I Do Not Understand This - an Astronomy Net General Forum Message

General Forum Message
Forums:	Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem


Home \| Discussion Forums \| Misc. Topics \| Post	Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

I Do Not Understand This

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Rowanda on December 31, 2004 00:13:04 UTC

"There exist a couple of subtle aspects of the model so far described. Of very great significance is the fact that the goal was to create a model which will model any explanation of A obtained from C. The specific mapping of the labels for the elements of C are part of the model and not a given aspect of the phenomena to be modeled. If follows that theyielded by the model cannot be a function of that mapping procedure: i.e., all possible mappings must end up yielding exactly the same probability algorithm "

I just do not buy this. I am familiar with polling data and what we record is C in order to predict A. But how we establish C greatly affects our A prediction, and this is just a simple Will you vote for Bush or Kerry. But we screen the voters so as to get a representation of the actual people who vote. Without the screening our predictions are way off.

So here is a process by which C can predict A, but the results are problematic if done blindly. So how does the explanation fit in with this thinking.

wanda

Follow Ups:

I appreciate your rationality! - doctordick - January 1, 2005 - 03:29 UTC
- question for Dr. Dick - carefuluniverse - January 1, 2005 - 21:43 UTC
  - Long post for such a short question! - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 01:27 UTC
    - No worries - kantolfir2 - January 3, 2005 - 07:21 UTC
      - Not exac tly means not exactly. - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 17:31 UTC
        
        Re: "That's life." - kantolfir2 - January 3, 2005 - 20:34 UTC
        
        I see no contradiction in what I said! - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 22:05 UTC
        
        I'm just melting with the charm and sincerity of your logic ;) - kantolfir2 - January 4, 2005 - 02:18 UTC
- Can a model be independent of the mapping procedure? - wandaqueen - January 1, 2005 - 22:44 UTC
  - Can a human brain ever produce unpredictable algorithms/outputs? - kantolfir2 - January 1, 2005 - 23:01 UTC
    - It seems you do not understand my post - wandaqueen - January 2, 2005 - 04:25 UTC
      - Let's see - kantolfir2 - January 2, 2005 - 04:52 UTC
      - Really? Is that a technical assessment? - carefuluniverse - January 6, 2005 - 05:53 UTC
  - C is defined to be ALL the relevent information. - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 01:08 UTC
    - You are right - wandaqueen - January 3, 2005 - 02:29 UTC
      - So I've run you off have I? - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 18:02 UTC
        
        Well you never answered my last question - wandaqueen - January 4, 2005 - 00:45 UTC
        
        I am trying very hard to be clear. - doctordick - January 4, 2005 - 20:13 UTC
        
        Seems contradictory - wandaqueen - January 5, 2005 - 14:31 UTC
        
        I really didn't intend to upset you. - doctordick - January 6, 2005 - 01:12 UTC
        
        Ahh- You defined expectation - wandaqueen - January 6, 2005 - 13:45 UTC
        
        Here is a clear contradiction - wandaqueen - January 6, 2005 - 13:50 UTC
        
        Thank you for your attention. - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 05:08 UTC
        
        A model of nature - wandaqueen - January 8, 2005 - 16:24 UTC
        
        Harv???? - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 17:24 UTC
        
        Someone else came to the same conclusion? - wandaqueen - January 8, 2005 - 18:47 UTC
        
        Are you serious? - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 21:35 UTC
        
        You said it yourself - wandaqueen - January 9, 2005 - 03:49 UTC
        
        That is a worthless post! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 17:53 UTC
        
        "phenomena to be modeled" has to be specific explanation" - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:48 UTC
        
        You haven't got the slightest idea what I am modeling! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:04 UTC
        
        You do not know me - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 21:15 UTC
        
        Dick???? - harvey1 - January 8, 2005 - 20:38 UTC
        
        I already answered it! - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 22:20 UTC
        
        Everything means infinity - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 15:52 UTC
        
        Harv/Wanda and who else? Maybe Bruce? - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 17:49 UTC
        
        I'm having fun - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:58 UTC
        
        I don't think you have paid any attention at all to what I say! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:12 UTC
        
        intellectual honesty is not your strong suit! - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 13:48 UTC
        
        Sorry- you said 'Theory of Anything" - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:53 UTC
        
        And exactly where did I say "theory" of anything? - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:17 UTC
        
        Explanation =s theory in my mind - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 13:53 UTC
        
        I am trying very hard to be clear. - doctordick - January 4, 2005 - 20:14 UTC

Additional Information

About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy

Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins