Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

Thanks,
Scott Gardner

Scott Gardner said:

Does anyone know



Draw near, ye of concreted skulls. Lay forth your attentiveness to my
narration of the **** of RAO Past. Or in contemporary slang: duh!


Exhibit 1:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

It's not worth it , Mr. Krueger.

Thanks for admitting that you critique what you haven't investigated,
Mr. Samangitak

Any indication of other tests that don't coincide with yours, you
will claim the tests were suspect.

False claim.

You've been there and done that?

Thanks for admitting that you haven't, Mr. Samangitak

So has the audio testing bus that came to me in 3rd grade and junior high.

Thanks for admitting that your ears haven't been tested since junior
high. How many years ago was that?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 2:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The original point was that Oakland College is a second-tier regional college.

Thanks for admitting that you have lost total track of the topic of
the discussion, Mr. Phillips. I've never had any kind of association
with Oakland College. I don't even know if such a place exists in any
place but your jumbled mind.

Compared with MIT, Cal Tech, and C-M, Oakland
College is indeed second-tier, and it does not have a reputation for sending
its engineering graduates to top companies.

But Mr. Phillips, thanks for admitting that you lied to this "real
engineer" by making up this false story that I think that OU is
"first tier".

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 3:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Thanks for pointing out that you haven't been paying attention.

It's not a matter of paying attention Weil, its a matter of not
caring. Frankly, I don't read every post on this newsgroup. But thanks
for admitting that you do. My problem is that I have a life --- you
obviously don't.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 4:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

What's the difference between opining and reporting, Mr. Krueger?

Thanks for admitting that you can't tell the difference. I'll bear
that in mind the next time you report anything?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 5:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

You'd know this Richman if you posted there more than once a week!

Irrelevant.

Thanks for admitting my claim about your light participation in RAHE
is true.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 6:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I haven't "gagged" at the thought of trying Spectralab, Mr. Krueger.
I was recommending inexpensive FFT-based analysis tools to Carl Valle.

To[sic] bad your recommendation wouldn't work as you made it. Also,
thanks for admitting it.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 7:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I know that any English above the 3rd grade level is difficult for
you. Maybe you can get one of your kids to explain it to you.

Weil, thanks for admitting by means of insult, that not even you
can't make sense of what you wrote.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 8:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

It certainly appears that way from a posting of his today as a
follow up. In any event, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Mr. Lyle, thanks for admitting that losing sleep over your own
demonstrated incompetence is not what you do. That's one reason why
you remain incompetent...

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 9:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

No, Krüger, it doesn't work like that. Your claim, your proof. Provide an
example of your "evidence" or your claim falls - as it has done over and
over again previously.

Thanks for admitting that for you Mr. Bamborough, "evidence" is a
moving target.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 10:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

As for the question about CU's use of science to evaluate audio
equipment, I don't know since I didn't read Consumer Reports' audio
equipment reviews. But if its past auto reviews are any indication,
I don't think I will be impressed with their audio equipment reviews.

[...]
However, thanks for admitting that in fact you have zero experience
with CU audio equipment reports to base your comments on.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 11:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Well, you are a lot more and a lot worse than threatening.

Thanks for admitting that I've taken quite a few figurative licks on
you, sockpuppet Yustabe.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 12:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Yet you're still sitting at
the breakfast table in your underwear, eating cereal, and playing on the
computer. Nice visual, loser. LOL!

Hey Mr. Phillips, it's a living. Thanks for admitting how endlessly
rigid, narrow, bigoted and prejudiced you are. I'm sure that you've
impressed the heck out of everybody else here, especially those who
make their living by working with computers.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Exhibit 13:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

It just keeps getting worse and worse for you, Arny. I haven't the
slightest idea why you don't just ignore me completely. I guess you
like getting ****ed up the ass figuratively.

Thanks for admitting that you are obsessed with sodomy, Phillips. Do
you do this with your spouse, or just people you pick up?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


In case you still don't get the point, Google found "about 106" posts
in which Krooger thanks people for "admitting" things they never said.

Do I have to quote a bunch of posts in which Krooger says "Can I quote
you...." ?

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

Thanks,
Scott Gardner

Not quite that simple.

Here is a good discussion.

http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/...ya/chapter_5/c
hapter_5.htm

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:q55Hb.41731$m83.23824@fed1read01
"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials
a subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty
that the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

Thanks,
Scott Gardner

Not quite that simple.

Here is a good discussion.


http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/...ya/chapter_5/c
hapter_5.htm

It's certainly a good discussion as far as it goes. IMO my major problem
with this whole paper is summed up in this quote from page 5:

"Anything that can reduce the type 2 error probability will increase
statistical power."

Type 2 error is AKA false positives. Note that the paper says little or
nothing about reducing type 1 error, AKA false negatives. Page 4 of the
paper describes a comparison methodology that is far more prone to false
negatives than ABX.


I'm of the opinion that false negatives and false positives are both errors,
and that one kind of error is as undesirable as the other. ABX was the
result of considerable development along the lines of reducing false
negatives by giving the listener every kind of assistance that we could
think of. PCABX takes the same approach several steps further by insofar as
it is practical, satisfying the "10 Requirements for Sensitive, Reliable
Listening Tests" as listed on the www.pcabx.com home page.

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message

Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_p9.htm

worked out table:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_bino.htm

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1 in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10 times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing 8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

Norm Strong

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1 in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10 times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing 8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1 in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10 times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing 8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!

I'll bite, what is the fallacy?

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:mqmHb.42067$m83.2649@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1 in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10 times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing 8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!

I'll bite, what is the fallacy?

ScottW



he didn't make it yet, but I thought he
might infer that if such an event happened, the one
person would have been a lucky guesser.

I know that there are further circumstances
that might bear light on that, but Norm mentioned
a hypothetical that didn't include any further
listening by that one particular individual.

not that any of this matters in the 'real' world.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:mqmHb.42067$m83.2649@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many
trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1
in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10
times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far
as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing 8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!

I'll bite, what is the fallacy?

ScottW



he didn't make it yet, but I thought he
might infer that if such an event happened, the one
person would have been a lucky guesser.

I know that there are further circumstances
that might bear light on that, but Norm mentioned
a hypothetical that didn't include any further
listening by that one particular individual.

not that any of this matters in the 'real' world.

Thats easy enough to determine. Let that one person
take the test a few times. It will quickly become clear
if they are "golden ear" or just lucky.

ScottW

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many
trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired
certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1
in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10
times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far
as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing
8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try
to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!

Yes. I'm ready to dive--but I haven't dived yet. The entire issue is
one of probabilities. No matter how many trials you pass
successfully, there's always a finite probability that it was luck.
The best we can do is reduce that probability to a minimum.

Can you predict the outcome of a coin flip? Suppose you flipped a
coin 10 times and guessed right 8 of them. Does that mean you can
actually can predict coin flips? Now add this complication: You
flipped a coin 10 times and you were WRONG 8 of them. What does this
mean? Think about it.

Norm Strong

Uncle Troll said:

Can you predict the outcome of a coin flip? Suppose you flipped a
coin 10 times and guessed right 8 of them. Does that mean you can
actually can predict coin flips? Now add this complication: You
flipped a coin 10 times and you were WRONG 8 of them. What does this
mean? Think about it.

The meaning I see is that your retirement is turning your brain to
mush.

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vrEHb.673278$HS4.4771970@attbi_s01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many
trials
a
subject must complete successfully to achieve a desired
certainty
that
the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%, and
there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right is 1
in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10
times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as far
as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to do
this test before you have an even up chance of correctly guessing
8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try
to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will succeed--by
luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!

Yes. I'm ready to dive--but I haven't dived yet. The entire issue is
one of probabilities. No matter how many trials you pass
successfully, there's always a finite probability that it was luck.
The best we can do is reduce that probability to a minimum.

Can you predict the outcome of a coin flip? Suppose you flipped a
coin 10 times and guessed right 8 of them. Does that mean you can
actually can predict coin flips? Now add this complication: You
flipped a coin 10 times and you were WRONG 8 of them. What does this
mean? Think about it.


It means that I do a bad impersonation of Madam Flora.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---