Re: Licas and Probability-Statistics


"Luis A. Afonso" wrote:
> From this revelatory text our co-Readers can estimate what is the author´s Mental Health:
>
> Quoting
>
> ***Date: Sep 9, 2005 12:41 AM
> Author: Large_Nassau_Grouper@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Combination
>
>
> Seeker wrote Hi, I met two problems about combination. (1) If n balls are placed random into n cells, find the probability that exactly one cell remain empty. ZERO. It's a permutation problem, as stated. There will be exactly 1 ball in each of the n cells. (2)My telephone rings 12 times each week, the calls being randomly> distributed among the 7 days. What's the probability that I get at> least one call each day. One answer is ZERO, if I am at home at all times waiting forthe phone to ring. I never answer the phone before it rings twice! Another answer is ZERO also, if I was away from home that week, and nobody hangs up before the phone rings twice. In fact, they're Problem 1.18 & 1.20 on Statistical Inference by Casella & Berger. Good reason to throw that book into the trash can. No wonder this newsgroup gets more requests for answers to questions in that book than all other books ever published in the history of mankind. JMNSHO of course. :-) - Bob ***
>
> Any comment needed...

The first comment is that you need to learn how to CITE a post without
making it a running single sentence. This was the post in question:

http://tinyurl.com/a988u

It was an OBVIOUS piece of SATIRE of the poor statements of the two
problems in Casella & Berger, to make the questions ambiguous and
unclear so as to make the answers "ZERO" correct, under my stated
reasons.

In B&G's statement of (1),

> (1)If n balls are placed random into n cells,

HOW are they placed randomly into n cells? If these are n balls
labeled 1 to n, and are randomly placed into the n cells, with
1 ball in each, then the "random" becomes one of "random
permutation".

Hence, my satirical answer that the probability of exactly 1
cell being empty is ZERO.


I gave similar explanations why the answer to the ill-posed Problem
1.20
is also ZERO, under TWO different very realistic assumptions about how
people answer phone calls!

My comment about why the book should be thrown away, together with

RF> JMNSHO of course. :-)

made it absolutely unequivocal that it was a SATIRICAL piece, to any
reader except a "crazy old lunatic"!


Now back-tracking to lunatic lica's previous post, in which I gave this
answer for his "blunders" and "pure nonsense":


RF> As for "pure nonsense", the fact that you use your silly G/W basic
RF> program in your attempts to answer the simplest of theoretical
RF> questions covered more or less your entire posting career. That's
RF> all "utter pure nonsense" because the empirical approximation of a
RF> few cases is a VERY SILLY and IGNORANT way to answer a simple
RF> theoretical question that has an exact theoretical answer.

The solution to the INTENDED problem (1), or Casella & Burger's 1.18,
was given the correct theoretical answer by Henry, in the thread
in question:

Henry> Suppose r balls are placed in n boxes at random and x boxes are
empty:

Henry> Prob(X=x|r,n)
Henry> = S2(r,n-x) * n! / (x!*n^r)
Henry> where S2(,) are Stirling numbers of the 2nd kind

"crazy old lunatic", do you even KNOW what Stirling numbers of the
First and the Second kind are?

Luis A. Afonso went into his G/W basic nonsense and made blunders
which even Afonso couldn't deny, when corrected by Henry:

Afonso> For 5 boxes 10 bals
Afonso> Boxes empty_______Ex.1____Ex.2____Ex.3____
Afonso> __0______________0.0380__0.0386__0.0381
Afonso> __1______________0.3831__0.3835__0.3824
Afonso> __2______________0.4811__0.4810__0.4814
Afonso> __3______________0.0962__0.0953__0.0965
Afonso> __4______________0.0016__0.0016__0.0015

Henry> Your second with 5 balls and 10 boxes should be
Henry> 0.5225472, 0.41908224, 0.05732352, 0.001046528, 0.000000512

> _________licas (Luis A. Afonso).

So, the preceding example was just one of Afonso's impertinence
that qualified BOTH as a "blunder" AND "pure nonsense"

This post completes my 100% rebuttal and debunking of the two
accusation posts by our self-acknowledged "crazy old lunatic",
Luis A. Afonso.

Now that I have taken the time to document your errors, blunders,
and pure nonsense, you are NOT welcome to return to this thread
with anymore of your impertinence.

You have already lost ALL credibility in sci.stat.math, let alone
the bandwidth you have wasted with your utterly worthless program
simulations that answered NOTHING that is of interest to anyone.

-- Bob.

.