Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages - 2nd evidence

From: LEE Sau Dan (danlee_at_informatik.uni-freiburg.de)
Date: 10/27/04 

Date: 27 Oct 2004 23:50:05 +0800

>>>>> "SJ" == SJ <donot@send.spam.net> writes:

    SJ> I know your Chinese guys always want an equation to calculate
    SJ> something. There are many ways to 'estimate' entropy, and I
    SJ> usually estimate rather than calculating.
>> >> OK. Then give us your estimate and show clearly how you
>> >> come up with it.
>>
    SJ> I already estimated. You simly could not grasp it. It
    SJ> increased during the past 2000 years,
>> From how many to how many? Give the figures if you have any.
>> If you don't have the figures, then please shut up.

    SJ> I don't know.

So, you don't know the figures? You're admitting that you lied by
saying that you have an "estimate". Know what "estimate" means?

    SJ> I said it increased.

By how much? You don't know?

>> You've repeatedly claimed that you know something, but
>> consistently failed to show that you know it.

    SJ> Even I do not know the exact numbers, I can estimate the
    SJ> slope.
>> Then, what is your estimate? Based on what?

    SJ> How many times should I repeat that it increased? You
    SJ> idot. The estimated slope is positive,

That's not an estimate. You only know it's positive, but you don't
know anything about its magnitude. How can you call that an
"estimate"?

    SJ> in other words, significantly different from 0.

"significantly"? How significant? On what do you base your
significance? Did you do hypothesis testing? I guess not, since you
don't have the numbers, not even some rough numbers. You only think
it's positive. That's not enough to say it's "significantly"
different from zero.

    SJ> This is difference between you and me. Statistics is not
    SJ> elementary-school math, which you can not escape from.
>> But statistics is basic (if not just useful) knowledge for
>> serious research. If you haven't studied it, shut up and go to
>> do so.

    SJ> Statistics and seriousness of research is irrelevant.

They are. Your inability to apply formal statistical analysis makes
your argument look highly unserious.

    SJ> I have stuided statistics during the past 20 years. Do you
    SJ> need my transcripts?

I ain't interested in your transcripts. Your previous messages have
shown us that you're bad at statistics. That's far more convincing
than any academic transcripts.

    SJ> As I said, I do not show pigs my pearls.

Because you have none to show at all. 

-- 
Lee Sau Dan                     +Z05biGVm-                          ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: danlee@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee