One Power strength

[Ndshacker]

Im in grade 9, and that was my first graph of this sort, so dont laugh....

[BeaconofMercy]

I've heard quite a bit in these posts that's switched my opinion a few times, but let me put in my two cents.

 

1. Rand ties with Moridin/Ishamael

2. Lanfear/Taim

3. Alivia/Logain (Cyndane states during the Cleansing that Alivia is stronger than she used to be, which means that she'd be stronger than Lanfear. I do think the use of Alivia's angreal allowed her to appear that way. Without the angreal, I don't think she'd be quite as strong as Lanfear before her death. I placed Logain below Taim because I think Taim is VERY close to Rand in strength, and Logain states in the Knife of Dreams that Rand is stronger than he, and not by a hair)

4. Demandred, Cyndane (I think Demandred is up here more for his skill with the Power than he is for his strength in the Power. It is stated that only he, Semirhage, and LTT could block gateways once they started opening, so that speaks volumes to me. Cyndane is of course Lanfear reincarnated, and it's confirmed that she is a bit weaker than she originally was)

5. Aginor (He used to be able to hang with LTT back in the AOL at least for awhile)

6. Sammael/Rahvin (They just seem to fit together to me. Sammael seemed harder to kill though)

7. Semirhage/Graendal/Mesaana (I think they're all so close in strength that you can't really place them above or below one another)

8. Balthamel, Be'lal, Nynaeve, Sharina, Talaan (I don't know if Talaan should be this high, but I see her as being comparable to Nynaeve in strength and slightly stronger than Egwene and Elayne)

9. Moghedien, Asmodean, Egwene, Elayne, Aviendha, Cadsuane

10. Moiraine, Elaida, Siuan (before stilling)

[Mr Ares]

A moderate strength angreal has been known to more than double the strength of the channeler (ie the one Elayne gave to Aviendha). What makes you think the one Alivia was using can't be that strong?

Nothing. What's your point? When they fought, Alivia was the stronger due to the angreal. We have nothing to say where they stand in relation to each other without the angreal.

 

Without the angreal, I don't think she'd be quite as strong as Lanfear before her death.

Why?

I think Demandred is up here more for his skill with the Power than he is for his strength in the Power. It is stated that only he, Semirhage, and LTT could block gateways once they started opening, so that speaks volumes to me.

Does it? Blocking Gateways could be a matter of Talent, in which case in needn't say all that much.

5. Aginor (He used to be able to hang with LTT back in the AOL at least for awhile)

And he is the second strongest male Chosen. Behind Ishamael.

[Nightstrike]

Here you guys are.... My math is at the side, but if you can understand it.... your doing better than my teachers.

 

I can't see your math, so I don't know what that's about. We don't have mean, variance or skew. If one of those were unknown, then we can't draw the curve. And we don't have all the facts to calculate mean, variance or skew. That means that we can't draw the curve OR calculate "cut-off strength to become Aes Sedai".

[Nightstrike]

5. Aginor (He used to be able to hang with LTT back in the AOL at least for awhile)

And he is the second strongest male Chosen. Behind Ishamael.

According to the Big White Book, yes. But Osan'gar made less than impressing gateways compared to Rand (at a time when Rand hadn't even reached full potential). Gateways are referenced to strength on several occasions in the series, and therefore can't be dismissed.

 

 

 

 

[Ndshacker]

you are a party pooper, but I drew the curve, and it works. Cut off strengh = 36.2

Percent of aes sedai who can get shawl= 63.8%

People who don't=36.2

 

I calculated the skew by a series of mathamtical equations to test where it should cross the cut off strenght. I am only off by 0.0035%

[Ndshacker]

As for the mean, I am trying to find it so I can test it further, once I find it, there willl most likely be a few changes, but not many.

[Nightstrike]

Sorry! You'll have to show me some convincing calculations of variation, mean and skew first (impossible). Those calculations (if we had all the facts to calculate them) does not fit into "the right side". Talk with your teachers about it, if you want to.

[Luckers]

Even a symmetric curve would be expected to have a mean and a variance. That's two variables that one would expect from any normal distribution. What do you mean by "variables skew the distribution"? Mean and variance are variables that contribute to the distribution in question. Not all distribution curves are the same.

 

I mean that variables skewing a distribution from an exact curve must inherently be absent here--RJ directly stated as much.

 

And yes, I'm aware that not all distribution curves are the same--god knows i studied them for long enough. What is the relevance? We know the nature of this distribution, which is what I am trying to say to you. For RJ to be correct the distributution must be exact.

 

And I'm not sure you understand what your referring to with mean--the mean by nature in an exact distribution is the median--50, in this case. And variance--we may be dealing with two different schools of math here, but in Australia variance refers to outliers, results that exists outside the average range--which is impossible in this case given there is a range of 1 to 100, the Morgase to Lanfear. We have top and bottom limits, and no viable outliers. To what are you referring when you speak of varience?

 

I don't know about the skew, maybe it should be more or less expected also? The quote from wikipedia seemed to imply that "in reality" the distribution is skewed...

 

Exact distributions do occur naturally, if rarely. But in either case we know that it is the case this time.

 

So, at least mean and variance should be known. We don't have all the facts to calculate those. And if there's a skewed distribution, then we don't have that either.

 

Mean is known--50 exact (in the female range). Variance--well I'm not sure what you--or wikipedia--are looking for there, but we don't have any outliers, nor any other variables to skew distribution. And we sure as hell don't have a skewed distribution.

 

Shouldn't you have proved we can be sure? Do you want me to prove the negative - that we can't know?

 

I did--we know the Wise Ones test all girls, and do not allow any of them to die from lack of training. That they allowed Aviendha to enter the Westlands shows she was not channeling, nor about to. The fact the Moiraine is relatively ambivalent adds to the fact that she was not yet channeling. But even if she did spark before returning to the Waste than she still was not channeling for more the two months.

 

So, you claim that we cannot know that 100%... on what basis? Start with disproving the positive, then we can move on to the negative.

 

Ooops, my mistake! Sorry! I didn't actually read the whole chapter, just skimmed some of it. There were two damane. That wouldn't have been more than 1/4 as impressive, then.

 

More impressive that she said she could tie them up with horses and all. Plus, she said in the very same book, that she was as strong as Egwene. I can't find any reason to simply dismiss that altogether, as you did. I don't mean she is exactly the same as Egwene, just that there can't be too much of a difference.

 

I don't see how its impressive to tie up four women--and note she doesn't say she can hold their horses, just them. Holding four people with air is not difficult. I don't see the significance.

 

And i actually commented on her comment about herself and Egwene--we know as a fact that it takes time and experience to learn to judge another woman's strength exactly. It's stated by both Eadyth and Egwene herself.

 

Dividing the flows are mentioned at least one time in the series and one time in NS to be very taxing/wearing. Dividing two times is more than twice as taxing as a single one and three times more than twice as wearing as two, and so on. Moiraine managing 4 flows simultaneausly puts a perspective. The fact that Aviendha could do 4 simultaneausly (even though 2 were weak) would point towards her being equally strong as Moiraine/Elaida at the time. But since 2 were weak, could Moiraine have managed it? I doubt it, but I'll go along with you on that and dismiss it altogether.

 

Egwene was dosed with forkroot and still managed more flows than any Aes Sedai. That is important - both of those facts! In fact, the two red that guarded her appeared shocked. Two weaves more than twice as taxing as one plus Moiraine managing 4 puts Egwene (managing 14 while she was drugged) higher than...

 

Ok, firstly, Egwene was drugged, she could not channel more than a trickle--yet she divided her flows fourteen ways. That shows directly the the division of flows is directly related to ability, not to actual strength held. By which i mean Egwene could channel fouteen flows because she had a stronger ability, even if her strength was limited at the time.

 

As such I don't see how your point is relevant: you stated "Moiraine could have done 4 more impressive weaves, true, but Egwene was dosed with forkroot. "

 

By the but I assume you had some specific point to make. What specific relevance does Egwene being dosed with forkroot have?

 

Aviendha managed four weaves--but we know dividing weaves relates to perspective ability as much as it does current strength. I'm not sure any point can be made from that. What if Aviendha, with her greater potential, was thus able to divide her weaves earlier in training than Moiraine--after all, given Egwene's example there is nothing to oppose that.

 

The fact remains, Aviendha had channeled for two months, she was not near either Moiraine or Egwene's strengths, despite her claims. Thus we must fit facts with facts, and this explanation works for her ability to divide flows.

 

Your own example with Amico shows how weak the 3 Aes Sedai must have been, those that Rand burned out. If Amico could maintain a shield on 3 stronger than herself, then surely 3 Aes Sedai at 45-55 (even without angreal) could keep 1 Rand at 100 shielded, no ? Let me quote you on the subject of Amico: ..."Amico held Nynaeve who less than two months later equalled Moghedien.". She simultaneously kept the shields on both Elayne and Egwene, who both were "more than a match for Liandrin." And Liandrin was stronger than Amico.    

 

Perhaps men have a greater ability to break shields than women. Recall that Logain severely strained a shield held by six, despite the fact that such a circle would have been stronger than he, and that in the case of women even weaker women can maintain a shield on stronger women.

 

The reverse for men does not seem true.

 

Another option, though it damages my arguments about Aviendha (though that is perhaps unnessasary since you acknowledged the sul'dam) is that some women have shileding talents--take Nynaeve and Elayne's encounter with the kin, for instance.

 

Another example of how weak the AS are relative to Rand; we have him thinking "Shielding anyone did take a fair amount of strength. With the angreal, Rand was sure he could make seven shields, even with them embracing saidar already;..." (LoC, The Mirror of Mists). Even with them embracing saidar already........ !!! Dividing the flows 7 ways and shielding them all at once......... !!!

 

And perhaps he could, it depends on the strength of the angreal. Dividing the flows is no hamper--we know that it is not a function of strength used, but rather of the ability of the channeler (increased by their strength, but not limited by it), besides in tDR Rand divides his flows 12 ways, surely he's incresed since then.

 

What's your point? The required weakness of the average Aes Sedai for this to be the case does not sustain your skewed variance--which once again is not the case, as stated by RJ.

 

 

 

Siuan lifted three times her own weight would put a strain on her OP muscles that should be no more than equal to Aviendha being able to tie up the seanchan group and their horses. Therefore my estimation is that Aviendha is at least equal to the old (stronger) siuan in strength (counting horsepowers - a horse can lift more than one Siuan). The rest of your argument goes back to your own scale, so they stand or fall together.

 

Firstly, Aviendha states she can hold the damane and sul'dam. She says nothing about their horses or the other Seanchan, it is Rand that made that claim.

 

Secondly,  there is not evidence to sustain lifting things with the power has any implications on holding things with the power. Indeed, Siuan directly states that lifting things with the power is more difficult--indeed logically we can sustain that anyway--binding something exerts force only against its own kinetic energy, lifting something adds gravity to the game. Besides, by the numbers i provided we can see that lifting is not directly relative to strength.

 

And my 'numbers' are directly stated by RJ to be correct. The scale is established.

 

The difference between, for example, 1.8 times and 2.2 times is substantial. It's 40% of Cyndane's strength and 22.2% between alternatives. I still question how Cyndane could escape Alivia, if Alivia was 1.8 times stronger. It seems incredible! Plus, at some point you WILL get crushed with a shield that skill can't escape.

 

Oh, you have evidence to back that? How does this super-powerful shield you suppose avoid being sliced by a flow of fire and spirit?

 

Alivia was more than twice Cyndane's strength--you cannot make a point from that about Alivia's original strength being weaker--she WAS stronger in that moment, and Cyndane survived anyway due to her superior knowledge of the power. Which, again, RJ directly commented on himself.

 

I'm afraid I will have to disagree before that.

 

No offence, but its stated in the books. Bit of an endgame.

 

That she said she couldn't link in book 2 (as you said earlier) is no proof she still couldn't in book 5. You said that she couldn't link in book 5, but now you say "from Siuan presumably".

 

We are actually talking book 4. And beyond which we do have proof that she didn't know--the Wise Ones did not learn how to link until book 6--when Egwene herself showed them. Or do you suggest Aviendha withheld this knowledge after Egwene trained her--in a knowledge you have no basis for suggesting Egwene knew.

 

And I'm confused by this comment.

You said that she couldn't link in book 5, but now you say "from Siuan presumably".

 

You seem to be implying there is some logical fallacy there--she could'nt link when she was amongst the Aiel. My guess would be she learnt it from Siuan after going to salidar. It's far from certain of course, though Siuan was in charge of teaching her what she didn't know--but where is there a contradiction in those comments?

 

Quote

Quote

I would have considered the possibility (in both Elaida's and Rand's situation).

 

You are not Rand or Elaida.

LOL, so true! I still expect them to act on what they know or don't know. Or, you know what I mean...

 

Heh. The one that irritates me the most is that Rand ignores male channelers amongst the Aiel.

 

The lifting and the tying up takes horsepower of OP strength.  A single horse is probably strong enough to lift 3 Siuan or more (if attached to a rope or something). So I say they are comparable, aside from the dividing of the flows, which is straining in itself. My estimation is that Aviendha would've had to divide her flows at least 4 ways in order to tie up the mounted Seanchan group, and that's exactly the limit of Moiraine & company. And Aviendha said "I'm may not know as much as Moiraine, but I'm as strong as Egwene". Egwene was stronger than Moiraine in the beginning of the book before she said that. And, earlier in this thread you said: "Furthermore we know for a fact that Egwene exceeded Moiraine's strength long before that--they are directly compared in tSR.". So I have 2 reasons to expect Aviendha to be stronger than Moiraine. How many reasons do you have to expect she is weaker than Moiraine?

 

Firstly, Aviendha did not offer to tie up the horses. Secondly, as i stated the force expended for holding things, and for lifting things would be dramatically different. Thirdly, Rand managed to hold all the other Seanchan and their horses without dividing his flows, and more to the point far exceedomg the limit of weight he could lift.

 

The fact remains, Aviendha could not have been close to Moiraine's strength after less than two months of channeling, even if she were forced. She was wrong, end of game.

 

Since there were only 2 damane, I no longer claim that as evidence for anything. But I just want to point out that I have never tried to argue that all damane are above average strength. I said "varying strength". I still believe that sparker's average OP strength is above learner's average OP strength.

 

--I agree incidently--but specific to this discussion you implied that the greater strength of sparkers relative to learners would have impacted Aviendha's ability to hold the damane--even though you were suggesting four, you directly linked the greater strength of sparkers to that reality.

 

A higher average with tens of thousands of damane makes no statistical difference to the implications of whether those damane Aviendha encountered should have been strong or not. I feel thats a point that still needs to be emphasized because you did specifically raise it--im sorry if that seems pedantic.

 

Hmm... We were talking about why Aviendha would make the mistake of misjudging Egwene and/or Amys/Melaine in TFoH. It just occured to me that Aviendha shouldn't have done that mistake according to you. You said that Aviendha was able to judge the sul'dam and damane strength in TFoH (A Short Spear). That would make it very likely that she could also judge Egwene/Amys/Melaine. Not to mention how weird it would be if she had stated something about strength, when she really couldn't tell. Why would she have done that (she appears to be a rational woman)? And in the (very) unlikely event of that actually happening, why didn't Egwene say anything about it? Is the mistake a fact?

 

Because she has no training in this. She's been channeling less than two months--rational or not, her word is suspect--and indeed patently false.

 

The mistake is a fact. Why she said it, and why Egwene didn't point out the falsehood remains confused--perhaps Egwene assumed they were speaking of potentials. That she sensed the sul'dam is actually proof of her odd perceptions when it comes to this--no other channeler has sensed the ability in sul'dam, no matter how experienced.

 

Buy the mistake is a fact. Aviendha could not, even if forced--which presumably she wasn't given the Wise Ones oversight--have equalled Moiraine at that time. Much less Egwene.

 

Luckers:

 

Quote

You don't argue with the man, man.

Luckers:

 

Quote

As an amusing side note, the 'culling of men' is logically unsustainable. The vast majority of male channelers are learners and stay within the gene pool, and even those that do spark often don't until their late twenties, which in their socio-economic setting means they would on average already have children. Several, in fact. Sorry Aes Sedai, try again.

 

The Aes Sedai and Kinswomen not marrying would have a larger impact, though even that would not be that great amongst the one percent of women that can channel.

The lack of inbreading between male and female channelers though would probably have an impact--likely the reason its gone down from 3% in the Age of Legends to 1% now.

 

Robert Jordan's blog, October 2:nd 2005:

 

Quote

For Papazen, while I have spoken of souls being born with the ability to channel in response to questions, I think of it as being genetic also.  In the Age of Legends, between 2 and 3% of people had some ability, following a bell curve distribution in strength.  For over 3000 years, though, Aes Sedai have been removing men who actually learned to channel from the gene pool.  They have been very efficient at this.  As a result, the “present day” sees about 1% of the population who can learn to channel, with a much, much smaller percentage of that being born with the spark.

Amusing or not - who's arguing with the man, man?

 

Fair enough. You can argue with the man--if you have viable logic or evidence to sustain yourself. That your subjective analysis of strengths contradicts a comment by RJ is not enough.

 

I mean, functionally speaking do you disagree with the logic I've put forward for why we should dismiss RJ's comment? It does seem to me to hold weight. I don't see the reverse being accurate--suggesting RJ was joking in his comment based on no more than your chart disagrees does not seem viable, especially when we can establish something without contradicting RJ.

 

Of course i may be wrong, there may be an aspect at play here im unaware of--maybe men who can channel are infirtile until they begin channeling, or some such, in which case the culling of men who can channel would logically have an effect. Arguing with the man must always be done with a degree of humility.

 

Still, its unlikely. But you see the difference right? Between evidence directly opposing RJ, and a theory that simply requires RJ be wrong to be right.

 

And Luckers what you said about variance just shows your total lack of knowledge of distributions, there can be no support for you on this matter that is justified.

 

Indeed. I notice you add nothing to the conversation. One would presume that had you held any knowledge of statistical distribution you would have been as troubled as I about Nightstrikes comments on mean--though i do admit that I am uncertain as to what he--or rather his wikipedia source--had to say about variance. Such international differences have raised themselves before.

 

Perhaps you might add something to explain this cultural difference?

 

80% stronger is a huge advantage, even with less skill. Her being equal with Cyndane would make Alivia with *angreal roughly 160% stronger. That's just... very unlikely... whichever way you choose to look at it... And if we would think Alivia would've been equal or stronger than Lanfear - I'm not even going to consider it for a second, but those who want to assure themselves can do the calculations themselves.

 

By what basis do you claim that? I choose to look at it in the sense that RJ described it--Alivia was more than twice Cyndanes strength, yet Cyndane survived because of superior knowledge.

 

In what way is that 'very unlikely'.

 

Besides, how much stronger would you have to be if you want to be sure to shield someone that's already holding the Power? Rand was only "uneasy" when he might have to face 7 AS (him having his angreal). Later he thought he could shield all 7 at once, while they were holding saidar. Rand with angreal, shielding 7 AS gives rough estimation at (290/((21*7)*0.95)=) 2.07 times. Two weak channelers such as Careane & Vandene linked can probably overcome any of the "13 BA sisters" whilst they're holding saidar (KoD, the House on Full Moon Street) - which also shows us that we shouldn't assume that it would take much more than twice another's strength to overcome someone holding the Power. If Alivia=Cyndane (both unaided), then Alivia with *angreal=2.6 times Cyndane. That would probably result in a shielded Cyndane (even if she's more skilled).

 

Alivia could have easily shielded Cyndane--presuming she allowed it. She did not. Slicing a shield does not require strength, just skill and speed.

 

As for the rest--Rand, with an angreal, would have been slightly weaker than a circle of those Aes Sedai, yet higher in strength. He could have shielded any of the individuals, but were they in a circle then he would have had to shield them as one--RJ stated that, circles are like one channeler, and have to be shielded as one. His seven shield theory would not have worked.

 

The fact of the matter is your argument is insane--even at your suggested strength Alivia was strong enough to shield Cyndane easily. She was by far strong enough to cut Cyndane from the source whether Cyndane already held it or not. That she didn't succeed in that is because Cyndane stopped her, resulting from skill not strength. The point is moot.

 

According to the Big White Book, yes. But Osan'gar made less than impressing gateways compared to Rand (at a time when Rand hadn't even reached full potential). Gateways are referenced to strength on several occasions in the series, and therefore can't be dismissed.

 

Actually by the time Rand met Osan'gar he might have been at his full strength. Men reach their full strength much sooner than women. We know he didn't have his full strength when he faced Rhavin about three months before. It's possible, though very uncertain.

 

But can you cite the quotes about Osan'gar's gateways--did Rand feel him straining. How are we certain he was trying his hardest. One would presume a Forsaken hiding out would want to underplay his strength. And when did this occur?

 

 

[Tyrell]

With regards to the Cyndane vs Alivia fight, one thing to consider is that Cyndane has a huge advantage over Alivia in that Alivia doesn't know how to reverse her weaves to make them invisible, while Cyndane does.

 

Graendal had a weak Angreal, and facing a circle which one would imagine would be stronger than her (three Aes Sedai - none of them stated to be weak as such - and one of which had an Angreal of her own) she managed to kill one of the members of the circle, because of the considerable advantage she had by being able to reverse her weaves.

[Nightstrike]

I mean that variables skewing a distribution from an exact curve must inherently be absent here--RJ directly stated as much.

That's your interpretation, but actually he did no such thing...

 

And yes, I'm aware that not all distribution curves are the same--god knows i studied them for long enough. What is the relevance? We know the nature of this distribution, which is what I am trying to say to you. For RJ to be correct the distributution must be exact.

Did you? Where? And more importantly, can you show me how you've found mean, variance and skew. Because we don't have all the facts. So if you got them, I'd like to see them as well. Please share! If you can't give one or more, then all your argument fall. And you really don't have a single one of the three!

 

And variance--we may be dealing with two different schools of math here, but in Australia variance refers to outliers, results that exists outside the average range--which is impossible in this case given there is a range of 1 to 100, the Morgase to Lanfear.

Again, where did you study distribution curves "for a long time". I've studied them "for a short time", and I happen to know you're dead wrong!

 

We have top and bottom limits, and no viable outliers. To what are you referring when you speak of varience?

Why do you have to ask that question?

 

 

Mean is known--50 exact (in the female range). Variance--well I'm not sure what you--or wikipedia--are looking for there, but we don't have any outliers, nor any other variables to skew distribution. And we sure as hell don't have a skewed distribution.

I didn't have to look for wikipedia about what variance was. I quoted wikipedia for purpose of showing you that the skew is more or less expected. Variance has nothing to do with the skew. I've told you before. I don't understand why you don't simply look it up yourself.

 

 

 

[Luckers]

That's your interpretation, but actually he did no such thing...

 

He stated we could work out the exact math on our own, requiring an exact distribution. Your own comments agree to that--were there a skew we could not work it out. If, as he states, we can, then there must be an exact distribution.

 

Did you? Where? And more importantly, can you show me how you've found mean, variance and skew. Because we don't have all the facts. So if you got them, I'd like to see them as well. Please share! If you can't give one or more, then all your argument fall. And you really don't have a single one of the three!

 

The University of Sydney. Statistics is a required course for psychology in both the first and second years. Furthermore, you seem to misunderstand the realities here--for RJ's comment to be correct, there cannot be any skew. Subsequently the mean becomes 50. And I still don't understand what you are refering to when you speak of variance.

 

Again, where did you study distribution curves "for a long time". I've studied them "for a short time", and I happen to know you're dead wrong!

 

The University of Sydney.

 

Where did you study them 'for a short time'?

 

Your not incorrect, such as it goes--mean is almost never median, and the effect of outliers (varience) does skew distribution, and in almost every case of real world data both would have to be dealt with.

 

But, based on RJ's comment, neither have to be.

 

Beyond that though I'm confused... why did you respond in that manner. I stated "And variance--we may be dealing with two different schools of math here, but in Australia variance refers to outliers, results that exists outside the average range--which is impossible in this case given there is a range of 1 to 100, the Morgase to Lanfear."

 

To which you responded that I am dead wrong--I was directly asking for you to explain what you meant by variance because it appeared we differed. By nature if we are referring to two seperate interpretations of the word we must be wrong by each others standards. Your response confuses me. Indeed, had you studied one would think you'd be aware of the fact that mathematical terminology differed between countries--the million million event, and such.

 

Under your school of learning, to what does 'variance' refer.

 

Quote

We have top and bottom limits, and no viable outliers. To what are you referring when you speak of varience?

 

Why do you have to ask that question?

 

Ummm... because I have no idea what you are talking about when you are speaking of variance. It seemed pretty clear--we have no outliers, and an exact distribution, yet you keep raising variance. I must therefore conclude you mean something else when you speak of variance than what I was educated in.

 

Can you please clarify yourself.

 

I didn't have to look for wikipedia about what variance was. I quoted wikipedia for purpose of showing you that the skew is more or less expected. Variance has nothing to do with the skew. I've told you before. I don't understand why you don't simply look it up yourself.

 

Strange then that you havn't explained it. Myself, I know what variance is--at least insofar as the word is used in Australia--an exact distribution as suggested by RJ has no skew--thus no varience and a mean of exactly 50--the median.

 

Your comment, that the skew is 'more or less' expected, is innacurate. It's completely expected. In nature, an exact distribution is almost unheard of. It's still irrelevant. In this case we have an exact distribution.

 

You've thrown around words like 'mean' and 'variance', yet functionally in none of your arguments have you displayed a knowledge of statistics. You've made a claim to knoweledge, that your argument is sustained by logic--but you've yet to explain it, you've only said the words. You need to be specific now, refering to exact parameters that sustain your arguments. All you've done so far is refer to the fact that the paradigm of statistics exists, and that within it skewed distributions are normal--and yeah, we know that. I've commented on it.

 

You called me out. I'm out. My arguments are stated and clear--though if you have questions im completely willing to clarrify further--though specific questions would be preferable, that my comments disagree with what wikipedia said about distributions normally being skewed should have been answered by your education in statistics, or lacking that in my comments.

 

 

Your arguments, as far as I can tell, consist of "But... but... the mean... and the variance... and the skew...." They are pretty words, but it's time for you to back yourself up--you state your educated in this area. Supply it. And well.

 

 

[Nightstrike]

Mean and variance aren't pretty words, they are necessary if we're gonna draw the curve. I would think the curve would look the same in Sydney. Variance is standard deviation squared. Variance/standard deviation is one thing we have to know (other than mean and skew) if we're gonna be able to establish "cut off strength to become Aes Sedai".

 

Where did you study them 'for a short time'?

I studied agriculture at the university some 5 years back. We studied statistics during the first year, and it was also used during the rest of education. I'm definately not an expert, but I still know the basics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nightstrike]

Your arguments, as far as I can tell, consist of "But... but... the mean... and the variance... and the skew...." They are pretty words, but it's time for you to back yourself up--you state your educated in this area. Supply it. And well.

You still haven't shown me any calculations for mean or variance (even if we assume "no skew" - which is unlikely in itself).

 

It was you who said "I've studied distributions for a long time"!!!!! Shouldn't it be YOU that show us all what you're made of!!!

 

 

 

 

 

[Nightstrike]

Ummm... because I have no idea what you are talking about when you are speaking of variance. It seemed pretty clear--we have no outliers, and an exact distribution, yet you keep raising variance. I must therefore conclude you mean something else when you speak of variance than what I was educated in.

How many times should I say it? LOOK BELOW AND PAY ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Even in a symmetric distribution, we are expected to have a mean and a variance. I've said it enough already! Look it up!

[Nightstrike]

Is this guy joking with me? Does anyone else think so?

 

Luckers, are you joking with me?

[Ndshacker]

First off, we do have everything we need...

We have the mean: (Once I found where it says it)

We have the cut off line: 63.8% can reach the shawl

We DO NOT have the skew, but by a simple mathematical equation we can find it.

 

IF somoe can give me the average stength of aes sedai I will gladly create a graph that not even YOU can argue with. I did talk to my teacher, she said that with the information given we CAN make a graph the way I thought, but It takes more work than if we simply had all three pieces of the puzzle handed to us.

 

[Ndshacker]

Luckers. Where does it say the Mean is 50? It could be possible but I want something RJ said (If possible) So that there can be no arguments.

[Nightstrike]

Talk with your math teachers about variance, Ndshacker!!!

 

WE MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT HAVE ALL THE VARIABLES!!!

 

We DO NOT have the mean!

 

We DO NOT have the variance!

 

We DO NOT have any information about any skew!

 

The only information we DO have is that 62.5% of all those with any potential are strong enough to become Aes Sedai. And since we DO NOT have the distribution in question, we CAN NOT determine "cut off strength to become Aes Sedai".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ndshacker]

Um... I did, she said there is no variance.... she said that since variance is NOT required and since we have no reason to believe that it exists... that it can be excluded.

[Ndshacker]

Now if you'll just tell me the mean (average) strength of aes sedai, I can finish my graph, then WHEN its done, I can show you that:

 

A) it has skew and it was determined mathematicly

B) It fits the mean

C) It has no variance

D) It fits the cut off strength

 

**Also you put forward a moot point. With the 63.8% of aes sedai, it is important, IT IS the basis for our graph! USing the following formula    [x-1(x)]+100 we determine the x axis of our graph AND how many aes sedai we are dealing with. If we have a scale of 100 on our x axis, then

100-1(100)+100=  99(100) +100 =  9900+100= 10000 SO on a scale of 100 we would be dealing wiht 10000 female channelers. **** I figured that much out on my own.

[Nightstrike]

Um... I did, she said there is no variance.... she said that since variance is NOT required and since we have no reason to believe that it exists... that it can be excluded.

Of course there is a variance! Why did she say that variance is NOT required? Why would she say such a thing? Of course we have reason to believe it exists! Why would she say that it can be excluded? Variance, mean and any skew must be known before we can draw the curve. We don't have those! We can't draw the curve!

[Nightstrike]

 

Now if you'll just tell me the mean (average) strength of aes sedai, I can finish my graph, then WHEN its done, I can show you that:

We don't know the mean!

 

A) it has skew and it was determined mathematicly

We don't have the skew! How have you come up with any skew?

 

B) It fits the mean

We don't have the mean

 

C) It has no variance

Oh, it has a variance! But we don't know it!

 

D) It fits the cut off strength

Any number of curves drawn "fits the cut off strength".

 

**Also you put forward a moot point. With the 63.8% of aes sedai, it is important, IT IS the basis for our graph!

That isn't any basis for any curve drawn!

 

 

 

 

[Tyrell]

Luckers : The meaning of the term Variance, which Nightstrike is refering (rather rudely, but still) to would, to me, mean This, the standard deviation squared - σ².

 

Simply put the Variance tells us how spread out the data is; the smaller the variance the more tightly focused the majority of values will be on the mean, as illustrated by This picture on wikipedia.

 

Any Normal Distribution (correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is the 'bell curve' you are referring to) is defined by its mean and variance, the Standard Normal Distribution has a Mean and Variance of 1. We do need the mean and standard deviation, or variance of the set of data (all people who can channel) in order to apply the normal distribution to it.

[hapazard]

Lol :P, Luckers.....

The thing is, you are flat out wrong in this.

 

Variance gives the spread of the bell curve and relates to the high to width ratio. Thus a curve with zero variance would have all of its points at the center (in its mean) producing a line of zero area. A curve with a large variance has points far from the mean and produces a flat curve with a low slope.

 

If the distant points consist a small part of the population (the set of all points) you might be able to disregard them and getting a nicer, less noisy, curve with a lesser variance. If, on the other hand, the distant points are a large part of the population you probably don't have a normal distribution.

 

In any case: The variance is vital when drawing a Gaussian curve.

 

@Ndshacker

What you put forward is true of a binomial distribution approximated to a normal ( the mean value theorem) and thus the variance will be decided by σ = np(1 − p), where n is the number of trials in the set and p the probability in each trial.

 

Now, we don't know these parameters but I think it's safe to assume that when Jordan was talking about a normal distribution he meant the standard normal distribution where the variance is equal to 1 and the mean to zero. This combined with the information of the cutoff limit, the percentage of female channelers being above this in strength and the baseline width of the distribution makes it possible to calculate the (probable) number of Aes Sedai at a certain strength on the basis of the total number of Aes Sedai. To express this as that the curve doesn't have a variance is of course ridiculous and very oversimplified.