One Power strength

[Ndshacker]

Grade Nine.... Probably misunderstood my teacher. So what your saying is, as long as RJ didn't go mega physics on us, we can calculate it? Because I thought my First Graph was pretty close to what he had in mind.

[hapazard]

Assuming the variance to be 50 I'd say it look the part, yes.

[Ndshacker]

We don't know the mean!

I am refering to the average strength of AES SEDAI, not the mean that is used in formign graphs, I asked this to CHECK my graph.

 

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

We can find the skew, by recognising the pattern and finding X, It's hard to explain..... Because I was never taught, but I just know that, when the graph bends so far this way -> it will increase the amount on that side while simultaneously lowering it on <- that side.

 

We don't have the mean

See first statement

 

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

It is a standard bell curve, so according to... tyrell

the varience and mean is... 1

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

See above statement

 

That isn't any basis for any curve drawn!

I never said it was. I said that it was the basis for our graph, the x axis and the y axis + the ability to adjust the skew/ check the numbers. All depend on that piece of information.

 

 

 

 

 

[Nightstrike]

Whatever works for you.

[Thor]

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.

 

The general consensus is that the angreal at least multiplies channelers strength by 2.5.

The general consensus is that at the battle, Alivia was about 1.8 times Cyndanne's strength.

 

This directly means (using Cyndanne as 1):

Alivia with angreal    - 1.8

Cyndanne              - 1.0

Alivia without angreal - 0.72

 

There is nothing more that needs to be said.  Alivia without angreal is far weaker than Cyndanne.  Lanfear would have probably been at around 1.2 to 1.4 at least.

[Nightstrike]

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.

Actually, it was your argument to prove, which you haven’t. Why would I need to “start with disproving the positive, …”, if you had already proven your case?

 

But call me a crazy fool, I will disprove you anyway. From TSR (chapter 23) and  TSR (chapter 12), we can easily see that “the Wise Ones allowing Aviendha” anything is inaccurate. To quote one of your favorite expressions:… “Your argument is all moot”. Aviendha is stated (in TSR, chapter 23) to be a sparker, along with Elayne, Egwene & Moiraine. Aviendha is 1 year older than Egwene. She should be more than "channeling 2 months", as you said earlier. Add to that her own statement "I'm as strong as Egwene" - see further down this post for details.

 

 

 

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.

“Perhaps men have a greater ability to break shields than women”. That’s patching up a sinking ship, if anything is.

 

 

 

 

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.

By the number you provided? Lifting is not directly relative to strength? You just keep patching up a sinking ship, that’s what you’re doing! No one in the series has ever remarked about gateways and/or lifting things being anything than just plain simply proportional to strength. And yet you feel the urge to invent these things. Since gateways and strength has been mentioned in the same context, one would expect such an IRREGULARITY would have been remarked upon as well. But no such remark can be found anywhere. You’re no big fan of Occam’s razor, are you now? I don’t suppose you have any quotes to support your case (from RJ, perhaps)? No, I didn’t think so. Sorry I asked!

 

“The scale is established”? No,  the series is filled with examples that contradicts the scale. But you choose to say “Aviendha made a mistake. That’s a fact.”. Or even better, inventing something out of thin air.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

It was TFoH (chapter 5, Among the Wise Ones) – the 5:th book the last time I checked.  Not book 4 at all! “You are Aes Sedai, and strong enough in the Power to overcome Amys and Melaine together.”

 

Besides, we have evidence from the beginning of the same chapter (chapter 5) that Moiraine was teaching both Aviendha and Egwene. Linking should be high up on the list of things to teach! One of THE most important things that any woman can learn. Plus, I’m pretty sure that Egwene had encountered circles before. I don’t have any quotes, but I’d guess “the hunt for 13 BA sisters” or “Mat’s Healing from Shadar Logoth” might have been some such occasions in Egwene’s past.

 

 

 

 

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?

 

You said you knew that Egwene couldn’t link in book 5. And then you say “she presumably learned it in book 6 – from Siuan.”. That is a serious contradiction. Either you know or you don’t. Moiraine teached both Egwene and Aviendha in book 5 (chapter 5). I would expect that Moiraine teached one or both how to link (since she knew how and actually teached them). The dragon is reborn, the last battle is coming and they are all fighting for the Good side. It would seem like a VERY BAD idea, in my own judgment (of course), for Moiraine NOT to teach them linking. This all goes back to when we were talking about Aviendha saying (to Egwene):..."You are Aes Sedai, and strong enough in the Power to overcome Amys and Melaine together." Your response was that since Aviendha didn't know how to link, this statement of Aviendha's would imply added strengths Amys+Melaine would be less than Egwene's reached strength. I was assuming she knew how to link, and that the statement should be seen as them linked could still be overcome by Egwene at the time. Sorry for my "update", we've debated quite a lot of posts now.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Oh, boy! This particular part of the discussion goes way back to me saying “When Aviendha and Rand were in Seanchan, Rand asked Aviendha if she could shield 4 damane. Aviendha replied “Of course. Egwene taught me to handle several flows at once. I can block them, tie those off, and wrap them up in flows of Air before they know what is happening. I am fast enough to handle them, and their horses, …” (TFoH, A Short Spear) – I doubt even Moiraine could do that! “. So yes, Aviendha did say she could take care of the horses too. Rand was stated to be able to do it without dividing the flows because of him being stronger than Aviendha. So that comparison “is moot”. You handle the word “fact” very carelessly. You throw it around as soon as you have an opinion. I can’t find any reason why she was “wrong, end of game”. And you haven’t provided me with any reason either.

 

And Aviendha said "I may not know as much as Moiraine, but I'm as strong as Egwene". Note the "I am as strong as Egwene" part - NOT "my potential is equal to Egwene's". Egwene was stronger than Moiraine in tDR already(according to you). I see that you never answered my question! I said “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?”. How many did you have? You’ve given me zero so far!

 

 

 

 

 

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.

“The mistake is a fact.” Aviendha stated something as fact, as if she knew what she was talking about. Egwene didn’t object. None of them had any reason to lie. None of them has shown any serious irrational behaviour. When you claim some random Aes Sedai says something, with the added “but that was only speculation” – then we should take it as a statement of fact! Because “they should know”. If they knew what they were talking about (as you say), then why the "...only speculation". The “mistake is a fact” is just another invention of your’s. Only reason you invented it was because your scale must be patched up yet again. Otherwise you’d be swimming in the ocean. Where has that “Occam’s razor” gone? Oh yeah, it’s at the bottom of the sea!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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'.

It’s “very likely” that it’s harder to slice the flows from one that is 2.6 times (or more) stronger than yourself, than it is to slice the flows from one that is 1.8 times stronger. We have 2 very weak Aes Sedai (Careane & Vandene, linked), being expected to shield one BA sister – even if she’s holding saidar! That shows us that we can’t expect that the line for shielding under such circumstances can be much higher than 2.0 times the strength. Alivia with *angreal  resulted in Alivia loosing her arm (if someone hadn’t been there to Heal her in time).  I would NOT go as far as claiming my view to be “a fact”, as you frequently do, but I make this judgment. Based on what someone actually said or did in the books, instead of some supposed "mistake" by a character.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sillyman]

“Perhaps men have a greater ability to break shields than women”. That’s patching up a sinking ship, if anything is.

 

Prehaps not i imagine it is a lot harder to submit to saidar and break a shield then it it to take siadin and push through the shield

 

 

[Nightstrike]

“Perhaps men have a greater ability to break shields than women”. That’s patching up a sinking ship, if anything is.

 

Prehaps not i imagine it is a lot harder to submit to saidar and break a shield then it it to take siadin and push through the shield

 

 

 

I'm sorry,but you must have missed what I wrote before he replied that... Here it is again:

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.   

 

Did you seriously mean that Rand could burn them out, just because men "are seizing saidin"? Three women at 50 makes a total of 150 in strength. Whatever else that may be to consider, they are still much stronger than him! And yet he burned them out. HE BURNED THEM OUT!

 

 

 

 

 

[Nightstrike]

This is what RJ actually said (on his blog):

For Gyrehead, Foretelling is not related to strength.  The weakest possible channeler could Foretell as strongly as Elaida or Nicola, or perhaps even more so, depending entirely on the strength of his or her Talent for Foretelling.  The three Red Sitters were sent into exile in 985 NE under Marith Jaen.  Yes, Morgase has slowed, and that is exactly why there is so much emphasis on her looking only ten years older than Perrin when she has children the ages of Elayne and Gawyn.  Regarding the percentage of women who could test for the shawl, it would be 62.5% of the bellcurve.  I’ll leave the maths to you for an idle moment.  The question doesn’t really apply to men, since the Black Tower accepts anyone who can learn to channel, but if the White Tower limits were applied, it would be roughly 65.4% of the bellcurve.  Although, considering the effectiveness question, they should probably set it at the same 62.5%.  Again, the maths are all yours.  Regarding the levels of male strength, while the weakest man and the weakest woman would be roughly equivalent, you might say that there are several levels of male strength on top of the female levels.  Remember to integrate this with what I’ve said elsewhere about effectiveness, though.

 

Note that we don't know how weak the weakest men or women really are. They could be 1%, 3% or 7% of Rand's strength. Morgase cannot always succeed in touching the source, and when she does she cannot always achieve what she wants. This could be explained by the difference in multiple-weaving that we see between for example Egwene (14 weaves) and Moiraine (4 weaves). Egwene is hardly 3.5 times stronger than Moiraine! It's harder to breathe through a 5 mm diameter tube than it is through a 20 mm tube - maybe that's the analogy that best fits success in weaving multiple times (or, in Morgase's case, weaving at all).

 

He said "you might say that there are several levels of male strength on top of the female levels.". Does that necessarily mean that Rand is several levels above Lanfears original strength? No, I don't think so... But that's me! Weakest among men=weakest among women together with men going several levels above women makes it likely that men have a greater variance than women. How many "levels" does "several" mean? We don't know. It could be 3 or it could be 6 or it could be something else! I've seen people speculate about Lanfear's strength being caused by a visit to the Eelfinn. Personally, I don't believe in that theory. We have another explanation for the Cyndane/Lanfear difference, the stilling/Healing by woman theory. It all depends whether they loose a fixed amount of power-units or whether they loose a proportional amount (to their original strength). Actually, I can't prove or disprove either one of those theories. Be that as it may, we have no reason to believe that women's mean in Randland is 50% of Lanfear's original strength. It would seem very odd to me if it really was!

 

 

He's spoken about a 21 level strength list. What is a "level" and does it include both men and women? We don't know. I would guess it's only females... But that's my guess.

 

Can the mean and/or variance be different from one age to another? We don't know. Rand is equally strong as LTT, but 3000 years has passed. Maybe "the Wheel" chooses when these souls are spun out? Many super-strong channelers seems to have been born during the recent decades.

 

RJ said "I'll leave the maths to you for an idle moment". What does that mean? It could mean several things that I can think of right now, but I won't speculate about it. I DO NOT think that he meant "you should all go home and try to calculate 'cut-off strength to become Aes Sedai'".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nightstrike]

"Leane is not as strong as she was, and neither is Siuan. Most women in Salidar can channel more than either of them, now. Even some of the Accepted can. Not even counting Elayne or Nynaeve. If Siuan and Leane were Healed to half or two thirds of their original strength, most Aes Sedai in Salidar would be as strong, and a good many stronger. Delana is much stronger than Siuan now, whereas before the margin had gone the other way." (LoC, To Heal Again).

 

Most women in Salidar would be as strong, even if they reached two thirds. "If Siuan was healed to half her strength", meaning she's less than half her original strength. If "cut-off strength to become Aes Sedai" is 36% of Lanfear's original strength, then it feels safe to assume that the weaker Siuan would be at least 40% of Lanfear's original strength. More than twice that would make her at least 80 in strength. Lanfear loosing the same value would make Cyndane a strength 60. So that means Moiraine/Elaida level is above Cyndane. That doesn't seem reasonable.

 

 

My conclusion is that the mean must be far below 50, and that we could be dealing with a skewed distribution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Thor]

Cyndanne is stronger than Graendal.

Graendal is stronger than Moghedian.

Nynaeve ties with Moghedian.

Nynaeve is stronger than Moiraine/Elaida.

 

You can come with this thing about Nynaeve not reaching full potential when facing Moghedian, but Moghedian herself has never been at full potential either due to her cowardice.

 

What kind of madness or sparta is making anyone think that Cyndanne is anywhere near Moiraine/Elaida?

 

 

If you look at our world, the difference between first and second is always larger than the difference between say 100th and 101st (doesn't matter if you look at monetary wealth or sport rankings).  The mean is ALWAYS skewed to the lower end.

[Luckers]

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".

 

You've confused me even more--you do realise thats precisely what I stated. Here, let me show you.

 

Quote

So, Luckers, lets say you're right. There is no skewness. But how have you found out the variance?

 

What variance? Variables by nature skew a distribution, and by RJ's comment this is an exactly even distribution, else, as you stated, we could not predict it--which RJ stated we could.

 

This is where we went wrong. You asked me if I'd found the variance of a unskewed distribution--such a a thing is implied. And I stated as much several times--varience occurs--in any significant manner, when there is a skewed distribution, which occures because of outlying variables. I stated this speaking to the basic understanding that supports such math, but if you want it in the math let me say it this way--an exact distribution has an exact deviation, and thus an exact variance. The square of 1 is 1.

 

Such a thing seemed intuitive to me, and as such i assumed you must mean something different--wouldn't be the first time I'd encountered different terms in American math. Clearly I was wrong in that reguard--you meant exactly the same thing as me, you just didn't understand it.

 

Irrespective, what you are asking for is irrelevant. In an exact distribution the fallout lies on a percentage value. We can still draw the Aes Sedai cut off point exactly.

 

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!!!

 

People here know what I'm made of, lad. And technically speaking, no it shouldn't have been me--you raised the issue of variance, and then confused the issue with your complete misunderstanding. I simply asked you to clarify youself.

 

Irrespective of your unwillingness (or inability) to help clear things up, I have still come to an understanding of your comments. So, to repeat for clarity on my part, Mean for an exact distribution is 50--its the median. Variance is irrelevant--there are no outlying veriables in an exact distribution. To be exact, the standard deviation is 1, and the variance is thus 1, but neither has a contributing skew--which is rather the point--lacking a skew we can deduce no variance and an exact mean, and for the percentage values of the Aes Sedai cut off point to be useful in 'doing the math', which RJ directly stated they are, then they must fall on an exact distribution.

 

Which is what I said right back at the beginning, had you bothered to listen.

 

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

 

Luckers, are you joking with me?

 

No, quite sadly I am not.

 

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.

 

Mathematically speaking, in an exact distribution the mean is the median--which on a scale of 1 to 100 is fifty. We know based on RJ's comment that the distribution here is exact. Hence the mean is 50.

 

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

 

Grow up, 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.

 

Are you talking about me? I'm a guy.

 

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.

 

Thanks Tyrell, that was actually what I meant back in the beginning--I became confused because of Nightstrikes comment about finding the variance of an unskewed distribution.

 

As for the final--thats the point isn't it. Normally you'd be going at working out a distribution from the data end--compiling results to find a mean and a variance to work out the curve. This is the opposite, due to RJ's comment we know the curve to be exact, and thus can assumed mean and variance. Which is pretty much what I said back at the beginning.

 

Variance is irrelevant, mean is implied. Neither are important because RJ's comment settles the matter on an even 1 to 100 scale.

 

Lol , 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.

 

Once again, those comments stemmed from my confusion about what Nightstrike meant about variance--I stated that confusion many times. I indeed remain confused as to what Nightstrike thought he was saying, but as to the math--I agree, and my initial comments do speak to that--and I did ask directly for clarification, which until Tyrell, and you (slightly more condescendingly) gave.

 

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.

 

Not if the nature of the curve is implied--which was my initial point. For RJ's comment about the percentage of women who would have the strength to attain the shawl being viable mathematically the the curve must be an exact distribution with no outlying variables. As such the mean and variance are implied, and largely irrelevant. They matter only in guaging the curve, working back from the curve includes the data.

 

The general consensus is that the angreal at least multiplies channelers strength by 2.5.

The general consensus is that at the battle, Alivia was about 1.8 times Cyndanne's strength.

 

This directly means (using Cyndanne as 1):

Alivia with angreal    - 1.8

Cyndanne              - 1.0

Alivia without angreal - 0.72

 

There is nothing more that needs to be said.  Alivia without angreal is far weaker than Cyndanne.  Lanfear would have probably been at around 1.2 to 1.4 at least.

 

Wow.

 

Quote

Quote

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.

Actually, it was your argument to prove, which you haven’t. Why would I need to “start with disproving the positive, …”, if you had already proven your case?

 

I'm confused. Directly speaking we have a comment by the Wise Ones that they train every girl with the ability, and do not allow any to die from lack of training.

 

My argument is that they said that. And, what do you know, they did. By what basis do you dismiss it?

 

That's what I mean by disproving the positive--you must not offer evidence to dismiss whats stated in the books.

 

But call me a crazy fool, I will disprove you anyway. From TSR (chapter 23) and  TSR (chapter 12), we can easily see that “the Wise Ones allowing Aviendha” anything is inaccurate. To quote one of your favorite expressions:… “Your argument is all moot”. Aviendha is stated (in TSR, chapter 23) to be a sparker, along with Elayne, Egwene & Moiraine. Aviendha is 1 year older than Egwene. She should be more than "channeling 2 months", as you said earlier. Add to that her own statement "I'm as strong as Egwene" - see further down this post for details.

 

What? Some female sparkers don't spark till as late as twenty-four. Aviendha was eighteen at the time. In what way is that evidence?

 

Try something solid, like "The Wise Ones nipped at my like a calf saying I had other duties." Suddenly she grinned, gesturing to the other Aiel. "These stayed behind to taunt me in my misery, or so they said, but I do not think the Wise Ones would have let me go without them."

 

She directly states that the Wise Ones let her go, and the Wise Ones directly state that they do not allow girls to die from lack of training. Had she already been channeling they would not have let her go, end of game.

 

Quote

Quote

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.

 

“Perhaps men have a greater ability to break shields than women”. That’s patching up a sinking ship, if anything is. 

 

My full comment, which you snipped, was

 

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.

 

 

But ok, even if we just look at the comment about men... how so? Egwene, Elayne and Nynaeve were all by far stronger than Amico yet they couldn't break her shield, whilst Rand could break the combined shield of Ronaile, Irgaine and Sashelle. How is it 'patching a sinking ship' to suggest men might be different here than woman. In point of fact, why was the ship sinking? The point is curious, but what relevance does it have to the debate at hand?

 

Besides, I presume your point was to suggest i was desperately seeking to answer this 'glaring hole in my argument' you'd pointed out. I wasn't--The issue with the distinction between Amico with the girls and Rand with the three Aes Sedai is a curious one--and i offered two ideas that might explain it--one of which even stands against my position. But it hardly related to my argument--its just an interesting topic. One that perhaps should recieve it's own thread.

 

Effectively, what I'm saying to you is that its incredibly stupid to try and present someones point as other than they stated it when they can simply quote themselves.

 

By the number you provided? Lifting is not directly relative to strength? You just keep patching up a sinking ship, that’s what you’re doing!

 

The same ship as above, I presume you mean. I'm sorry but it sailed long since.

 

No one in the series has ever remarked about gateways and/or lifting things being anything than just plain simply proportional to strength.

 

Actually they have--its directly stated that there are some Aes Sedai who can't open gateways large enough to fit their arm through, or lift even their own weight. The Aes Sedai cut off point means that people go from not being able to lift their own weight to being able to lift thrice their weight accross around a 20 to 30 unit gap--depending on where the exact upper strength is.

 

The rest, as they said, is history.

 

And yet you feel the urge to invent these things. Since gateways and strength has been mentioned in the same context, one would expect such an IRREGULARITY would have been remarked upon as well. But no such remark can be found anywhere. You’re no big fan of Occam’s razor, are you now? I don’t suppose you have any quotes to support your case (from RJ, perhaps)? No, I didn’t think so. Sorry I asked!

 

Umm... that irregularity is remarked upon. Take Siuan for example--she can't lift Bryne. We know she stands above the Aes Sedai cut off point. Prior to being severed she could lift thrice her weight. Lets say that currently she can lift her weight (she probably can't, but lets be generous). Even at her previous strength would have been no more than maybe 60. So, roughly speaking there is your proof. From 40 to 60 the weight she can lift tripples.

 

By the way, grow up.

 

Quote

Quote

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.

 

 

It was TFoH (chapter 5, Among the Wise Ones) – the 5:th book the last time I checked.  Not book 4 at all! “You are Aes Sedai, and strong enough in the Power to overcome Amys and Melaine together.”

 

Which was not what we were discussing, we were discussing Egwene teaching Aviendha to link--recall that? You directly stated that Egwene would have taught her near-sister to link, citing Aviendha's comments of Egwene teaching her to handle multiple flows.

 

That, my friend, began in book four.

 

Irrespective, Egwene did not know how to link at that stage, and the Wise Ones did not know how to link until Egwene taught them in LoC which completely invalidates the Melaine/Amys comment anyway.

 

Besides, we have evidence from the beginning of the same chapter (chapter 5) that Moiraine was teaching both Aviendha and Egwene. Linking should be high up on the list of things to teach! One of THE most important things that any woman can learn. Plus, I’m pretty sure that Egwene had encountered circles before. I don’t have any quotes, but I’d guess “the hunt for 13 BA sisters” or “Mat’s Healing from Shadar Logoth” might have been some such occasions in Egwene’s past.

 

Egwene and Nynaeve directly state when considering Mat's healings that they don't know how to 'meld their flows'. This is whilst they worry that the Amyrlin might mean to let Mat die. Nothing that occured in the BA hunt contradicts them  not knowing.

 

Aside from which, once again the Wise Ones do not learn how to link until Egwene teaches Melaine in aCoS.

 

You said you knew that Egwene couldn’t link in book 5. And then you say “she presumably learned it in book 6 – from Siuan.”. That is a serious contradiction. Either you know or you don’t.

 

What? Dude, that makes no sense. She did not know in book 5--later, somewhere in book 6, she learnt. From whom, we do not know, but Siuan seems the likely candidate. There is no contradiction there--we know she didn't know, then we know she does. The only question is who she learnt off, and given she was learning whole bundles of things from Siuan at the time, thats not really a question.

 

Moiraine teached both Egwene and Aviendha in book 5 (chapter 5). I would expect that Moiraine teached one or both how to link (since she knew how and actually teached them). The dragon is reborn, the last battle is coming and they are all fighting for the Good side. It would seem like a VERY BAD idea, in my own judgment (of course), for Moiraine NOT to teach them linking. This all goes back to when we were talking about Aviendha saying (to Egwene):..."You are Aes Sedai, and strong enough in the Power to overcome Amys and Melaine together." Your response was that since Aviendha didn't know how to link, this statement of Aviendha's would imply added strengths Amys+Melaine would be less than Egwene's reached strength. I was assuming she knew how to link, and that the statement should be seen as them linked could still be overcome by Egwene at the time. Sorry for my "update", we've debated quite a lot of posts now.

 

I'm assuming nothing. None of the Wise Ones knew how to link, including Aviendha. We know when they learnt how to link--it was in aCoS, Verin even directly comments on it. Moiraine did not 'teached' Aviendha linking.

 

It's 4 in the morning. I'm going to bed, I'll post on the rest later.

[Nightstrike]

So, Luckers, lets say you're right. There is no skewness. But how have you found out the variance?

 

What variance? Variables by nature skew a distribution, and by RJ's comment this is an exactly even distribution, else, as you stated, we could not predict it--which RJ stated we could.

This is where we went wrong. You asked me if I'd found the variance of a unskewed distribution--such a a thing is implied. And I stated as much several times--varience occurs--in any significant manner, when there is a skewed distribution, which occures because of outlying variables. I stated this speaking to the basic understanding that supports such math, but if you want it in the math let me say it this way--an exact distribution has an exact deviation, and thus an exact variance. The square of 1 is 1.

 

Such a thing seemed intuitive to me, and as such i assumed you must mean something different--wouldn't be the first time I'd encountered different terms in American math. Clearly I was wrong in that reguard--you meant exactly the same thing as me, you just didn't understand it.

 

Irrespective, what you are asking for is irrelevant. In an exact distribution the fallout lies on a percentage value. We can still draw the Aes Sedai cut off point exactly.

Mean and variance are something we must know even if we're dealing with a symmetric curve - is this the fifth time I say the very same thing? Variance is not something that is contributing to any skew. But it should be pretty darn OBVIOUS by now that this CAN NOT be a symmetric distribution. You have not interpreted RJ's answer to "Gyrehead" correctly.

 

 

 

Not if the nature of the curve is implied--which was my initial point. For RJ's comment about the percentage of women who would have the strength to attain the shawl being viable mathematically the the curve must be an exact distribution with no outlying variables. As such the mean and variance are implied, and largely irrelevant. They matter only in guaging the curve, working back from the curve includes the data.

The nature of the curve isn't implied by RJ's blog. But it is implied by the books he wrote. And therefore we can clearly see that we're dealing with a asymmetric curve. And we STILL do not have mean, variance or skew. So we CAN NOT draw the curve or "calculate cut-off strength to become Aes Sedai".

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm confused. Directly speaking we have a comment by the Wise Ones that they train every girl with the ability, and do not allow any to die from lack of training.

 

My argument is that they said that. And, what do you know, they did. By what basis do you dismiss it?

 

That's what I mean by disproving the positive--you must not offer evidence to dismiss whats stated in the books.

I'm just gonna go ahead and assume you didn't read those two chapters that I mentioned before. Because if you'd read them, you should see that your argument is incorrect. They DID NOT let Aviendha do anything, she avoided them and did what she wanted anyway. That IS evidence that they didn't let her be! If you don't count that is evidence, then what DO you count as evidence? We have every reason to believe she's been touching the source for far more than 2 months and none to believe she's been channeling for 2 months or less.

 

 

 

What? Some female sparkers don't spark till as late as twenty-four. Aviendha was eighteen at the time. In what way is that evidence?

What?!? From the Guide:..."If she was tested at twenty-one and the spark was still not there, it never would be.". And wouldn't Aviendha rather be 19 or 20 at that time? Either way, some sparkers (probably the stronger ones, and Aviendha is strong enough) sparks as early as 12 or 13. Before Egwene as Amyrlin Seat, the AS usually didn't accept novices older than 18. And Aviendha is a sparker (not just the usual channeler). And how come she said "I may not know as much as Moiraine, but I'm as strong as Egwene"?

 

 

 

 

Try something solid, like "The Wise Ones nipped at my like a calf saying I had other duties." Suddenly she grinned, gesturing to the other Aiel. "These stayed behind to taunt me in my misery, or so they said, but I do not think the Wise Ones would have let me go without them."

Where is that from (what chapter)? Anyway, in the chapters I gave you, the wise ones stated that she didn't come when she was summoned. So your argument that the wise ones let her be stands corrected. Whether or not someone has been sent with her at some time or another does not influence that. This is exactly what I meant when I said that something already proven cannot be disproven. If you had proven your case (as you claimed), then I couldn't have disproved it. And I did. Those two chapters from TDR that I provided is as solid evidence as anything could possibly be. Give it up. You can't argue with the facts. Aviendha was a spear maiden for far longer than the wise ones would have wanted. Case closed.

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, I presume your point was to suggest i was desperately seeking to answer this 'glaring hole in my argument' you'd pointed out. I wasn't--The issue with the distinction between Amico with the girls and Rand with the three Aes Sedai is a curious one--and i offered two ideas that might explain it--one of which even stands against my position. But it hardly related to my argument--its just an interesting topic. One that perhaps should recieve it's own thread.

 

Effectively, what I'm saying to you is that its incredibly stupid to try and present someones point as other than they stated it when they can simply quote themselves.

Yeah, there are some glaring holes alright.

 

 

 

 

No one in the series has ever remarked about gateways and/or lifting things being anything than just plain simply proportional to strength.

 

Actually they have--its directly stated that there are some Aes Sedai who can't open gateways large enough to fit their arm through, or lift even their own weight. The Aes Sedai cut off point means that people go from not being able to lift their own weight to being able to lift thrice their weight accross around a 20 to 30 unit gap--depending on where the exact upper strength is.

The cut off point is based on your own scale. You can't prove your own scale with your own scale.

 

 

 

 

Umm... that irregularity is remarked upon. Take Siuan for example--she can't lift Bryne. We know she stands above the Aes Sedai cut off point. Prior to being severed she could lift thrice her weight. Lets say that currently she can lift her weight (she probably can't, but lets be generous). Even at her previous strength would have been no more than maybe 60. So, roughly speaking there is your proof. From 40 to 60 the weight she can lift tripples.

 

By the way, grow up.

Siuan didn't go from 60 to 40, her weaker self is less than half as strong as she used to be. There is no such remark (as I was talking about, I don't know what you're talking about - it sure can't be the same, could it?). And if there had been any such remark - how come you haven't quoted it already? And wouldn't someone have remarked upon gateways/lifting being determined exponentially? That, if nothing else, is worth a remark. If I were to invent something of myself (something far less worthy a remark of its own), then I would think of it as a minimum-level to make the weave work. Sorilea can weave the thing, but she's too weak to make it work. Let's say the limit is 10, and that you got to be at least 20 in strength to make a gateway that is actually gonna be sufficient for a person. If the gateways were determined exponentially, then Logain has got to be a whole lot weaker than Rand. That doesn't fit the description. For instance:... "I went by Logain’s house. Six sisters are maintaining his shield, the same as when he was captured. He tried to break free when he knew we found out he had been Healed, and they said that if only five had been holding the shield, he might have. So he’s as strong as he ever was, or close enough to make no difference." (LoC, To Heal Again). Five (weak) Aes Sedai at 40 are 200 in strength. And yet he said that he saw how much smaller his gateways were compared to Rand's. There had to be a noticeble difference if he could even tell how much smaller his were. Rand would have to be close to 300 in strength for this to add up. And I'm pretty sure he isn't close to 3 times the strength of Lanfear. Case closed. As for the rest - you can't prove your own scale with your own scale.

 

 

 

 

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.

Originally we were talking about TFoH. Aviendha stated Egwene was strong enough to overcome Amys and Melaine together. That was in TFoH. Do you have any quotes from this event from book 6, because I would like to read it and see what your conclusion is based upon. Please give me the chapter in question. You may even be right about this, but it still does not invalidate the Amys/Melaine comment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was TFoH (chapter 5, Among the Wise Ones) – the 5:th book the last time I checked.  Not book 4 at all! “You are Aes Sedai, and strong enough in the Power to overcome Amys and Melaine together.”

 

Which was not what we were discussing, we were discussing Egwene teaching Aviendha to link--recall that? You directly stated that Egwene would have taught her near-sister to link, citing Aviendha's comments of Egwene teaching her to handle multiple flows.

 

That, my friend, began in book four.

 

Irrespective, Egwene did not know how to link at that stage, and the Wise Ones did not know how to link until Egwene taught them in LoC which completely invalidates the Melaine/Amys comment anyway.

Yeah, teaching began in book four, but Aviendha's statement was from book 5. I was under the impression that it was Aviendha's statement you dismissed, because you said "She was wrong, end of game.". Moiraine teached them in TFoH (chapter 5), so I assume the teaching continued during book 5 as well. Please give me the evidence you have for saying that Egwene didn't know how to link in book 5. Because I would like to see it. And the Melaine/Amys comment wouldn't be invalidated even if you have any evidence for what you say.

 

 

 

 

 

You said you knew that Egwene couldn’t link in book 5. And then you say “she presumably learned it in book 6 – from Siuan.”. That is a serious contradiction. Either you know or you don’t.

 

What? Dude, that makes no sense. She did not know in book 5--later, somewhere in book 6, she learnt. From whom, we do not know, but Siuan seems the likely candidate. There is no contradiction there--we know she didn't know, then we know she does. The only question is who she learnt off, and given she was learning whole bundles of things from Siuan at the time, thats not really a question.

But how do you know that she couldn't link in book 5? You say you know this. Please give me the evidence! Do you have a quote? Can you reference a chapter from a book? A quote from RJ? Anything?

 

 

 

I'm assuming nothing. None of the Wise Ones knew how to link, including Aviendha. We know when they learnt how to link--it was in aCoS, Verin even directly comments on it. Moiraine did not 'teached' Aviendha linking.

OK, you may be right! But I would like to read it myself! Please give me the chapter. And even if that is correct, it still does not invalidate the Amys/Melaine comment.

 

You were assuming something... Luckers, reply #58 (this thread):

Secondly, Aviendha's comment is patently false, therefore we must condclude her misinformed. Keep in mind that the Wise Ones were not at that stage aware of linking--they did not know how to do it, and likely did not even know it was possible. As such Aviendha's comment had to refer to a complete one hundred percent addition of Melaine and Amys' strenths--and thats utterly impossible no matter where Egwene stands on the spectrum. Hence, we must conclude that she was wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr Ares]

The general consensus is that the angreal at least multiplies channelers strength by 2.5.

The general consensus is that at the battle, Alivia was about 1.8 times Cyndanne's strength.

 

This directly means (using Cyndanne as 1):

Alivia with angreal    - 1.8

Cyndanne               - 1.0

Alivia without angreal - 0.72

 

There is nothing more that needs to be said. Alivia without angreal is far weaker than Cyndanne. Lanfear would have probably been at around 1.2 to 1.4 at least.

General consensus? I wasn't aware of anything even approaching a general consensus. If there is one, and these aren't just some numbers you've made up, I would like to see the evidence for why this angreal multiplies by 2.5, where it is stated Alivia is 1.8 times stronger, etc. Unless you have some solid basis for these numbers they are meaningless. If the angreal multiplies by 2, and Alivia is 2.1 times as strong then it completely changes the result. Alivia is thus 1.05 of Cyndane, without the angreal. Hey, you can't disagree, that's what the "general consensus" says. Or, rather more succinctly, "Wow".

 

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.

Are you talking about me? I'm a guy.

I believe Ndshacker was referring to his maths teacher.

[Nightstrike]

If there is one, and these aren't just some numbers you've made up, I would like to see the evidence for why this angreal multiplies by 2.5, where it is stated Alivia is 1.8 times stronger, etc. Unless you have some solid basis for these numbers they are meaningless. If the angreal multiplies by 2, and Alivia is 2.1 times as strong then it completely changes the result. Alivia is thus 1.05 of Cyndane, without the angreal.

Try to see 2.5 as an absolute minimum of that particular angreal - it could be more, but probably not much less. It couldn't be 2.0, because an angreal that is among the weaker ones would multiply 2 times. We have done that discussion previously in this thread, so I suggest you look it up. I know how much you hate it when people repeat themselves, so I'd rather not do that!

 

 

And to continue, Logain>200 in strength+Lanfear=100+62.5% of women strong enough+64.5% of men strong enough would be contradicting Graendal's statement:..."The girl was stronger in the One Power than she herself! Even in her own Age, that had been uncommon among men, and very rare indeed, among women. Where had the Spider found a girl so much stronger than she, and why was she traveling with her? Moghedien had always been jealous of anyone with more strength." (TPoD, New Alliances). Mean must be below 50, and the strength curve can NOT be symmetric about the mean.

 

 

 

[Thor]

Seioursly, I don't care how skilled you are, if someone is more than twice as strong as you are, you are going to be flattened in a frontal combat which they were in.  Not to mention Alivia supposedly knows more about destructive weaves than any non-forsaken channeler alive.

 

The part about angreal has already been talked about.  There is no way it could be any less than a 2.5 multiplier.

[Tyrell]

Did you take a look at my post Thor? Cyndane could make her weaves invisible, Alivia could not.

[Mr Ares]

Try to see 2.5 as an absolute minimum of that particular angreal - it could be more, but probably not much less.

Absolute minimum but it could still be a bit less than that absolute minimum? And you say nothing that addresses Alivia's strength. The entire basis of your argument has rested on making up some numbers which we really don't have the evidence to justify, which was my point.

 

Not to mention Alivia supposedly knows more about destructive weaves than any non-forsaken channeler alive.

She was up against a Chosen. Who knew how to make her weaves invisible, for one thing. Her greater skill allowed her to survive Alivia's greater strength. End of argument. Simply making up rubbish like she couldn't beat someone that much stronger doesn't further your case.

[Thor]

How does making weaves invisible give her any advantage at all, given that Alivia still got all her ter'angreal.

 

You make such a big deal about her strength?  Then why doesn't Alivia just brute force try to sever Cyndanne directly like Lanfear tried to do to Rand?  Explain that.

 

It's simple, Alivia simply wasn't strong enough to brute force Cyndanne.  It is ridiculous to say that Alivia with an angreal could be more than twice Cyndanne's strength.

[General Cauthon]

How does making weaves invisible give her any advantage at all, given that Alivia still got all her ter'angreal.

 

Cyndane realized that it was a ter'angreal that cut through her weave, so she fought back without her weaves actually touching Alivia(just as Mat was killed by a lightning). To quote the book:(Winter's Heart, With the Choedan Kal)

 

Snarling.Cyndane fought back, and the earth heaved beneath their feet.

 

You make such a big deal about her strength?  Then why doesn't Alivia just brute force try to sever Cyndanne directly like Lanfear tried to do to Rand?  Explain that.

 

One explanation is that Alivia may not know how to sever someone from the Source. It's more likely that she just tried to kill her.

 

It's simple, Alivia simply wasn't strong enough to brute force Cyndanne.  It is ridiculous to say that Alivia with an angreal could be more than twice Cyndanne's strength.

 

There's nothing in the books to back this up. It's more likely that Cyndane created an earthquake to distract Alivia, so that she could sneak away and continue to look for Rand. Or perhaps she stayed trying to kill Alivia, until Alivia forced her to flee.

 

Or they both fleed from the fountains of fire caused by Callandor...

 

My point is that we do not know anything about the encounter between Cyndane and Alivia except that Alivia was stronger, and that Cyndane was more skilled. Alivia had protective ter'angreal, but Cyndane learnt how to counter them after the first strike(less than a second!). After this we know nothing. Not whether another Forsaken joined the fight, not how long they fought, not who was winning, nothing.

 

It's ridiculous to use a fight ,which we know nothing about, as proof for anything

[Swigaro]

 

You make such a big deal about her strength?  Then why doesn't Alivia just brute force try to sever Cyndanne directly like Lanfear tried to do to Rand?  Explain that.

 

 

I doubt that Alivia knows how to sever someone.  Look at the way the Seanchan handle channelers.  Why would they ever use the weave to sever someone?  If a marath damane can't be broken, she would be killed, not severed.  Men who are found to be able to channel are killed, not severed.  Way back in Seanchan's past, the first Seanchan Aes Sedai (the one who created the first A-dam) may have known the weave, but it was likely forgotten after she was collared.

[Nightstrike]

The entire basis of your argument has rested on making up some numbers which we really don't have the evidence to justify, which was my point.

You're less than half right about that. The numbers isn't all just "made up". We have some evidence from the books, and though they can be interpreted differently (even disputed in some cases), they are still pretty good guidelines IMO. The exact numbers are probably wrong, but the overall picture is probably not very far from the real deal. I don't think RJ would have led us too far astray with the clues he gave us in the books. Hopefully we'll get more clues in AMoL, so that we can get even closer to the real deal.

 

[Nightstrike]

I doubt that Alivia knows how to sever someone. 

The weave for shielding and the one for severing are probably not very different. Didn't Egwene accidentally sever someone during the hunt for 13 BA sisters? And even if the seanchan don't know the weave for severing, they still would be very benefitted from knowing (and using) shielding. They have battled each other in seanchan (using damane) and they hunt marath'damane. I'd bet they would rather shield a channeler than actually killing her. And since they don't want to "accidentally" sever someone, they should better know the difference. Isn't the difference just how "sharp-edged" you make the shield and the force with wich you hammer it down?

[pxnsolid]

While she did server Amico its seems to be a result of the shield in the world of dreams while half sleeping, and being knocked out. Theres no indication that she directly did it.

[Nightstrike]

While she did server Amico its seems to be a result of the shield in the world of dreams while half sleeping, and being knocked out. Theres no indication that she directly did it.

Are you suggesting the weave is different in T'a'r? At the time Nynaeve was fighting Moghedien:..."The knife-sharp shield that Egwene had used to still Amico Nagoyin sprang into being, more weapon than shield, lashed at Moghedien - and was blocked, woven Spirit straining against woven Spirit, just short of severing Moghedien from the Source for ever. Again the Forsaken's counterblow came, slashing like an axe, intended to cut Nynaeve off in the same way. Forever." (TSR, Into the Palace).

 

So, if the shielding/severing is almost identical, the Seanchan should be aware of the difference.