Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
3,135
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 729:
Line 729: +
Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words (view source)
Revision as of 04:01, June 30, 2013
, 04:01, June 30, 2013→Doubling: re
:::The ease of finding new conservative words in a pattern that doubles by century is significant, just as easily finding some gold nuggets in a stream would be highly significant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 29 June 2013 (EDT)
:::The ease of finding new conservative words in a pattern that doubles by century is significant, just as easily finding some gold nuggets in a stream would be highly significant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 29 June 2013 (EDT)
::::As a mathematician, I can tell you that because of the problems with your methodology that [[#My problems with making any statistical conclusions|I have already pointed out]], there is zero statistical significance for what you have done. To make a helpful analogy, your methodology would be equivalent to someone who wants to show that the number of instances of the letter "E" in the Bible (KJV) doubles with each book and thus picks out one occurrence of the letter "E" in Genesis, two in Exodus, four in Leviticus, eight in Numbers, etc. If your methodology were correct, then Revelation should have an e-normous number of "E"'s (pun intended). As a second example, if your methodology is correct, why not trim examples from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries to increase the rate of growth to tripling by century, quadrupling by century, or even more. The absurdity of these examples points out the fundamental flaw with your methodology: the words selected are not a random sample but appear to be selected in a calculated manner to fit your predetermined doubling pattern. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:01, 30 June 2013 (EDT)