupid constantly, you really have made a f**king howler

[eFestivals]

neil, if cancer works on statistics, how many people need to have cancer before i can wipe my brow?

If you think cancer works on statistics, you're even more stupid than I'd previously thought you were.

If you think I've been saying that cancer works on statistics you're even more stupid than I'd previously thought you were.

One day you might have the brain capacity to recognise what I've actually said, rather than your fantasy version. But that day isn't today, obviously.

[eFestivals]

Quite.

Fairly straight-forward.

And only half of the statistical scenario.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd be able to have a point instead of none.

[eFestivals]

I have no idea how you look at things.

Ah well.

In which case it'd be wise for you to understand statistics before you start condemning a statistical view that you don't understand.

[Ed209]

Ed - I refer you to the simple examples used with dice to get statistics into people's heads, which you've clearly forgotten.

There is the individual (before each roll) statistical view - which you've mirrored above. The statistical likelihood of throwing a six is identical before each throw, regardless of whether a six was thrown previously.

But there is also the cumulative statistical view, which says something entirely different - that things average out.

Given my words, if your understanding of statistics was all you're believing then you'd have realised which I was coming from.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Ed209

[ampersand]

If you think cancer works on statistics, you're even more stupid than I'd previously thought you were.

If you think I've been saying that cancer works on statistics you're even more stupid than I'd previously thought you were.

One day you might have the brain capacity to recognise what I've actually said, rather than your fantasy version. But that day isn't today, obviously.

[ampersand]

I could ask all the lecturers in the statistics group I sit in at Imperial college, they would all tell you you are wrong.

[eFestivals]

Bollocks I accidently pressed back and lost everything I wrote. Start again

You are refering to something called the relative frequency interpretation of probability. Which says that as the number of runs continues to infinity, the ratio of events will tend to the probability of the event happening. As you say, things will average out. But the dice has no knowledge that it needs to average out! For example, if you throw a dice 5 million times, and you get a million ones, a million twos, a million threes, a million fours and a million fives, but no sixes. The dice doesn't suddenly go, "f**k, i need to get some sixes to average this thing out, we need to change the probabilities make this happen." Only in the infinite limit does this all average out. It will continue to be a 1/6th probability on everything. This is because the 1/6th probability is built into the dice throw. (as you know)

You are working the wrong way on your statistical inference. In the same way that the dice probability is built into the throw. The probability of a human getting cancer is built into the fabric of nature. We do not know what this probability is, but we try to estimate (infer it) using the cancer rate and the relative frequency interpretation of probability. And because the sample is large, we have a fairly high level of confidence in this estimate.

I could ask all the lecturers in the statistics group I sit in at Imperial college, they would all tell you you are wrong.

You lay it out very nicely, and categorically state the angle I've worked from and admit to a high level of confidence in the results by that method.

And then say they're meaningless.

Yet they're not meaningless to the proportion who have cancer, or the proportion who don't.

[Gre]

I'll just add to the "Neil is wrong" crew. (Maths degree with a specialisation in statistics if we're willy waving here )

Danny Baker has cancer. How exactly does that influence the probability of I, my mum, you, Hitler or 'Person X' getting cancer?

[eFestivals]

so no answer then. i see. or no reply to my link about cancer rates dropping. fair enough.

you're the one who's been backing up your c**tish attitude with statistics, not me. and looking a bigger fool for it. seen as it's you vs the rest. are we all stupid?

Everyone stupid? Nope.

You stupid? No answer required by me, your posts are enough.

If just (say) 1% of the population have cancer, what does that say of the other 99%?

Surely even thick you can manage an answer for that.

[Gre]

If just (say) 1% of the population have cancer, what does that say of the other 99%?

[ampersand]

Everyone stupid? Nope.

You stupid? No answer required by me, your posts are enough.

If just (say) 1% of the population have cancer, what does that say of the other 99%?

Surely even thick you can manage an answer for that.

Edited November 2, 2010 by ampersand

[eFestivals]

I'll just add to the "Neil is wrong" crew. (Maths degree with a specialisation in statistics if we're willy waving here )

Danny Baker has cancer. How exactly does that influence the probability of I, my mum, you, Hitler or 'Person X' getting cancer?

Because at any time there is only a certain percentage of people with cancer.

So that means if Baker is within the percentage that does, then there's one person who is not because their place has been taken by Baker.

That scenario is only able to be altered by altering the percentage that has cancer.

Just because you're choosing to view the scenario differently to me, doesn't make my take on that statistical reality wrong. It's not.

What *IS* wrong is the view - that you and others have assumed (I've not said it) - that the percentage moves. It does move, yes, but at any moment in time it is fixed (after all, a person cannot be included in the 'has' side of things if they don't). I was working from that 'fixed'.

I realise it's not a particularly smart angle to take on things such as cancer - but it's far smarter than the made up versions of what I'd initially said that has got things to here.

[eFestivals]

danny baker getting cancer doesn't lessen or increase my chances. the only stupid person is you if you think it does.

It does as an average within the fixed percentage of people with cancer that there are at any one time. It's an indisputable statistical reality.

[eFestivals]

That they don't have cancer at the moment.

Correct.

It says nothing about their chance of developing cancer.

That's no part of anything that I've said.

[ampersand]

It does as an average within the fixed percentage of people with cancer that there are at any one time. It's an indisputable statistical reality.

[RABun]

I did statistics at uni but can't remember a fecking thing about it

I wrote a whole load of stuff, and have now deleted it All a bit close to home. It was a shitty thing to say i think Neil. Anyway can we stop name calling before something bad happens?

I wish anyone fighting cancer and their families well in their fight.

[eFestivals]

of course it does.

Now you've realised your error and admitted I was right and you wrong, I'll leave this angle here.

[worm]

It does.

[ampersand]

Now you've realised your error and admitted I was right and you wrong, I'll leave this angle here.

[worm]

It does as an average within the fixed percentage of people with cancer that there are at any one time. It's an indisputable statistical reality.

[eFestivals]

It was a shitty thing to say i think Neil.

Why was me saying "Ah well, if someone has to have cancer, then I can't think of a better recipient of it than the man who is responsible for one of Thatcher's more enduring myths." a shitty thing to say?

I wished nothing on anybody (which I've been falsely accused of).

I did not wish Baker dead (which I've been falsely accused of).

I did not say I had no sympathy for him (which I've been falsely accused of).

I simply said that if someone has to have cancer I'd prefer it was him to others.

And that's no different to anyone else - or is someone here going to stick up their hand and say "I wish my loved one had cancer instead of Baker"?

There is only the moral high ground to attack me with once a person has proven me wrong by wishing cancer on their loved one instead of Baker.

And that ain't going to happen, is it?

Edited November 2, 2010 by eFestivals