- View SourceIn response to the statistical calculations made in the essay

"Signature of the Gods" (Post # 12599) Randall Hobart wrote:

> With regard to your statistics, the prior discussion of which I

Odds in the millions can hardly be called astronomical, but are

> have excised from my response, all I'm going to say is that I

> maintain my position that they're complete rubbish. You find

> something that you consider significant, calculate the odds, and

> then call it statistically remarkable because the odds are

> astronomical.

significant. The original work done with the Bible Codes by Jewish

scholars is claimed to defy odds in the millions; statisticians

disagreed with the odds, claiming the number is lower, while

understanding that odds in the millions *are* significant.

> Maybe you're calculating the odds correctly, and maybe you aren't

That statement speaks volumes about your qualifications for

> -- I don't really care.

formulating an informed response to my work.

> The point is that extraordinary odds are meaningless in the context

Your previous statement indicates a lack of qualification on your

> you're using them.

part for determining whether the odds figures in question are

meaningless or not. You can remove your foot from your mouth whenever

it suits you.

There is a popular trend among skeptics in which statistical

calculations of all sorts are viewed as meaningless. For instance, in

the Skeptic's Dictionary, one argument used against the suitability

of odds for making valid determinations is the lottery. The claim is

that even though odds of winning the lottery are in the millions,

someone eventually wins, thereby demonstrating that odds in the

millions are meaningless. The fact is that if there 20 million sets

of numbers possible and 10 million tickets are sold, the odds of

someone winning the lottery are *even*.

> If one flips a coin 100 times, the odds of obtaining *any*

Your analogy is simplistic and irrelevant to the work presented.

> particular sequence are equally astronomically unlikely, but the

> sequence one obtains is only remarkable if one predicted it

> beforehand. One is sure to get *one* of the bazillions of

> possible sequences. All of your odds are calculated after the fact.

Here is a proper coin-toss analogy. Imagine 448 buckets grouped

together. Blindfolded and walking in a circle around the buckets, you

would have toss eight coins individually at random intervals at the

buckets and land three in one bucket in order to match the

statistical feat the alpha twins accomplish as documented in my

essay.

> Even if the odds are calculated accurately, it's a misapplication

You position is ludicrous. Ask a statistician.

> of the technique to say that because something had odds of 1 in 2

> billion of occurring, you've obtained an interesting or remarkable

> result.

> The outstanding feature of your work, in fact, is that you've

Your assertion is demonstrably false. As a gematria system, the

> devised many systems, all of which have produced these same kinds

> of odds.

Theban system has had several names, but is the same system I

introduced in alt.magick in September 1999, and the same system used

in my contributions to the Holycram archives, and the only system

that I've used in statistical calculations.

> The lesson to take from this is that you can find the same kinds of

I had no gematria software available for use when I devised the

> odds in *any* system if you keep looking, *especially* if you have

> a computer and can easily investigate all kinds of obscure textual

> features that you couldn't otherwise.

gematria system called the Theban system. Between 1982 and 1992 I

wrote a number of gematria programs on the original 8-bit machines.

When my last disk drive died so did all of my software. I scored my

first gematria system for the IBM computer I use now from Robin's

Mystical Internet in December Of 1999. Upon adding up the value of

the words to the left of the line drawn on the grid page and

discovering its enumeration to be 9797. I ran search for the

enumeration using Robin's 'Enuminator' program and discovered the

original alpha twin. In order to find the reest of them I had to write

M.A.G.I. Your inference that I've scanned the text for unusual

patterns for the purpose of claiming a remarkable discovery is also

demonstrably false.

You stated in a previous post that any pet system could equal the

results I've obtained with my system. I've designed my software to

prove whether this is true or not regardless of the outcome. I accept

your challenge or anyone else's. While the chances of another

system producing similar results to my system are very slim, I can

calculate the odds of any system being able to do so by having the

program tally the number of alpha twins present in the text using any

system.

Prophet 718 - View SourceDo what you want.

"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics." Mark Twain

Want what you do.

Bliss:

Alamantra

What do you want?

----- Original Message -----

From: "Rikb" <rikb@...>

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 15:37:00 -0500

To: <thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: RE: [t93] Use and abuse of statistics

> 93!

>

> >

> > > The magnitude of the odds is irrelevant.

--

__________________________________________________________

Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com

http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Meet Singles

http://corp.mail.com/lavalife