moiraines warder

[Nightstrike]

Care to elaborate on whatever it is you are referring to? Because I've seen nothing written by you that fits these claims that you're making.

 

Its consistent through all your posts.  You are making what appear to be self-contradictory claims.  So, either:

 

1) You just don't understand what you're actually saying, or

 

2) You don't actually understand what we're saying in response, or

 

3) You're just not the brightest tool in the shed.

No answer to the question. And you've pointed nothing out to me before that was of any substance what so ever. You've gotten nowhere at all.

 

I'm going with a combination of 1 and 2, because 3 would be insulting.  Even though, since you've called me a kindergartener, I think I probably have some justification for being insulting.  Thats just the kind of guy I am.

You were insulting far before me(beginning in another thread). With a superiour attitude and everything. So don't pretend anything.

 

We have now passed the point of usefulness in this conversation, so I will not post in it again.

You've presented nothing what so ever of any use. Your posts haven't gotten us anywhere.

 

 

[Mr Ares]

Exactly. He said top female strength is several levels below male strength.

NO! He DID NOT say that.

Yes, he did.

 

NO! He spoke of male and female strengths in general.

YES! He spoke of top strength.

He didn't mention Rand at all. Not Lanfear either.

He didn't have to. He was talking about top strength. Rand and Lanfear are the top man and woman.

 

Or was RJ misusing this term?

Maybe he was misusing the term "several".

 

I don't know what RJ intended

Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

 

Slides are the bomb!

Slides, Robert? I expected more from you than to go off playing on slides.

 

 

Everyone knows roundabouts are the best.

 

Does anyone here at dragonmount get it?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, when everyone else is disagreeing with you, they actually might, possibly, quite by accident, have a (whisper it) point?

Someone at wotmania called these boards "kindergarten" compared to wotmania's boards.

They're just bitter because this board is so much better. After all, this board has me. What has WoTmania got that can compare with that? Nothing.

[Nightstrike]

Does anyone here at dragonmount get it?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, when everyone else is disagreeing with you, they actually might, possibly, quite by accident, have a (whisper it) point?

Someone at wotmania called these boards "kindergarten" compared to wotmania's boards.

They're just bitter because this board is so much better. After all, this board has me. What has WoTmania got that can compare with that? Nothing.

If you got any ideas what so ever on the matter, then please elaborate on them. Then we will see if they hold up for scrutiny. Looking forward to reading about your ideas (or lack thereof).

[Mr Ares]

Does anyone here at dragonmount get it?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, when everyone else is disagreeing with you, they actually might, possibly, quite by accident, have a (whisper it) point?

Someone at wotmania called these boards "kindergarten" compared to wotmania's boards.

They're just bitter because this board is so much better. After all, this board has me. What has WoTmania got that can compare with that? Nothing.

If you got any ideas what so ever on the matter, then please elaborate on them. Then we will see if they hold up for scrutiny. Looking forward to reading about your ideas (or lack thereof).

Thoughts on which matter? That of WoTmania being bitter, or on people other than you being capable of correctly interpreting things? I think both have received as much coverage as they need so far.

 

You've presented nothing what so ever of any use. Your posts haven't gotten us anywhere.

The same is true of you. After all, when both sides dig in and refuse to give an inch, there is a slight tendency towards immobile arguments.

[Nightstrike]

If you got any ideas what so ever on the matter, then please elaborate on them. Then we will see if they hold up for scrutiny. Looking forward to reading about your ideas (or lack thereof).

Thoughts on which matter? That of WoTmania being bitter, or on people other than you being capable of correctly interpreting things? I think both have received as much coverage as they need so far.

Just as I thought. You've got nothing.

 

 

[Mr Ares]

If you got any ideas what so ever on the matter, then please elaborate on them. Then we will see if they hold up for scrutiny. Looking forward to reading about your ideas (or lack thereof).

Thoughts on which matter? That of WoTmania being bitter, or on people other than you being capable of correctly interpreting things? I think both have received as much coverage as they need so far.

Just as I thought. You've got nothing.

In all fairness, neither have you. You've been disproven over and over, and we've been disproven over and over. If you're just looking for ideas in general, I've got a great one to increase tourism to the Isle of Wight by making it symmetrical.

[Nightstrike]

In all fairness, neither have you. You've been disproven over and over, and we've been disproven over and over. If you're just looking for ideas in general, I've got a great one to increase tourism to the Isle of Wight by making it symmetrical.

That's a lie. I've presented a mathematical evidence for why the curves can't be symmetrical, if we assume that RJ spoke the truth when he answered this "Gyrehead". I have not been disproven by anyone. If you got anything at all to come with, then lay it out.

 

What is it you say in english? Is it "put up or shut up"?

 

[Mr Ares]

In all fairness, neither have you. You've been disproven over and over, and we've been disproven over and over. If you're just looking for ideas in general, I've got a great one to increase tourism to the Isle of Wight by making it symmetrical.

That's a lie. I've presented a mathematical evidence for why the curves can't be symmetrical, if we assume that RJ spoke the truth when he answered this "Gyrehead". I have not been disproven by anyone. If you got anything at all to come with, then lay it out.

 

What is it you say in english? Is it "put up or shut up"?

I say nothing of the sort. And it's not a lie. Your numbers are worthless. All we know from that quote is that top male strength sits higher than top female. We also know top male sits higher than top female. The rest is your wishful thinking. You're the one using maths to show what it looks like and then saying you have no idea what it looks like. You're the one saying Rand isn't several levels ahead of Lanfear, and then insisting we accept RJ's statements about top male strength being several levels above top female strength.

[Swigaro]

Nightstrike, if I am reading your theory correctly, you suggest that we can extrapolate from the statements, "62.5% of woman can test for the shawl and 65.4% of the shawl," and "There are several levels of male strength above female maximum." (Forgive my paraphrasing, these points have been made numerous times in this and other threads) what the curve of male and female channelers looks like, and that because of these two statements, the curves can not be symmetrical.  You have, very eloquently laid out your statistical analysis of this point.  I think, however you are operating under a misconception.  I would contend that the two curves, while both symmetrical, as per RJ's statement, are not similar.  They are two separate, unrelated curves.  What we know about one, does not tell us anything about the other.  All we know is that male maximum is higher than female maximum.  Due to the difference in Aes Sedai cut off percentage, we, perhaps can extrapolate what male maximum and female maximum are from those numbers, but RJ is talking about two totally separate things, the bell curve of channeling ability over the population and the artificial cut off point that Aes Sedai place on channelers.  This cut off point does not affect the shape of the curve; it simply indicates who is strong enough to be in their club.

[Nightstrike]

I say nothing of the sort. And it's not a lie. Your numbers are worthless. All we know from that quote is that top male strength sits higher than top female. We also know top male sits higher than top female. The rest is your wishful thinking. You're the one using maths to show what it looks like and then saying you have no idea what it looks like. You're the one saying Rand isn't several levels ahead of Lanfear, and then insisting we accept RJ's statements about top male strength being several levels above top female strength.

It's not my numbers, it was RJ's numbers. I did the calculations, and just because you can't grasp them doesn't mean that they are wrong. Put up or shut up.

 

I can see where this mentioning of "kindergarten" comes from.

[Nightstrike]

Nightstrike, if I am reading your theory correctly, you suggest that we can extrapolate from the statements, "62.5% of woman can test for the shawl and 65.4% of the shawl," and "There are several levels of male strength above female maximum." (Forgive my paraphrasing, these points have been made numerous times in this and other threads) what the curve of male and female channelers looks like, and that because of these two statements, the curves can not be symmetrical.  You have, very eloquently laid out your statistical analysis of this point.  I think, however you are operating under a misconception.  I would contend that the two curves, while both symmetrical, as per RJ's statement, are not similar.  They are two separate, unrelated curves.  What we know about one, does not tell us anything about the other.  All we know is that male maximum is higher than female maximum.  Due to the difference in Aes Sedai cut off percentage, we, perhaps can extrapolate what male maximum and female maximum are from those numbers, but RJ is talking about two totally separate things, the bell curve of channeling ability over the population and the artificial cut off point that Aes Sedai place on channelers.  This cut off point does not affect the shape of the curve; it simply indicates who is strong enough to be in their club.

Of course the curves are not similar. I was assuming that both were symmetrical, and through my calculations it was clear that there couldn't be any "several levels of male strength on top of female strength". But RJ said that there were, so the curves can't be symmetrical. Not both of them, anyway.

 

Since the curves are both assumed to be symmetrical, we only have two unknown parameters. The mean and the standard deviation. We know that weakest male and weakest female is roughly the same strength. That, and the 62.5%/65.4% statement, means that we have all the information we need for how these curves compares to each other.

 

 

 

[Mr Ares]

It's not my numbers, it was RJ's numbers. I did the calculations, and just because you can't grasp them doesn't mean that they are wrong. Put up or shut up.

Put what up? Your calculations do not show that the curves cannot be symmetrical. Furthermore, your statements about Lanfear's strength not being that far behind Rand's disagree with RJ's "several levels" that you are so fond of at other times. Mayhap you should put up or shut up?

 

Nightstrike, if I am reading your theory correctly, you suggest that we can extrapolate from the statements, "62.5% of woman can test for the shawl and 65.4% of the shawl," and "There are several levels of male strength above female maximum." (Forgive my paraphrasing, these points have been made numerous times in this and other threads) what the curve of male and female channelers looks like, and that because of these two statements, the curves can not be symmetrical.  You have, very eloquently laid out your statistical analysis of this point.  I think, however you are operating under a misconception.  I would contend that the two curves, while both symmetrical, as per RJ's statement, are not similar.  They are two separate, unrelated curves.  What we know about one, does not tell us anything about the other.  All we know is that male maximum is higher than female maximum.  Due to the difference in Aes Sedai cut off percentage, we, perhaps can extrapolate what male maximum and female maximum are from those numbers, but RJ is talking about two totally separate things, the bell curve of channeling ability over the population and the artificial cut off point that Aes Sedai place on channelers.  This cut off point does not affect the shape of the curve; it simply indicates who is strong enough to be in their club.

I hope you have more success pointing this out than everyone else did. Surely we must break through eventually?

[Nightstrike]

Kindergarten

[Mr Ares]

Kindergarten

I know you are but what am I.

[Swigaro]

Is it at all possible then, that RJ's statement, "I'll leave the maths to you," suggests that he meant exactly what he said, that the curves were symetrical, etc... but didn't actually bother working out all the statistics himself because he was too busy writing the books?

[Nightstrike]

Is it at all possible then, that RJ's statement, "I'll leave the maths to you," suggests that he meant exactly what he said, that the curves were symetrical, etc... but didn't actually bother working out all the statistics himself because he was too busy writing the books?

Or, he could have meant that they were not 100% symmetrical, and that the "I'll leave the maths to you" were him pointing us toward them NOT being completely symmetrical (at least not both of them).

 

 

[Swigaro]

Equally possible, I suppose, except that he used the term "Bell Curve," which is, by deffinition, a perfectly symetrical curve.

[Nightstrike]

Equally possible, I suppose, except that he used the term "Bell Curve," which is, by deffinition, a perfectly symetrical curve.

The general shape of a "Bell curve" might have been what he intended, but perhaps with a little skewness. We don't know anything about the cause of channeling ability, maybe there are some things that can cause skew? Maybe we'll get some answers from the WoT Encyclopaedia?

[Swigaro]

I'm sorry, but I can't immagine RJ saying "bell curve," if he ment, "a shape, sort of like a bell curve, but a bit skewed." He qualified his statement with, "you work out the maths," indicating he wasn't particularly concerned with the details.  He said what he ment.

[Nightstrike]

I'm sorry, but I can't immagine RJ saying "bell curve," if he ment, "a shape, sort of like a bell curve, but a bit skewed." He qualified his statement with, "you work out the maths," indicating he wasn't particularly concerned with the details.  He said what he ment.

There are things in real life that could cause skew to a curve. You can read about skewness on wikipedia. I think that it is possible that he really intended the curves (one or both) to be slightly skewed.

 

[Swigaro]

Of course there are things in real life that can cause a curve to skew.  We are not talking about real life here, however.  We are talking about a world created by RJ, where female channeling potential falls on a bell curve, at least according to what he said.  I tend to believe RJ meant what he said.

[Nightstrike]

Of course there are things in real life that can cause a curve to skew.  We are not talking about real life here, however.  We are talking about a world created by RJ, where female channeling potential falls on a bell curve, at least according to what he said.  I tend to believe RJ meant what he said.

Either the curves aren't 100% symmetric, or RJ's answer to "Gyrehead" was wrong in some way. I think the curves aren't both 100% symmetric, but you can choose to think whatever you wish.