I yielded because at that time you were still polite and graceful. And you were not as completely wrong as I thought you were. If others were using the same definition, I certainly should not fault you for using it. But it remains true that to this day you still don't understand what a null hypothesis is. In fact, you don't even understand what it was that we were debating. Now your facade of gracefulness has all disappeared, there is no reason for me to still give you the benefit of doubt.
Sorry to go offtrack. Although it's a nuisance having to deal with idiots like jem, it's also part of the fun. Last time we talked about how the wasps became selective in choosing their mates to try to avoid the transexual (and definitely infected) individuals. The bacteria countered with chemical warfare, trying to kill off the eggs of the healthy females. Wasps had to respond to this. But their response is only out of necessity. They don't have an effective counter measure to the chemical warfare. The infected males are destined to oblivion if they still insist on mating with healthy females. Their payoff matrix has now completely reverse. So they have to reverse their strategy accordingly. Now they have to select for the infected females! At the end, this results in a sort of detente. Healthy males and infected males have opposite selection criteria for their mates. A semi barrier for interbreeding is erected. Infected males cannot mate with healthy females. But infected females can mate with both kinds of males. A dynamic balance is maintained. Next up, the bacteria opens a new front in chemical warfare. To be continued...
Interesting. The wasps try to avoid the transexuals. Why do libs give the righteous a hard time for their commments about deviant sex. You think it's evolutionary behaviour, right?
I tell you what. Let us get some noted authorities on probability theory. Let them review what your wrote about the null hypothesis after your wrote this and see if they request your resignation from the Stats dept. As you stated here is your original post: (the relevant part): "Here is a good analogy. Once I asked one of my military friends what he considered as a great general. His answer was that if someone won five major battles in a row then he would be considered a great general. Then I asked what he thought the percentage of great generals were among all the generals in history. He thought about it for awhile, and then answered, "maybe 3%." I laughed. If you flip coins 5 straight times, the chance of 5 straight heads is 3%! So were these 3% really great generals, or were they just lucky? As a feeble human, I don't think we will ever know the answer to that question. Then why I am against the ID theory? Because it's worse. Not only it won't bring anything to the table as far as our knowledge goes, it prevents scientific thinking. It makes us lazy, makes us less likely to question our own thinking, less likely to challenge false observation. All of this are harmful to science." And here is a statistics lesson for you: The chance of winning one battle, everything else being equal (ie you're not better than your opponent) is 50%. That's random chance. That means if you had 100 generals fighting 50 battles, 50 of these generals would win (any surprise here?). The chance of winning two such battles in a row, is half that, at 25%. Take these same 100 generals, ask them to fight in another set of 50 battles, 25 of them would win twice in a row. The chance of winning three in a row, is yet another half, at 12.5%. Four in a row, at 6.25%. Five in a row, at 3.125%, or approximately 3%. So if people just randomly picked their battles, and randomly won a few and lost a few, then 3% of them would have won five in a row (and 3% of them would have lost five in a row, completely because of bad luck). Do I need to explain it sloowwwwly again for you? ---------------------------------------------- Your were fooled by the book fooled by randomness. You now suspect randomness under every corner. You have a complete lack of understanding of how to apply probabilistic thinking to real life or trading. Just because results resemble the result you get from a coin flip does not mean the exercise was the product of random chance.
Check your quote against my definition of a null hypothesis: It is the assumption that any observed difference between two samples of a statistical population is purely accidental and not due to systematic causes. Without any further information, the only assumption one is allowed is to assume that there are no "systematic causes." Take this to your local college and ask anyone there. Try to learn something, for once.
Interesting game played by parasitic wasps and Wolbachia bacteria. It's a dead serious game that conforms nicely to the game theory. Not all strains of the Wolbachia bacteria are able to change the sex of their hosts. For those who cannot, infecting the male eggs is futile. Many years ago, scientists worked out the payoff matrix for the bacteria, and made the prediction that it would be advantageous for them to kill off the male eggs. Evolution theory predicts that by killing off the male eggs, the percentage of infected insects will be increased. It was a brave prediction made by the evolution theory. And it took many years before this prediction was confirmed. Scientists eventually found a number of species that are infected with Wolbachia bacteria able to produce male-killing chemicals. The male:female ratio in these species is seriously distorted due to such chemicals produced by the bacteria.
You provided a quote from an expert that stated when you set up a stupid test you get stupid results. Your test is stupid because you do not understand probabilities. You confuse the random results of a coin flip with binary events which are not random. You could not be more foolish. You have a coin flip - heads or tails are a 50/50 proposition. You equate that to Generals winning battles. Are you really claiming to be a critical thinker? If you have a tank battle. One general keeps his supply lines well guarded and manages to refuel his tanks. The other general does not. The outcome is binary. win or lose. But winning or losing is not a random event. You could not be a professor of statistics and not understand the difference. Generals wining five major battles are about as random a group as teams winning 5 super bowls. I brought this up with you before. I thought it might sink in. I also brought up the analogy of Wimbledon winners and your buddy KJ supported your illogic. Neither of you seemed to think very well on this subject or the subject of design. Like I said hundreds of times before - I have given you top professors and noble prize winners who state there is reason to say the universe looks designed. I gave you quotes. That is not a misrepresentation.