Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 12:04:48 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 14:33:52, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 03, 2002 at 14:22:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On September 03, 2002 at 13:51:52, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>It is about the second digit being round, because >>that makes the chance you have such a speedup 1/10 of >>a chance. >> >>Bob claims a 2.0 speedup which bob claims according to >>his paper based upon counting up all times then dividing >>by total times. >> >>However if we look at every speedup individually then >>if you get a 2.0 speedup that's in a range of 1.95-2.04 >>RIGHT? >> >>Please answer that question. >> >>A speedup of 2.0 lies in a range of about 1.95-2.04 >> >>So i hope you realize that chance it is 2.00 is exactly 1/10 >>of a chance. >> >>How big is the chance that 50 numbers in a row have >>a speedup in parallel search of 2.00 then? > >I see. >I agree that the chances are very small. > >> >>How big is the chance that all numbers end at a 0? > >I agree that the chances are very small and the data is enough to convince me >that I do not believe that the data is correct. > >Uri I've got to hand it to you. You guys are the absolute limit. You take the biscuit. You get the prize. Bravo! Trying to use statistics to make one's argument is the last resort of the scoffer. Here in the old US of A, everyone knows that one can use statistics to prove just about any nonesense one wants to promote. And it's the funniest joke in the world that statisticians think they are scientists. So if that's all you've got, then you've still got nothing. But hey! Keep on selling that snake oil. It's a free country (so to speak). ;)
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.