Orton's Arm Posted November 30, 2006 Posted November 30, 2006 Too bad he hasn't been seen since he was JACKED! UP! 850660[/snapback] I see you're still smug about that. It's a good thing you're able to find joy in the fact I misremembered a formula I'd been taught many years ago.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 1, 2006 Posted December 1, 2006 I see you're still smug about that. It's a good thing you're able to find joy in the fact I misremembered a formula I'd been taught many years ago. 853109[/snapback] "Misremembered". Such a delicate euphemism for "ignorant".
/dev/null Posted December 1, 2006 Posted December 1, 2006 I see you're still smug about that. It's a good thing you're able to find joy in the fact I misremembered a formula I'd been taught many years ago. 853109[/snapback] Was that formula... 1. Steal Bungee's underpants 2. ??? 3. Profit!
Bungee Jumper Posted December 1, 2006 Posted December 1, 2006 Was that formula... 1. Steal Bungee's underpants 2. ??? 3. Profit! 853150[/snapback] No, that would be error. Because profit is error, because you expect to make profit in a venture, therefore the "true value" of a venture is profit, which can only be achieved as the error in your venture causes regression toward the mean. And thus profit is achieved...even though in this case profit per capita decreases, because it's defined as a constant. It's all very simple.
justnzane Posted December 1, 2006 Posted December 1, 2006 Was that formula... 1. Steal Bungee's underpants 2. ??? 3. Profit! 853150[/snapback] As a math major at college, i have to say i am in awe of the mathematical prowess of Holcomb's lack of an Arm. He is so intelligent that his underwear has become such a black market commodity that Holcomb's lack of an Arm had to develop the formula for the price of his trademarked road rash underwear.
Orton's Arm Posted December 1, 2006 Posted December 1, 2006 Was that formula... 1. Steal Bungee's underpants 2. ??? 3. Profit! 853150[/snapback] The missing step 2 is to dangle said underpants in front of people's noses, and have them pay me to take that smell-fest elsewhere. "For ten bucks I'll walk away, and for $20 I'll dangle this underwear under the nose of an enemy of your choice."
Orton's Arm Posted December 2, 2006 Posted December 2, 2006 "Misremembered". Such a delicate euphemism for "ignorant". 853134[/snapback] If you're such a fountain of knowledge, why didn't you introduce the correct version of the formula into the discussion? I'lll tell you why not: you didn't know about it.
justnzane Posted December 2, 2006 Posted December 2, 2006 If you're such a fountain of knowledge, why didn't you introduce the correct version of the formula into the discussion? I'lll tell you why not: you didn't know about it. 853962[/snapback] beating a dead horse jeez man give it up already. seriously, your mathematical prowess is about as impressive as George W.'s speech skills
Bungee Jumper Posted December 2, 2006 Posted December 2, 2006 If you're such a fountain of knowledge, why didn't you introduce the correct version of the formula into the discussion? I'lll tell you why not: you didn't know about it. 853962[/snapback] Why didn't you introduce the correct version of the formula either? The equation wasn't my point. That you didn't understand it at all, was my point.
ieatcrayonz Posted December 2, 2006 Posted December 2, 2006 Why didn't you introduce the correct version of the formula either? The equation wasn't my point. That you didn't understand it at all, was my point. 854108[/snapback] I don't know. He seems pretty smart. The Sabres regressed to the mean again last night.
Orton's Arm Posted December 3, 2006 Posted December 3, 2006 Why didn't you introduce the correct version of the formula either? The equation wasn't my point. That you didn't understand it at all, was my point. 854108[/snapback] This from someone who doesn't understand regression toward the mean, despite my repeated efforts to explain it to him.
Ramius Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 This from someone who doesn't understand regression toward the mean, despite my repeated efforts to explain it to him. 854473[/snapback] Saying the wrong sh-- over and over again doesnt make it right. Hence the reason you are STILL wrong and have no clue about what you are talking about.
ieatcrayonz Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 This from someone who doesn't understand regression toward the mean, despite my repeated efforts to explain it to him. 854473[/snapback] If the average Canadian has 11 teeth and some guy in Northern Quebec somehow has managed to keep 16, should he do something to try and preserve his "extra 5" or is he doomed to regress to the mean? In a related question but not about dumb Canadians, if a six sided die had the following symbols instead of numbers: A star, a letter A, a cat, a House, A Dog, and a blank side, how would rolling continuosly, produce a regression to the mean? In this case, what would be the mean?
Ramius Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 In a related question but not about dumb Canadians, if a six sided die had the following symbols instead of numbers: A star, a letter A, a cat, a House, A Dog, and a blank side, how would rolling continuosly, produce a regression to the mean? In this case, what would be the mean? 856383[/snapback] If the die was labeled in the order that you stated, the "average value" of the die would be cat.5
ieatcrayonz Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 If the die was labeled in the order that you stated, the "average value" of the die would be cat.5 856630[/snapback] Wouldn't it be a cat plus part of a house, like maybe cat.door?
Ramius Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 Wouldn't it be a cat plus part of a house, like maybe cat.door? 856655[/snapback] hmmm, never thought of that... i believe the proper formula to figure would be (star+A+cat+house+dog+blank)/die so you are correct, the average value of your die is "cat.house" remember, the more times you roll it, the more likely you are to roll a cat.house
ieatcrayonz Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 hmmm, never thought of that... i believe the proper formula to figure would be (star+A+cat+house+dog+blank)/die so you are correct, the average value of your die is "cat.house" remember, the more times you roll it, the more likely you are to roll a cat.house 856677[/snapback] I'm packing up the Lear and heading to Vegas right now.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 remember, the more times you roll it, the more likely you are to roll a cat.house 856677[/snapback] Ah, cat rolling. Brings back memories of my youth...
Ramius Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 Ah, cat rolling. Brings back memories of my youth... 856741[/snapback] we've done some dog bowling too, using puhonix's. italian greyhound + wet paws + long hallway + flooring that the dog slides on + pop bottles for pins = dog bowling and fun even holcombs arm can understand that math
Recommended Posts