ExcelBanter - View Single Post - Correct process for creating a linear trend line in Excel

Snit[_5_]

On 6/15/12 8:03 PM, in article
, "Onion
Knight" wrote:

You might also take note of the wiki page section titled "Normality
assumption". *That may or may not be relevant to the COLA debates.

Not really... though the idea of a normal distribution was also debated. *A
bit of info you might or might not know: you can easily visualize where the
standard deviation (sigma) lines should be drawn on a normal distribution...

the lines are *always* at the distance from the mean to the inflection point
on the curve (where the concavity changes). *I was repeatedly told by the
same person the distance was irrelevant:

* cc:
* * -----
* * There'se nothing wrong with the image, other than some weird
* * axis labeling.
* * -----
* * Snit's so ****ing stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn
* * based on distance from the mean, not area under the curve.
* * -----
* * | The sigma lines are drawn based on the area of the curve -
* * | which is easy to see when the images screw it up, esp. when
* * | they do so really badly, like in some of the ones I showed
* * | you.
* * They are not wrong.
* * ------
* * LOL!!!! All of those links are fine. The first sigma lines
* * cover 68% of the area UNDER THE CURVE.
* * -----
* * If you would like to prove, on any single one of the links
* * you call incorrect, that the first sigma lines do not bound
* * an area that is 68.2% of the area UNDER THE CURVE, then I
* * would like to see it.
* * -----
* * Hahahaha your "approximate inflection points" are hilarious.
* * Please, post more on this subject.
* * ------

I explained to him why he was wrong he <http://youtu.be/MoW3hMq-eIc

There are many examples of people who should know better getting this wrong.
Here are some

<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Images/Class12/normal2.gif From:
<http://www.udel.edu/htr/Statistics/Notes/class12.html

Which is the example I used for showing how him can make a decent
approximation visually: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sd.png.

I also pointed to some other examples which at least appear incorrect to me
(though they are not as far off as the above example):

<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1_files/image009.gif From:
<http://www.footballguys.com/shickstandard_1.htm
Sigma lines clearly not at a far enough distance from the mean, esp. on the
graph to the right.

<http://www.gsseser.com/images/StandardDeviation2s.gif From:
<http://www.gsseser.com/Deviation.htm
Sigma lines clearly not at a far enough distance from the mean.

You would think that such sites would be made by people who knew better. *I
openly admit I am not a math wiz but it is rather silly when sites claiming
to be teaching such things get their depictions wrong (of course, one of the
sites above is from "Footballguys"... and you might not expect them, by
stereotype, to be the most knowledgeable in such areas anyway). *:)

Anyway, sorry to have the idiotic debate spread to other forums... though it
is sorta fun to see people who clearly know what they are talking about rip
apart those who were calling me names and insisting they "knew" I was wrong.
:)

Funny how while Steve is throwing a toddler tantrum we have not as of
yet heard from cc. I wonder how big of a fit he will throw. All I know
is it is almost sure to be a good show. Goin' off to grab me a beer
and a big ass bag of popcorn.

Prediction: cc will *never* admit the depictions I linked to above are
clearly wrong. Never. He will throw fits and change topics, he will call
me names, he will forge quotes and falsely attribute them to me and to
others, he will insist he is right, he will dodge and dance and play games
to the end of time.

But he will never, ever, under any circumstance admit what has been clear
for a long time but now has even more backing - the above depictions of
sigma lines are *wrong*. And he will never admit he was ignorant of the
sigma lines being correctly depicted at the inflection points. Never. Poor
cc... he is completely predictable in his inability to admit to his own
mistakes.

And Carroll will be right their backing cc's every lie.

I think I will share some of that popcorn with you and watch their show.

--
The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P
cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP
7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu
cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.