"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>"mat" <mats_trash at hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:43525ce3.0208200346.17c4045f at posting.google.com...>>mats_trash at hotmail.com (mat) wrote in message
>news:<43525ce3.0208031252.370db1e5 at posting.google.com>...
>> > No it won't you fool. Answer we this, and don't conveniently avoid it
>> > like the other difficult parts of my last post:
>> >
>> > If a coin is flipped twice am I certain to get one head and one tail
>> > (as would be the case according to your logic.
>> >
>> > If I flip a coin three times, what is the probability of getting at
>> > least one head?
>> >
>> > Just answer those questions and we know where we stand. Furthermore,
>> > if you don't answer you will confirm your inability to comprehend
>> > basic mathematics.
>>>> Surely not that hard?
>>Not only was your question answered a long time ago,
Nope.
>The probability of getting one head on the first flip is 0.5. The
>probability of getting two heads in a row are 0.5 x 0.5, or 0.25. Of
>getting three in a row is 0.125, etc.
That is not the right question. .125 is the chance of getting THREE
heads in a row on three coin tosses. The poster asked you the
probability of getting AT LEAST ONE head in three coin tosses. You
don't know the answer, do you?
The correct answer is .875. Now given the answer, can you tell us WHY
that is the correct answer? I've done half the problem for you, and
I'll bet you STILL can't solve it.
>But that's an entirely different question than the probability of thousands
>of students (randomly guessing on a four part multiple choice question)
>getting the correct answer.
You guessed wrong on his question. The probability that you would do
so was nearly 1.000, but that has little to do with random selection.
>No matter how you slice it, if the guesses are truly random, the larger the
>sample size, the closer you'll be to 25%.
But they aren't random any more than your wrong answer to his problem
was random. You misunderstood the question. This makes you no better
and probably worse than most of those female students you like to
insult.
>After correcting for the statistical significance of the girls' responses,
>32% of their responses were not statistically significant, 23% were
>statistically significant because they scored lower than if they'd just
>guessed, and of the 45% that was statistically significant, the amount by
>which they scored lower than boys was statistically significant on 24.4%, by
>which they scored higher than boys was statistically significant on 2.6%,
>and the difference between boys and girls was not stastically significant on
>18%.
You don't know what "statistical significance" means.
lojbab
