Back to Home

General Forum Message

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

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:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 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