Prev: If you can't miss a dump truck sitting in the road...
Next: If there is a Japanese God out there...
From: gpsman on 9 Apr 2010 12:42
On Apr 9, 8:07 am, Dave__67 <spamTHIS...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 9:08 pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Mogil said he tested it 15 times with an average of only 3.8 seconds."
>
> > "Average" suggests variation and inaccuracy (thanks "news" media!).
>
> > An NTSC video of the signal would provide accuracy to within 1/29.97
> > seconds,
>
> If the average is 3.8 that means there are times when it's even
> shorter than that, unless it was 3.8 every single time.

Fallacy of the single cause.

> If the light was set for 4.5 seconds, the recommended MINIMUM, the
> average could be NO LESS THAN 4.5.

Fallacy of the single cause.

> Afraid you need a refresher on grade-school math, old boy.

No math is involved, perfesser.
-----

- gpsman
From: Sir Ray on 9 Apr 2010 13:21
On Apr 9, 12:42 pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 8:07 am, Dave__67 <spamTHIS...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8, 9:08 pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Mogil said he tested it 15 times with an average of only 3.8 seconds."
>
> > > "Average" suggests variation and inaccuracy (thanks "news" media!).
>
> > > An NTSC video of the signal would provide accuracy to within 1/29.97
> > > seconds,
>
> > If the average is 3.8 that means there are times when it's even
> > shorter than that, unless it was 3.8 every single time.
>
> Fallacy of the single cause.
>
> > If the light was set for 4.5 seconds, the recommended MINIMUM, the
> > average could be NO LESS THAN 4.5.
>
> Fallacy of the single cause.
>
> > Afraid you need a refresher on grade-school math, old boy.
>
> No math is involved, perfesser.
>  -----
>
> - gpsman

You do realize others on this newgroups know, or can look up, 'Fallacy
of the single cause'*.
So your lame attempt (and massive fail, of course) to apply it to this
black and white statement: "If the light was set for 4.5 seconds, the
recommended MINIMUM, the average could be NO LESS THAN 4.5" - which is
pretty much a straightfoward definition (minimum in this case is least
amount of time...not whatever random thing you may pontificate on) -
is, as usual, absolutely pathetic (in case, gpsboi you, really, really
don't get it, there is no fallacy here; a minimum definition of time
is just that). I really hope you are much smarter than this in real-
life, for society's sake.

*For those who can't be arzed to look it up (which clearly includes
gps-sham himself), from wiki:
"The fallacy of the single cause, also known as joint effect or causal
oversimplification, is a logical fallacy of causation that occurs when
it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when
in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly
sufficient causes."
From: Brent on 9 Apr 2010 13:28
On 2010-04-09, Sir Ray <waterboi5000(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 12:42�pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 8:07�am, Dave__67 <spamTHIS...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 8, 9:08�pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Mogil said he tested it 15 times with an average of only 3.8 seconds."
>>
>> > > "Average" suggests variation and inaccuracy (thanks "news" media!).
>>
>> > > An NTSC video of the signal would provide accuracy to within 1/29.97
>> > > seconds,
>>
>> > If the average is 3.8 that means there are times when it's even
>> > shorter than that, unless it was 3.8 every single time.
>>
>> Fallacy of the single cause.
>>
>> > If the light was set for 4.5 seconds, the recommended MINIMUM, the
>> > average could be NO LESS THAN 4.5.
>>
>> Fallacy of the single cause.
>>
>> > Afraid you need a refresher on grade-school math, old boy.
>>
>> No math is involved, perfesser.
>> �-----
>>
>> - gpsman
>
> You do realize others on this newgroups know, or can look up, 'Fallacy
> of the single cause'*.
> So your lame attempt (and massive fail, of course) to apply it to this
> black and white statement: "If the light was set for 4.5 seconds, the
> recommended MINIMUM, the average could be NO LESS THAN 4.5" - which is
> pretty much a straightfoward definition (minimum in this case is least
> amount of time...not whatever random thing you may pontificate on) -
> is, as usual, absolutely pathetic (in case, gpsboi you, really, really
> don't get it, there is no fallacy here; a minimum definition of time
> is just that). I really hope you are much smarter than this in real-
> life, for society's sake.
>
> *For those who can't be arzed to look it up (which clearly includes
> gps-sham himself), from wiki:
> "The fallacy of the single cause, also known as joint effect or causal
> oversimplification, is a logical fallacy of causation that occurs when
> it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when
> in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly
> sufficient causes."

It is even more simple. gpstroll doesn't even understand a normal
distribution. Random error would be centered around the mean. Thus if
there were some random machine error the average would be 4.5 seconds
with some instances falling longer or shorter. For the average to be 3.8
seconds means there is some sort of constant error built into the
system if we are to accept that 4.5 seconds was the target. This would
mean who ever set the timing didn't check his work properly as such an
error could be compensated for by setting the light at 5.2 seconds,
which would achive a 4.5 second average and the normal distribution
about that mean.


From: N8N on 9 Apr 2010 13:35
On Apr 9, 1:28 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2010-04-09, Sir Ray <waterboi5...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 12:42 pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 9, 8:07 am, Dave__67 <spamTHIS...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 8, 9:08 pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Mogil said he tested it 15 times with an average of only 3.8 seconds."
>
> >> > > "Average" suggests variation and inaccuracy (thanks "news" media!)..
>
> >> > > An NTSC video of the signal would provide accuracy to within 1/29.97
> >> > > seconds,
>
> >> > If the average is 3.8 that means there are times when it's even
> >> > shorter than that, unless it was 3.8 every single time.
>
> >> Fallacy of the single cause.
>
> >> > If the light was set for 4.5 seconds, the recommended MINIMUM, the
> >> > average could be NO LESS THAN 4.5.
>
> >> Fallacy of the single cause.
>
> >> > Afraid you need a refresher on grade-school math, old boy.
>
> >> No math is involved, perfesser.
> >>  -----
>
> >> - gpsman
>
> > You do realize others on this newgroups know, or can look up, 'Fallacy
> > of the single cause'*.
> > So your lame attempt (and massive fail, of course) to apply it to this
> > black and white statement: "If the light was set for 4.5 seconds, the
> > recommended MINIMUM, the average could be NO LESS THAN 4.5" - which is
> > pretty much a straightfoward definition (minimum in this case is least
> > amount of time...not whatever random thing you may pontificate on) -
> > is, as usual, absolutely pathetic (in case, gpsboi you, really, really
> > don't get it, there is no fallacy here; a minimum definition of time
> > is just that).  I really hope you are much smarter than this in real-
> > life, for society's sake.
>
> > *For those who can't be arzed to look it up (which clearly includes
> > gps-sham himself), from wiki:
> > "The fallacy of the single cause, also known as joint effect or causal
> > oversimplification, is a logical fallacy of causation that occurs when
> > it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when
> > in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly
> > sufficient causes."
>
> It is even more simple. gpstroll doesn't even understand a normal
> distribution. Random error would be centered around the mean. Thus if
> there were some random machine error the average would be 4.5 seconds
> with some instances falling longer or shorter. For the average to be 3.8
> seconds means there is some sort of constant error built into the
> system if we are to accept that 4.5 seconds was the target. This would
> mean who ever set the timing didn't check his work properly as such an
> error could be compensated for by setting the light at 5.2 seconds,
> which would achive a 4.5 second average and the normal distribution
> about that mean.

Far more likely is that the person in the article was using a handheld
stopwatch, sports watch, or similar device and the need to average
several readings comes from simply the differences in time recorded
due to differences in reaction time of the operator. If you take
enough readings, discard the first few readings as "practice" and then
average the rest, you should come pretty close to the actual value.
The yellow interval itself likely doesn't vary significantly if at
all.

If there were a serious error in his findings or methodology that the
authorities would have simply responded with a comment to the effect
"his measurements are wrong, the yellow interval for that intersection
is (x) seconds, which complies with requirements." The fact that that
didn't happen leads one to believe that the intersection was, in fact,
mistimed.

nate
From: Brent on 9 Apr 2010 13:41
On 2010-04-09, N8N <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 1:28�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2010-04-09, Sir Ray <waterboi5...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 9, 12:42�pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 9, 8:07�am, Dave__67 <spamTHIS...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 8, 9:08�pm, gpsman <gps...(a)driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Mogil said he tested it 15 times with an average of only 3.8 seconds."
>>
>> >> > > "Average" suggests variation and inaccuracy (thanks "news" media!).
>>
>> >> > > An NTSC video of the signal would provide accuracy to within 1/29.97
>> >> > > seconds,
>>
>> >> > If the average is 3.8 that means there are times when it's even
>> >> > shorter than that, unless it was 3.8 every single time.

>> >> Fallacy of the single cause.

>> >> > If the light was set for 4.5 seconds, the recommended MINIMUM, the
>> >> > average could be NO LESS THAN 4.5.
>>
>> >> Fallacy of the single cause.
>>
>> >> > Afraid you need a refresher on grade-school math, old boy.
>>
>> >> No math is involved, perfesser.
>> >> �-----
>>
>> >> - gpsman
>>
>> > You do realize others on this newgroups know, or can look up, 'Fallacy
>> > of the single cause'*.
>> > So your lame attempt (and massive fail, of course) to apply it to this
>> > black and white statement: "If the light was set for 4.5 seconds, the
>> > recommended MINIMUM, the average could be NO LESS THAN 4.5" - which is
>> > pretty much a straightfoward definition (minimum in this case is least
>> > amount of time...not whatever random thing you may pontificate on) -
>> > is, as usual, absolutely pathetic (in case, gpsboi you, really, really
>> > don't get it, there is no fallacy here; a minimum definition of time
>> > is just that). �I really hope you are much smarter than this in real-
>> > life, for society's sake.
>>
>> > *For those who can't be arzed to look it up (which clearly includes
>> > gps-sham himself), from wiki:
>> > "The fallacy of the single cause, also known as joint effect or causal
>> > oversimplification, is a logical fallacy of causation that occurs when
>> > it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when
>> > in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly
>> > sufficient causes."
>>
>> It is even more simple. gpstroll doesn't even understand a normal
>> distribution. Random error would be centered around the mean. Thus if
>> there were some random machine error the average would be 4.5 seconds
>> with some instances falling longer or shorter. For the average to be 3.8
>> seconds means there is some sort of constant error built into the
>> system if we are to accept that 4.5 seconds was the target. This would
>> mean who ever set the timing didn't check his work properly as such an
>> error could be compensated for by setting the light at 5.2 seconds,
>> which would achive a 4.5 second average and the normal distribution
>> about that mean.
>
> Far more likely is that the person in the article was using a handheld
> stopwatch, sports watch, or similar device and the need to average
> several readings comes from simply the differences in time recorded
> due to differences in reaction time of the operator. If you take
> enough readings, discard the first few readings as "practice" and then
> average the rest, you should come pretty close to the actual value.
> The yellow interval itself likely doesn't vary significantly if at
> all.
>
> If there were a serious error in his findings or methodology that the
> authorities would have simply responded with a comment to the effect
> "his measurements are wrong, the yellow interval for that intersection
> is (x) seconds, which complies with requirements." The fact that that
> didn't happen leads one to believe that the intersection was, in fact,
> mistimed.

Guess I missed something in the trimming. I thought it was about the
honesty of the light's setting, not the report. A stop watch is more
than good enough for measurements to a tenth of a second. The raw data
probably had a spread of 3.7 to 3.9.





 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: If you can't miss a dump truck sitting in the road...
Next: If there is a Japanese God out there...