Re: New here questions on lyme and other

On Feb 21, 8:22 pm, cowabungaba...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Once again YES I ABSOLUTELY DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING! I
promise you, I do.

No, you do NOT. Trust me.

I swear the problem is that you aren't understanding what I'm saying.

Oh, yes, I do.

The two analyses measure different phenomenon.

No. Not 'two' analyses, but a correct and an incorrect response to the
problem. Again, trust me...trust "Needsomeinput"...I think we are both
understanding this.

One (yours) measures the chances of a random event happening in an
apparently non random fashion serially.

WHAT?

Good Lord, no.

Look...you, yourself said that you are not particularly familiar with
the math, here. This statement of yours pretty much neatly supports
that previous assessment.

I think that the mistake that you are making lies in confusing the
concepts of outcomes and randomness within probability theory. It is a
common error for people who are not familiar with the concepts. (And I
don't consider myself to be well-versed).

But the problem here, as posed, really involves a LIMITED number of
trials. I arbitrarily chose three.

Despite that, you seem to want to insist on expanding the number of
trials to an infinite number...and don't sem to understand why that is
wrong...or why your reasoning is completely circular.

But...as I and "Needsomeinput" have BOTH suggested to you...the
underlying problem is your choice of analogy. A coin-flip is a random
event in the truest sense.

An ELISA is anything but "random".

Your insistence that the odds of a given outcome are 50-50 does NOT
convert an ELISA into a "random" event for the purposes of probability
analysis.

I would suggest that given your responses, here, there is probably
limited utility in continuing this discussion further.

However, I am finsing a great deal of value in what has happened here.
I think that I am finally undertsanding why there seems to be such
confusion around certain concepts, subjects.
.

Relevant Pages