Remember me
▼ Content

Satellites



Page 4 of 7<<<23456>>>
09-06-2020 05:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:Do you recognize the difference between a confidence level of a Khabib Nurmagomedov victory (speculation) and whatever the results of the fight happen to be (the determination)?
Once we have the results of the fight, there is no longer any question of confidence level. We have certainty. Just as when you receive your hand in black jack, you know what you have with 100% certainty.

That I am holding a 3 of clubs card in my hand, or a Magic the Gathering THERMAL BLAST card, or that human beings communicated, in English, to one another the results of a Khabib fight, are not statistics. They are language. The human determination of who won a fight is also a binary, A or B, abstract thought. Nothing remotely to do with a measurement.

For you to say you heard what I said to you, read a sign, or know your friends name with 100% confidence, has nothing to do with statistics. Nothing.

IBdaMann wrote:So, do you recognize the difference or not?

Yes, your example on measuring a length with a measuring device is relevant to statistics. Your example on who won a fight is not. That is the difference. Your stating that confidence level only applies to predictions on future events doesn't really change the conversation, which is about your measurement example. It is never 100% certain the true value falls within the measurements margin of error (99.7% isn't uncommon but never 100%). And that certainty/probability "level" is called the "confidence level" by the rest of the world.

You have abandoned your original example? Why? Now you are saying:
IBdaMann wrote:He might have 3.9998 oz gloves but the scale might indicate 4.01 oz. despite a high confidence level in the accuracy of the scale.
Agreed with the above. Now please explain how the following is also true:
IBdaMann wrote:
If you measure a wall and find it to be of length 27 meters 13.443 cm +/- 0.09 cm ... your tolerance is the +/- 0.09 cm. Confidence level does not apply...
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: And where does the +/- 0.09 cm come from?
The tolerance of the measuring equipment, as I wrote in my post. It's not margin of error. It is equipment tolerance.
OR DID YOU MAKE A MISTAKE?
I make mistakes a lot as you know, so it's really OK to admit it and move on.

Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as 'confidence level' or 'confidence interval' in statistical math. Margin of error is not related to anything like 'confidence level' or 'confidence interval'. You are simply making shit up.
Oh I'm not so creative. I'm simply looking shit up. You are dead wrong and I've already provided four text books that show it.

That you are dead wrong about elementary, basic, first day statistics exposes you as a total and complete fraud on this board.
Into the Night wrote:Tolerance is not 'confidence' anything. It is simply the accuracy of the instrument (whether its a ruler or a thermometer). Is not margin of error. You keep trying to equivocate these two as the same as well. They are not.

https://www.webassign.net/question_assets/unccolphysmechl1/measurements/manual.html
"measurement = (best estimate ± uncertainty)...
You should be aware that the ± uncertainty notation may be used to indicate different confidence intervals, depending on the scientific discipline or context...a manufacturer's tolerance rating generally assumes a 95% or 99% level of confidence."

So:
Into the Night wrote:accuracy of the instrument...Is not margin of error.
Accuracy is the margin of error with a confidence level. EVERY TIME https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/
https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf
"accuracy of measurement
closeness of the agreement between the result of a measurement and a true value of the measurand "
Edited on 09-06-2020 05:54
09-06-2020 08:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tmiddles wrote: That I am holding a 3 of clubs card in my hand, or a Magic the Gathering THERMAL BLAST card, or that human beings communicated, in English, to one another the results of a Khabib fight, are not statistics. They are language.

We have reached the point at which it is pointless to continue. If Khabib wins his fight, it becomes data and all the previous speculation ends along with all the varying confidence levels pertaining to that speculation. It is not a question of language.

So we're done. There is nothing to discuss.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 09-06-2020 08:47
09-06-2020 09:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:There is nothing to discuss.

Please explain how the following is also true:
IBdaMann wrote:
If you measure a wall and find it to be of length 27 meters 13.443 cm +/- 0.09 cm ... your tolerance is the +/- 0.09 cm. Confidence level does not apply...
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: And where does the +/- 0.09 cm come from?
The tolerance of the measuring equipment, as I wrote in my post. It's not margin of error. It is equipment tolerance.

The results of a single past binary or discrete event, like the judges decision recorded in a sporting event, have no statistics at all. Statistics don't apply because there is nothing for them to do. If you'd like to continue to claim that's the case with a measurement of non-discrete length I'd love to hear it.

I'm not bringing in someone else's example, the above example is yours. Why not stick with it?

IBdaMann wrote:If Khabib wins his fight, it becomes data and all the previous speculation ends along with all the varying confidence levels pertaining to that speculation.
OK sure. How about the "confidence level" as I'm discussing it? Totally different definition you see. We can call it something else if you'd like. How about "Margin of error probability"?
Edited on 09-06-2020 10:05
09-06-2020 10:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Do you recognize the difference between a confidence level of a Khabib Nurmagomedov victory (speculation) and whatever the results of the fight happen to be (the determination)?
Once we have the results of the fight, there is no longer any question of confidence level. We have certainty. Just as when you receive your hand in black jack, you know what you have with 100% certainty.

That I am holding a 3 of clubs card in my hand, or a Magic the Gathering THERMAL BLAST card, or that human beings communicated, in English, to one another the results of a Khabib fight, are not statistics. They are language.

Nope. They are statements. Redefinition fallacy. Mantra 10.
tmiddles wrote:
The human determination of who won a fight is also a binary, A or B, abstract thought.

Being knocked out is not abstract. Being killed in a war is not abstract. Who won a fight is not just A or B either. Many fights result in exchanges or a draw.
tmiddles wrote:
Nothing remotely to do with a measurement.

Being knocked out for ten seconds is a measurement. Casualty lists in wars are another measurement.
tmiddles wrote:
For you to say you heard what I said to you, read a sign, or know your friends name with 100% confidence, has nothing to do with statistics. Nothing.

He never said it did. Mantra 16.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:So, do you recognize the difference or not?

Yes, your example on measuring a length with a measuring device is relevant to statistics.

Measurements are not statistics. Redefinition fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Your example on who won a fight is not.

Correct. It's a measurement.
tmiddles wrote:
That is the difference.

No difference.
tmiddles wrote:
Your stating that confidence level only applies to predictions on future events doesn't really change the conversation, which is about your measurement example.

Measurements simply are. There is no statistical math or 'confidence interval'.
tmiddles wrote:
It is never 100% certain the true value falls within the measurements margin of error (99.7% isn't uncommon but never 100%).

Measurements do not have a margin of error. Redefinition fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
And that certainty/probability "level" is called the "confidence level" by the rest of the world.

Probability math is not statistical math. There is no such thing as 'confidence level' in either mathematics.
tmiddles wrote:
You have abandoned your original example? Why? Now you are saying:
IBdaMann wrote:He might have 3.9998 oz gloves but the scale might indicate 4.01 oz. despite a high confidence level in the accuracy of the scale.
Agreed with the above. Now please explain how the following is also true:
IBdaMann wrote:
If you measure a wall and find it to be of length 27 meters 13.443 cm +/- 0.09 cm ... your tolerance is the +/- 0.09 cm. Confidence level does not apply...
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: And where does the +/- 0.09 cm come from?
The tolerance of the measuring equipment, as I wrote in my post. It's not margin of error. It is equipment tolerance.
OR DID YOU MAKE A MISTAKE?
I make mistakes a lot as you know, so it's really OK to admit it and move on.

He did not make a mistake. You make a lot of them and you continue to do so.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as 'confidence level' or 'confidence interval' in statistical math. Margin of error is not related to anything like 'confidence level' or 'confidence interval'. You are simply making shit up.
Oh I'm not so creative.

Apparently you are.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm simply looking shit up.

Nope. You are making shit up.
tmiddles wrote:
You are dead wrong and I've already provided four text books that show it.

No you haven't. Like usual, you are quoting out of context and from false authorities.
tmiddles wrote:
That you are dead wrong about elementary, basic, first day statistics exposes you as a total and complete fraud on this board.

Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Tolerance is not 'confidence' anything. It is simply the accuracy of the instrument (whether its a ruler or a thermometer). Is not margin of error. You keep trying to equivocate these two as the same as well. They are not.

...deleted Holy Link...
"measurement = (best estimate ± uncertainty)...

Nope. A measurement is simply a measurement.
tmiddles wrote:
You should be aware that the ± uncertainty notation may be used to indicate different confidence intervals,

There is no such thing as 'confidence intervals' in statistical math. Measurement is not statistical math either.
tmiddles wrote:
depending on the scientific discipline or context..

Irrelevant.
tmiddles wrote:
a manufacturer's tolerance rating generally assumes a 95% or 99% level of confidence."

There is no such thing as a 'level of confidence' in statistical mathematics.
tmiddles wrote:
So:[quote]Into the Night wrote:accuracy of the instrument...Is not margin of error.
Accuracy is the margin of error with a confidence level. EVERY TIME

Accuracy is not margin of error. There is no such thing as 'confidence level'. Word salad.
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Holy Links...
closeness of the agreement between the result of a measurement and a true value of the measurand "

The measurement is always the true value of the measurement. There is no 'should be' in mathematics or science.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-06-2020 10:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:There is nothing to discuss.

Please explain how the following is also true:
IBdaMann wrote:
If you measure a wall and find it to be of length 27 meters 13.443 cm +/- 0.09 cm ... your tolerance is the +/- 0.09 cm. Confidence level does not apply...
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: And where does the +/- 0.09 cm come from?
The tolerance of the measuring equipment, as I wrote in my post. It's not margin of error. It is equipment tolerance.

The results of a single past binary or discrete event, like the judges decision recorded in a sporting event, have no statistics at all. Statistics don't apply because there is nothing for them to do. If you'd like to continue to claim that's the case with a measurement of non-discrete length I'd love to hear it.

I'm not bringing in someone else's example, the above example is yours. Why not stick with it?

IBdaMann wrote:If Khabib wins his fight, it becomes data and all the previous speculation ends along with all the varying confidence levels pertaining to that speculation.
OK sure. How about the "confidence level" as I'm discussing it? Totally different definition you see. We can call it something else if you'd like. How about "Margin of error probability"?


Word salad. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-06-2020 10:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:That I am holding a 3 of clubs card...are language.
Nope. They are statements.
I like your description much better ITN. They are indeed statements.

Into the Night wrote:Who won a fight is not just A or B either. Many fights result in exchanges or a draw.
And there are 52 cards in a deck. It is still a matter of discrete information in the form of statements.

Into the Night wrote:Being knocked out for ten seconds is a measurement.
Yes and no stopwatch would have perfect accuracy. The measurement would have a margin of error with a confidence level.

Into the Night wrote:Measurements are not statistics.
Every tool used to measure has a margin of error calculated with statistics.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Your example on who won a fight is not.
Correct. It's a measurement.
I thought you decided it was a statement? How is "who won a fight" a measurement?

Into the Night wrote:Measurements simply are. There is no statistical math or 'confidence interval'....Measurements do not have a margin of error.
Are you saying that a measurement of say length, with a caliper, simply "is" and doesn't have a margin of error? If it does have a margin of error do you know where that comes from? Do you call the two numbers giving a high and low possibility for the true value being measured something else? The +/- bit?

Into the Night wrote:...you are quoting out of context and from false authorities.
You consider statistics textbooks to be "false authorities" on statistics?
Edited on 09-06-2020 10:59
09-06-2020 11:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:That I am holding a 3 of clubs card...are language.
Nope. They are statements.
I like your description much better ITN. They are indeed statements.

Into the Night wrote:Who won a fight is not just A or B either. Many fights result in exchanges or a draw.
And there are 52 cards in a deck. It is still a matter of discrete information in the form of statements.

Into the Night wrote:Being knocked out for ten seconds is a measurement.
Yes and no stopwatch would have perfect accuracy. The measurement would have a margin of error with a confidence level.

Measurements do not have a margin of error. There is no such thing as 'confidence level'.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Measurements are not statistics.
Every tool used to measure has a margin of error calculated with statistics.

WRONG. Measurement does not have a margin of error. Mantra 25c1.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Your example on who won a fight is not.
Correct. It's a measurement.
I thought you decided it was a statement? How is "who won a fight" a measurement?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Measurements simply are. There is no statistical math or 'confidence interval'....Measurements do not have a margin of error.
Are you saying that a measurement of say length, with a caliper, simply "is" and doesn't have a margin of error?

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
If it does have a margin of error do you know where that comes from?

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
Do you call the two numbers giving a high and low possibility for the true value being measured something else? The +/- bit?

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...you are quoting out of context and from false authorities.
You consider statistics textbooks to be "false authorities" on statistics?

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-06-2020 11:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:
Measurements do not have a margin of error.

Here is the specification for a digital caliper:

Where is says: "High accuracy model: +/- 0.03mm" what do you call that ITN? Also where does that come from?
09-06-2020 11:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Measurements do not have a margin of error.

Here is the specification for a digital caliper:

Where is says: "High accuracy model: +/- 0.03mm" what do you call that ITN? Also where does that come from?

Tolerance. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-06-2020 13:05
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:
Tolerance.

They used the word "accuracy". Don't you consider the terms tolerance and accuracy to be equivalent? Why rename?
Edited on 09-06-2020 13:06
09-06-2020 13:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tolerance.

They used the word "accuracy". Don't you consider the terms tolerance and accuracy to be equivalent? Why rename?

Semantic argument.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-06-2020 15:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tolerance.

They used the word "accuracy". Don't you consider the terms tolerance and accuracy to be equivalent? Why rename?

Semantic argument.
OK cool yeah I don't think it matters either.

So how is the tolerance determined? Can a manufacturer of a say a caliper just make up their own tolerance for the caliper?
10-06-2020 18:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tmiddles wrote:So how is the tolerance determined? Can a manufacturer of a say a caliper just make up their own tolerance for the caliper?


Read up on the NIST:



... then read up on NIST Traceable Calibration:





... and to learn more, become familiar with NIST vs ISO certification.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-06-2020 23:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:
Read up on the NIST

Thanks IBD. Certainly seems like appropriate and proper authority at least (as opposed to false authority). The site has a lot of very instructive content.

I found this example: Certificate of Analysis
Which reads as follows: "The indicated tolerance is at least as large as the 95 % confidence level..."

So the "tolerance" has a "confidence level" associated with it (because it is in fact a "confidence interval", just another term for it like "margin of error").

It also has this great explanation:
7.1.4. What are confidence intervals? "A confidence interval... provides a range of values which is likely to contain the population parameter of interest....Confidence intervals are constructed at a confidence level, such as 95 %, selected by the user."

The site actually has "confidence level" on 3910 pages! Wow. It appears with "tolerance" on 910 pages.

So you and ITN are super duper wrong and the text books I cut and pasted from are correct.

So yeah there is everything you could want.
Recommended Standard Operating Procedure for Calibration Certificate Preparation

"A statement of...confidence interval shall accompany the measurement result....The combined standard uncertainty is multiplied by a coverage factor (k) of 2 to provide an expanded uncertainty, which defines a level of confidence of approximately 95 percent (95.45 %). The expanded uncertainty presented in this report is consistent with the ISO/IEC"

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 10-06-2020 23:06
10-06-2020 23:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tmiddles wrote:So the "tolerance" has a "confidence level"

... and in this case, it's not the same thing. Same words, semantic distinction.

tmiddles wrote: So you and ITN are super duper wrong

As always, that's all this is ever about, i.e. you need for us to be "wrong" about something, anything ... yet when I offer to be wrong about something, it's never enough.

So, let's get away from statistics and focus on how I can be wrong for you about something (something other than Global Warming) and let's see if we can make you happy.

How about "Barney is an crimson dinosaur"?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-06-2020 23:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:...semantic distinction.
Which is what?

IBdaMann wrote: ... yet when I offer to be wrong about something, it's never enough.
I'm wrong constantly. You have a weird thing about pretending you are right when you're wrong. Are you saying you're wrong about "confidence level"?

Because it is not possible to discuss most of the issues related to this board without a common understanding of it.

Like this link
See where the Russians have put "The dashed curves represent 95% confidence limits."

AND "I'm" not right here I'm being boring and having faith in textbooks like most people.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 10-06-2020 23:26
11-06-2020 00:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...semantic distinction.
Which is what?

It's not statistics. If we're no longer talking statistical math then I need to drop out of the discussion because you have steered it to an unrelated tangent.

Your denial of "confidence level" refering to human confidence is erroneous. A "confidence level" has an intention to assist humans in making a decision, and no "confidence level" equates to the results of any human decision made based on any "confidence level." You still won't acknowledge this key underpinning so it is rather pointless to respond to your badgering over mere words (not to be confused with any Wisconsin Badgers).

A national standard that exists to impart confidence in the use of measures is not a mathematical application of statistics but is rather an arbitrarily determined process (arbitrary but based on experience and accepted best practices). When followed, this standard is intended to impart "confidence." Formalized, as are all government standards, it becomes expressed as a "confidence level." Again, the same words but there are no statistics involved and the only thing that applies is the equipment's "tolerance" which gets applied to all measures made by that equipment.

So when that equipment makes a measurement, the measurement is annotated with the equipment's tolerance ... and that's all. There's no "confidence level" that ever comes into play with the data so recorded. That particular "confidence level" has already had its intended effect because some company went ahead and purchased that equipment. Only the tolerance becomes part of the data.

Of course, once there is a measurement, there is no longer any speculation about what was measured. There is certainty to within the equipment's tolerance. It has been measured.

So I'm not sure what point you are trying make beyond you wanting me to be wrong about something, and you won't tell me what you want me to be wrong about so ... are we done?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-06-2020 00:30
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
IBdaMann wrote:
As always, that's all this is ever about, i.e. you need for us to be "wrong" about something, anything ... yet when I offer to be wrong about something, it's never enough.

So, let's get away from statistics and focus on how I can be wrong for you about something (something other than Global Warming) and let's see if we can make you happy.

How about "Barney is an crimson dinosaur"?

.

As any good catbird does...

**begin tmiddles mimicking**

WRONG! He's purple!! DUH... INDISPUTABLE PROOF that is denied by IBD & ITN

20 days without a response...

**end tmiddles mimicking**
11-06-2020 00:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Read up on the NIST

Thanks IBD. Certainly seems like appropriate and proper authority at least (as opposed to false authority).

Only for the case IBdaMann stated.
tmiddles wrote:
The site has a lot of very instructive content.

Which you completely ignore.
tmiddles wrote:
I found this example: Certificate of Analysis
Which reads as follows: "The indicated tolerance is at least as large as the 95 % confidence level..."

So the "tolerance" has a "confidence level" associated with it (because it is in fact a "confidence interval", just another term for it like "margin of error").

Mantra 25c1. Tolerance is not margin of error. 'Confidence level' is not used in statistical math.
tmiddles wrote:
It also has this great explanation:
7.1.4. What are confidence intervals? "A confidence interval... provides a range of values which is likely to contain the population parameter of interest....Confidence intervals are constructed at a confidence level, such as 95 %, selected by the user."

The site actually has "confidence level" on 3910 pages! Wow. It appears with "tolerance" on 910 pages.

So?
tmiddles wrote:
So you and ITN are super duper wrong and the text books I cut and pasted from are correct.

False authority by contextomy. Mantra 4c.
tmiddles wrote:
So yeah there is everything you could want.
Recommended Standard Operating Procedure for Calibration Certificate Preparation

So?
tmiddles wrote:
"A statement of...confidence interval shall accompany the measurement result....The combined standard uncertainty is multiplied by a coverage factor (k) of 2 to provide an expanded uncertainty, which defines a level of confidence of approximately 95 percent (95.45 %). The expanded uncertainty presented in this report is consistent with the ISO/IEC"

Mantra 4c...25c1...39o...


No argument presented. Contextomy fallacies. Non-sequitur fallacies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-06-2020 00:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...semantic distinction.
Which is what?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: ... yet when I offer to be wrong about something, it's never enough.
I'm wrong constantly.

Yup.
tmiddles wrote:
You have a weird thing about pretending you are right when you're wrong.

Inversion fallacy. Mantra 17.
tmiddles wrote:
Are you saying you're wrong about "confidence level"?

Contextomy fallacy. Mantra 16c.
tmiddles wrote:
Because it is not possible to discuss most of the issues related to this board without a common understanding of it.

Mantra 6. You have no interest on discussing anything. You are only here to preach.
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Holy Links...
See where the Russians have put "The dashed curves represent 95% confidence limits."

Irrelevant. Mantras 5d...16c...
tmiddles wrote:
AND "I'm" not right here I'm being boring and having faith in textbooks like most people.

Misquoting textbooks is a contextomy fallacy. Mantras 4c...4d...16b...16c...4f...35d...39f...39b...39o...


No arguments presented. Contextomy fallacies. Mischaracterizations. Lies. Invalid proofs.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-06-2020 01:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:...measurement is annotated with the equipment's tolerance ... and that's all. There's no "confidence level" ...
That is a false statement.

There is not now nor has there ever been a "tolerance" on a measuring device that does not have a "confidence level" associated with it. A "margin of error", "accuracy +/-", "confidence interval", "tolerance" or whatever you want to call it (those are all the same thing) is meaningless without a confidence level, which is never 100%.

I've shown that to you already in the calibration procedure on the NIST site.

What you wrote is simply crap you made up, unsupported by anything and contradicted by the NIST content I shared.

You are wrong.

Into the Night wrote:
No arguments presented.

Well I'm not surprised you ducked out on this one ITN. But then you've had this discussion several times on this site one of many
Edited on 11-06-2020 01:39
11-06-2020 01:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 22 (confidence level)...25c1...26...15...39p...17...39p...7...7...29...


No argument presented. Attempted proof by irrelevance. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-06-2020 01:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:Attempted proof by irrelevance. RQAA.


Hmmm... The The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was founded in 1901 and is now part of the U.S. Department of Commerce. It's procedures and standards on setting equipment tolerances is "irrelevant" to the subject of equipment tolerance?

That must have been SOME RQAA ITN, sorry I missed it yet again.

I will add here should anyone stumble upon this hilarity that ITN claims to be in the business of measuring devices!
Edited on 11-06-2020 02:01
11-06-2020 02:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tmiddles wrote:There is not now nor has there ever been a "tolerance" on a measuring device that does not have a "confidence level" associated with it.

I just explained that and you are wasting time.

Now it's your turn. Give me one example of a dataset in which the "confidence level" of the measuring equipment gets factored into actual statistical computations along with the measured and the equipment's tolerance. I'm not talking about merely checking to ensure that the measuring equipment (and any measurement) is certified and that the most recent calibration is on file. I'm talking about your "confidence level" actually making it into the data itself.

We proceed when you provide (just) one example of such a dataset.

tmiddles wrote: A "margin of error", "accuracy +/-", "confidence interval", "tolerance" or whatever you want to call it ...

No, it doesn't work that way.

All of those terms have specific meanings and you are trying to merge them all together as though they are the same thing. They're not.

... but please, you are still on this particular crusade to get me to be wrong about something ... anything ... so just tell me in what way you need me to err.

I'm standing by for the dataset example.

tmiddles wrote: You are wrong.

I'm not even going to ask what I'm wrong about. Are you happy? That's all that matters. If you're satisfied we can drop the remaining formalities and move on to a different topic.



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-06-2020 02:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:...Give me one example...

I already did:
tmiddles wrote:This link
See where the Russians have put "The dashed curves represent 95% confidence limits."
And no I'm not jumping through hoops for you IBD.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: A "margin of error", "accuracy +/-", "confidence interval", "tolerance" or whatever you want to call it ...
...
All of those terms have specific meanings ...
OK what?

Actually let's keep it simple. What is YOUR definition for "tolerance" on a digital caliper like this and where does the number come from (how it is arrived at). Not exactly, but the basic idea as you understand it:


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 11-06-2020 02:43
11-06-2020 10:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Attempted proof by irrelevance. RQAA.


Hmmm... The The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was founded in 1901 and is now part of the U.S. Department of Commerce. It's procedures and standards on setting equipment tolerances is "irrelevant" to the subject of equipment tolerance?

No. Mantra 30.
tmiddles wrote:
That must have been SOME RQAA ITN, sorry I missed it yet again.

I can't help it if you refuse to learn.
tmiddles wrote:
I will add here should anyone stumble upon this hilarity that ITN claims to be in the business of measuring devices!

Nope. I am the business of building instrumentation and control systems. Mantra 30...29...RQAA


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-06-2020 10:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted lies...RQAA...
Actually let's keep it simple. What is YOUR definition for "tolerance" on a digital caliper like this and where does the number come from (how it is arrived at). Not exactly, but the basic idea as you understand it:


This question has also been already answered. RQAA.

The tolerance of a caliper (or any measuring device) is based on the accuracy of the lines on the scale, and how fine the scale is. Since all measuring devices are only as accurate as the lines are, anything in between is just a guess.

None of it has anything to do with margin of error, a value calculated from the variance declared, and the range of that variance; and the number of samples made across that variance.

Tolerance is not variance. Tolerance is not margin of error.

You still have zero understanding of statistical mathematics, and continue to deny it.
You also have zero understanding of probability mathematics and continue to deny it as well.
Add to that your denial of science, and you are back to your fundamentalist religion and nothing else.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-06-2020 17:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...Give me one example...

I already did:

That is a graph. That is not a dataset. You are back to square 1.

tmiddles wrote: And no I'm not jumping through hoops for you IBD.

Interesting attempt to shift your burden of support.

He who makes the affirmative claim bears the full burden to support it. You still need to provide a dataset that meets to conditions you have claimed. Otherwise you are done. Dismissed.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: A "margin of error", "accuracy +/-", "confidence interval", "tolerance" or whatever you want to call it ...
...
All of those terms have specific meanings ...
OK what?

And no I'm not jumping through hoops for you tmiddles.

tmiddles wrote: Actually let's keep it simple. What is YOUR definition for "tolerance" on a digital caliper like this and where does the number come from

There is uncertainty in every measure. Humans can "eyeball" a measure for anything, however that represents the upper limit on the uncertainty of the measure.

[note: This uncertainty is not to be confused with the certainty of the observation, i.e. "I don't know if I have a pile of bricks" vs."I have seen the pile of bricks delivered to the yard and it looks like there are about 5,000." ]

Measuring devices are built to be more accurate than human guessing/estimation. Measuring devices convert the subject of estimation from the matter itself to two lines/marks/hashes ... or in the case of digital equipment, a numerical value. The measure lines (or returned values) change as temperature, pressure and calibration of the equipment change.

The tolerance of any measuring device is determined by the change limits, as measured against a standard, within operating temperature and pressure ranges.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-06-2020 02:32
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(465)
Its raining so hard at the moment I think I will build a wooden boat 10 cubits by 50 cubits and you all can call me Noah.But I am not putting 2 Tmiddles on board they might breed
12-06-2020 04:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:
The tolerance of a caliper (or any measuring device) is based on the accuracy of the lines on the scale, and how fine the scale is.
No ITN that is resulution and not tolerance. You'll notice I posted a photo of a digital caliper. A digital caliper typically has a resolution that exceeds it's tolerance. Because tolerance is not based on the visual presentation a caliper makes but how ACCURATE it is. Two calipers, made by different manufactures, but which appear to be the same, with nicely printed lines that are just a crisp and tiny, could have wildly different tolerances depending on the quality of the device.
Here is a 6" caliper rated 0.0005" and 0.010 mm accuracy

Here is one that looks much the same rated Accuracy: ±0.2mm/0.01"

So the first one has an accuracy that is 20 times finer. It's also important to note that the less accurate caliper has a resolution 100 times finer than it's accuracy.

Accuracy, Tolerance, Margin of Error all mean the same thing and it's performance based.

A manufacturer can't just claim a tolerance they can't meet or they can expect to get sued.

IBdaMann wrote:
That is a graph. That is not a dataset.
Debunked here

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: And no I'm not jumping through hoops for you IBD.
Interesting attempt to shift your burden of support.
The burden to make your points is always yours IBD.

IBdaMann wrote:
He who makes the affirmative claim bears the full burden to support it.
And I have supported mine.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: A "margin of error", "accuracy +/-", "confidence interval", "tolerance" or whatever you want to call it ...
...All of those terms have specific meanings ...
OK what?
And no I'm not jumping through hoops for you tmiddles.
Yo just claimed they had specific meaning. I'm saying they all mean the same thing: margin or error with a confidence level. What you're saying is simply left unsaid.

IBdaMann wrote:The tolerance of any measuring device is determined by the change limits,...
The "change limits"?

IBD, I am simply amazed at your ability to make up things so absurd that google has ZERO results for them!!!

Not that it matters much but you're also both misusing "tolerance" in that it's generally used to describe the requirement of what is being worked on and not the measuring device. An instrument must be accurate enough for the tolerance demanded by the job. If you ask a vendor to construct something they will ask you what your tolerance is on the dimensions.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 12-06-2020 04:10
12-06-2020 06:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
tmiddles wrote: No ITN that is resulution and not tolerance.

Just write "You are WRONG!" ... it's really all you want to write. All the rest of your crap is just to make your "You are WRONG!" appear legitimate. Maybe you can throw in a picture as a nice touch, e.g.



You might want to quibble over something more substantial than which word someone uses to try to explain a concept to you.

Dude: I need to use the bathroom
tmiddles: WRONG. That's the "restroom."
Dude: OK, I need to use the restroom
tmiddles: WRONG. That's the "washroom."
Dude: OK, I need to use the washroom.
tmiddles: Then explain why you said "bathroom." You specifically wrote "bathroom" here:
Dude wrote: I need to use the bathroom

... but now you are saying something else. You are so totally WRONG.



tmiddles wrote: You'll notice I posted a photo of a digital caliper.

Why? You should first have a point that your picture will then support. As it stands you aren't saying anything beyond how you totally conflate data with the analysis of that data. You think a clothing vendor's decision to shift to pastels is a consumer's purchase of a baby blue scarf.

You won't be running a business anytime soon. You also won't be a system's tester anytime soon.

tmiddles wrote: A digital caliper typically has a resolution that exceeds it's tolerance.

I enjoy trivia as much as the next guy, but you have just singlehandedly shifted to a completely different topic ... and I bet you'll be trying to blame Into the Night. Am I right? You're going to blame Into the Night for the topic shift, yes?

tmiddles wrote: Because tolerance is not based on the visual presentation a caliper makes but how ACCURATE it is.

... which was the topic before you changed it. Too funny!

tmiddles wrote: Two calipers, made by different manufactures, but which appear to be the same, with nicely printed lines that are just a crisp and tiny, could have wildly different tolerances depending on the quality of the device.

Did you just learn this? Why haven't you quoted Into the Night when he wrote that two calipers from different manufacturers always have the same tolerance? Oh, that's right, because he never wrote that.

So now I'm confused. What's your point and why is who WRONG about what?

tmiddles wrote:Accuracy, Tolerance, Margin of Error all mean the same thing and it's performance based.

Nope. You are a moron, but I mean that in the nicest sense of the word.

tmiddles wrote:A manufacturer can't just claim a tolerance they can't meet or they can expect to get sued.

Did you just learn this? I appreciate trivia just as much as the next guy but did you have a point?

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
That is a graph. That is not a dataset.

Debunked here[/b]

You wish. Hint: You won't be working as a data scientist anytime soon.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: And no I'm not jumping through hoops for you IBD.
Interesting attempt to shift your burden of support.
The burden to make your points is always yours IBD.

Sure, but we're talking about your point, and right now it remains unsupported ... and dismissed.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
He who makes the affirmative claim bears the full burden to support it.
And I have supported mine.

Nope. Dismissed.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: A "margin of error", "accuracy +/-", "confidence interval", "tolerance" or whatever you want to call it ...
...All of those terms have specific meanings ...
OK what?
And no I'm not jumping through hoops for you tmiddles.
Yo just claimed they had specific meaning. I'm saying they all mean the same thing: margin or error with a confidence level. What you're saying is simply left unsaid.[/quote]
Right. Let's review. I was being polite in informing you that they all have specific and distinct meanings. You are a moron who is insisting the terms all somehow mean the same thing. You asked me to explain to you the different meanings of the terms, but I extended to you the "Fukc You" that you tried to throw at me. Where we stand is that you still don't know the meanings of the words you are using.

So I have a fun idea. You continue trying to use the terms interchangeably and I'll mock you while you do. Deal? I think it'll be great.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:The tolerance of any measuring device is determined by the change limits,...
The "change limits"?

Yes. ... and you don't know what I mean, do you? I'm guessing you can't use context and what I wrote to piece it together.

This is going to be good.

tmiddles wrote: IBD, I am simply amazed at your ability to make up things so absurd that google ...

You never disappoint with your complete dependence on Google to give you the quick answer. If Google can't give you the right answer then you are hosed, and it is so funny to watch.

You know that I'm going to have fun with you. I'm planning on beginning every sentence with "You are WRONG!" ... and I'm going to make sure to be very limited on any explanations ... so I can milk you for every drop of entertainment value.

tmiddles wrote: Not that it matters much but you're also both misusing "tolerance"

You are WRONG! I'm using it completely correctly and have been. You COULD go back, read what I wrote, learn from it and be correct yourself ... or you can continue to be a moron.

Hmmmm. I wonder which option you are going to choose.

Brint it on, baby!

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-06-2020 16:13
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
duncan61 wrote:
Its raining so hard at the moment I think I will build a wooden boat 10 cubits by 50 cubits and you all can call me Noah.But I am not putting 2 Tmiddles on board they might breed

Good call!
12-06-2020 16:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
duncan61 wrote:
Its raining so hard at the moment I think I will build a wooden boat 10 cubits by 50 cubits and you all can call me Noah.But I am not putting 2 Tmiddles on board they might breed



duncan61, make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

And duncan61, this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

Oh, and duncan61, A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

I trust I have been clear. Make sure you complete this BEFORE the end of the century.
Attached image:

12-06-2020 16:55
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
IBdaMann wrote:... "missing some cubits" graphic


This is my "heroic" part of the "forgotten history". I saved duncan from incorrectly constructing the arc.

Then later came the "branch blunder" that the dove had to save me from...

But hey, teamwork makes the dream work!!
12-06-2020 17:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
gfm7175 wrote:This is my "heroic" part of the "forgotten history". I saved duncan from incorrectly constructing the arc.

I'm sure duncan had been looking all over for those cubits. Once you lose them, you can't ever get them back.

gfm7175 wrote:Then later came the "branch blunder" that the dove had to save me from...

I wouldn't call it a "blunder" so much as you just being lazy. You didn't think Noah would notice that the branch was water-soaked.

But hey, what's gonna work? Teamwork!
What's gonna work? Teamwork!


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-06-2020 23:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Your presumption I'm obsessed with your being wrong stems, in my view, from the following exchange which we keep repeating:
I discuss something with you.
You say 10 things, 9 of which I understand well and agree with and 1 that is bat shit crazy. I seem to only ask you about the nutty thing you said (agreement is a short exchange and we move past it quickly) because you double down on it. Because you and ITN have a sickness that you can't admit to making errors. YOU are the one belaboring the point that every text book on statistics got it wrong, not me.

IBdaMann wrote:you totally conflate data with the analysis of that data.
How is that? The "data" from an instrument with a narrower margin of error, one that is more accurate, is not the same as that from a less accurate one.
Two calipers may indicate 4.0200cm for example. So what do we know about the length that was actually measured? Depends on the accuracy of the caliper. If it was a +/-0.01cm caliper then the measure is, with a 95% confidence level, between 4.0100 and 4.0300cm. If on the other hand it was a caliper with a 0.001cm accuracy it's between 4.0190 and 4.0210cm. So The "data" is not the same even though they both provided the same number.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: A digital caliper typically has a resolution that exceeds it's tolerance.
...you have ...to a completely different topic ... ...Why haven't you quoted Into the Night when he wrote that two calipers from different manufacturers always have the same tolerance?...What's your point and why is who WRONG about what?

Here is the quote from ITN:
Into the Night wrote:
The tolerance of a caliper (or any measuring device) is based on the accuracy of the lines on the scale, and how fine the scale is. Since all measuring devices are only as accurate as the lines are, anything in between is just a guess.
I was clear in my response he was confusing "resolution" with "accuracy". Two caliper makers can have the best print shop in the world to print the finest, prettiest lines ever, and one can still be far more accurate than the other.
Still confused? Or still pretending to be?

IBdaMann wrote:I was being polite in informing you that they all have specific and distinct meanings.
As has been demonstrated numerous times you and ITN have definitions for words not found anywhere else. You don't actually have a point to make here? fine.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:The tolerance of any measuring device is determined by the change limits,...
The "change limits"?

Yes. ... and you don't know what I mean, do you? I'm guessing you can't use context and what I wrote to piece it together.
You can speak for yourself. I have not interest in trying to imagine what you meant.
Edited on 12-06-2020 23:57
13-06-2020 00:12
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
tmiddles wrote:
Your presumption I'm obsessed with your being wrong stems, in my view, from the following exchange which we keep repeating:
I discuss something with you.

You do not "discuss". You preach.

tmiddles wrote:
You say 10 things, 9 of which I understand well and agree with

You've shown very little to no understanding of [insert most things here] since you've been on this forum.

tmiddles wrote:
and 1 that is bat shit crazy.

"Disagreeing with your sermons" is not "bat shit crazy".

tmiddles wrote:
I seem to only ask you about the nutty thing you said (agreement is a short exchange and we move past it quickly) because you double down on it.

See above.

tmiddles wrote:
Because you and ITN have a sickness that you can't admit to making errors.

No, the sickness is YOURS.

tmiddles wrote:
YOU are the one belaboring the point that every text book on statistics got it wrong, not me.

Not what he has argued. This is also an RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:you totally conflate data with the analysis of that data.
How is that? The "data" from an instrument with a narrower margin of error, one that is more accurate, is not the same as that from a less accurate one.
Two calipers may indicate 4.0200cm for example. So what do we know about the length that was actually measured? Depends on the accuracy of the caliper. If it was a +/-0.01cm caliper then the measure is, with a 95% confidence level, between 4.0100 and 4.0300cm. If on the other hand it was a caliper with a 0.001cm accuracy it's between 4.0190 and 4.0210cm. So The "data" is not the same even though they both provided the same number.

RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: A digital caliper typically has a resolution that exceeds it's tolerance.
...you have ...to a completely different topic ... ...Why haven't you quoted Into the Night when he wrote that two calipers from different manufacturers always have the same tolerance?...What's your point and why is who WRONG about what?

Here is the quote from ITN:
Into the Night wrote:
The tolerance of a caliper (or any measuring device) is based on the accuracy of the lines on the scale, and how fine the scale is. Since all measuring devices are only as accurate as the lines are, anything in between is just a guess.
I was clear in my response he was confusing "resolution" with "accuracy". Two caliper makers can have the best print shop in the world to print the finest, prettiest lines ever, and one can still be far more accurate than the other.
Still confused? Or still pretending to be?

RQAA. You keep acting like all those terms mean the same thing. They don't.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I was being polite in informing you that they all have specific and distinct meanings.
As has been demonstrated numerous times you and ITN have definitions for words not found anywhere else. You don't actually have a point to make here? fine.

RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:The tolerance of any measuring device is determined by the change limits,...
The "change limits"?

Yes. ... and you don't know what I mean, do you? I'm guessing you can't use context and what I wrote to piece it together.
You can speak for yourself. I have not interest in trying to imagine what you meant.

IBD guessed correctly, I see.
13-06-2020 00:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
gfm7175 wrote:
You do not "discuss". You preach.
"Disagreeing with your sermons" is not "bat shit crazy".
See above.
No, the sickness is YOURS.
Not what he has argued. This is also an RQAA.
RQAA.
RQAA. You keep acting like all those terms mean the same thing. They don't.
RQAA.
IBD guessed correctly, I see.
If you've got nothing to say you could just try remaining silent, but at the very least you could be much more concise.

Just a pro tip for you.
13-06-2020 00:51
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1094)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
You do not "discuss". You preach.
"Disagreeing with your sermons" is not "bat shit crazy".
See above.
No, the sickness is YOURS.
Not what he has argued. This is also an RQAA.
RQAA.
RQAA. You keep acting like all those terms mean the same thing. They don't.
RQAA.
IBD guessed correctly, I see.
If you've got nothing to say you could just try remaining silent, but at the very least you could be much more concise.

Just a pro tip for you.

I WAS concise.
13-06-2020 10:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
You do not "discuss". You preach.
"Disagreeing with your sermons" is not "bat shit crazy".
See above.
No, the sickness is YOURS.
Not what he has argued. This is also an RQAA.
RQAA.
RQAA. You keep acting like all those terms mean the same thing. They don't.
RQAA.
IBD guessed correctly, I see.
If you've got nothing to say you could just try remaining silent, but at the very least you could be much more concise.

Just a pro tip for you.


You are no pro. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Page 4 of 7<<<23456>>>





Join the debate Satellites:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
GRACE satellites to be shut down116-09-2017 22:11
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact