AdvRoboticsE529

CharonY and John Cuthber, the tone and provocativeness is quite clear, it is as if you do not want questions to be asked. I am certain that you will attempt to penalise / belittle me for this comment, so go ahead, this forum is not for me.

I never supported the notion.

Yes, I talked about some of the definitions before which fails to addresses the true relationship, they're artificial. Exactly, you should not say that 0 = 1, as the fact of probability theory should not be claimed if insufficient evidence or true pure mathematical proofs are unavailable, this is the exact case, I am not making the claim, statistics is where the claims are made. Also, the "nature" of statistics and probability included may not validate it as a method. The scientific method fails to confirm if there is a lack of technology, one example is the constant modification of the atomic model, lack of technology results in uncertainty, long-term it will amend itself, short-term it can be uncertain.

You defend statistics by contrasting it to the faults of the failures in in science, the scientific example is not necessarily the best method for confirmation. And, you took the argument of authority by claiming I lack knowledge and am ignorant in the field. Other comments aside, I never made any extraordinary claim, it is statistics that made the claim of deduction / induction (specifically) from uncertainty, yet lack proofs that holds to be true without context or definitions, they are only as true as the definitions and theories of which conform to them. I do not need to provide evidence, it is time for statistics and statisticians to live up to their own word, my study in economics is consistent in uncertainty in that statistics fails to address true relationships or fails to determine the true variables. Again, I will concede that I do not know of the application of probability in quantum mechanics, however, I will not concede that statistics is as true as pure maths or certain branches of maths of which proofs does not require context to be true, and addresses the true relationship. Application in reality does not validate the method, we are going in circles. Further, its application in reality does not always holds true, and in certain cases are extremely accurate even if correct on paper. The best example is probably the paper: "On Default Correlation: A Copula Function Approach." Whereby its application in certain areas are accurately enough, yet is quite inaccurate and is claimed that in the application of the statistical method, it has resulted in a market crash. Before the crash, the method was validated by statisticians in the context and definitions of statistics. It is those complexity which makes me think that statistics is a field to be respected, I used to think that even if initial definitions and unproven mathematical theories (to repeat, only proven by their own context, and to be untrue when context is removed) may be ambiguous at least it resulted in a field of great deduction from induction, I don't think so. I don't think we'll be able to discuss, because you are quite confident in your view as am I, and I don't want to go in circles.

Water in the body and its purpose is not sufficient or specific to prevent combustion, claims of water being a barrier to combustion is unrealistic.

Well, I mean I would've love the extent of proofs by statistics found in pure maths, such claims requires better proofs, the whole thing which started my distrust of statistics is the lack of proofs and proofs of which are only true given invented context, whereby when context is removed the proof will no longer apply. Like I said, I don't get this problem when integrating the area of the circle, to give an example, there is no context needed, Also, I wasn't able to get my point across on the ambiguous application of methods and defined definitions. Also, probability theory and such, unfortunately, does not see the rigorous testing as other concepts in math in which I would love to see, for the application of probability in gambling games can be true following the rules of probability theory, yet when applied will not hold, in this case I'm not talking about the application itself but the concept of probability itself. As repeated, am told that it is applicable in quantum physics. I also had many problems with definitions, which I don't think we'll be able to discuss... Anyways, the point of this thread is the validity of statistics, whether statistics is applicable or not (which in most cases, it is, and can be quite useful) does not mean it is validated, and statistics have on occasions failed even when applied by statisticians and agreed amongst statisticians, I gave an example in economics previously with works extensively in correlation.

I don't I am able to get my point across, good talk anyways.

Interesting thought, although the income / wealth of specific households is quite important. Statistical analysis will definitely be quite important in this case, hopefully, in future, better computing technology will assist in mass electronic identification to result in more precise calculations, this uncertainty bugs me.

That is not an attack, stop bothering me. @studiot Also, you need to stop arguments from authority.

The question is loaded, by finding the average age of every citizen of the USA, you would apply the method of average, of course. However, what is your purpose? What relationship do you intend to look at? Artificial definitions and limits whereby the calculations conform to such. Quantifying the errors of statistics with statistics does not seem to be practical.

The application of mean in statistics is not the only definition I had problems with, it is as if my posts weren't read at all. Variance and skewness is very much artificial, I never talked much about skewness, skewness focuses specifically in the difference in quartiles which are set at 25%, 50% and 75%, again, specifically engineered so to suit the ideal world of whoever created such methods, this is very much unpure.

To determine how likely the sample of mean is the mean of the entire set of data with statistics itself seems to be going in circles, I only talked about averages, however, it would seem that many other definitions and the application of them still seems artificial. @studiot You're trying to be personal again.

No, I don't understand quantum mechanics, and I have asked about the application of probability in quantum mechanics, as repeated, am told that there are confirmations with experiments.

For example, the average coordinate given several coordinate in the case of geometry can be expressed with a function, you look at the true relationship, or, suppose the average of different vectors in mechanics, which gives the true final vector, different respective fields and their application of average holds true. In statistics, the basic, the mean, as the average of a set of data, whereby the known and unknown variables affecting every-single value of the set of data is different and not constant hence not equal, yet the average is still applied, and hence only poses to minimise the difference of the mean value from every-single value within the set of data. In pure or mechanics, the coordinates of vectors are such that a function can give you predictions of any coordinate or vector hence they are, shall we say, the same thing. In statistics mostly, especially in applying to reality, the values within the set of data are very much different with unknown variables affecting them. You can try to test the function in economics with statistics, it usually will not work and is quite inaccurate. This is the ambiguity which I find in that when you attempt to calculate the average of a set of data in statistics, that mostly does not give an accurate picture of the set of data.

I'm not claiming sums and divisions aren't maths, I'm claiming that the false application of it hence does not truly address the relationships. Averages are of course common especially in geometry and many fields of pure maths, however, its application in the field of statistics is quite artificial. There is no difference in calculation only the application and purpose of it, you don't seem to understand, for different relationships you search for you apply different methods, and the methodology of the average in statistics only poses to minimize the difference of the final value from every-single value, I'll say it again, it is quite artificial.