Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 vedic astrology, pvr@m... wrote: Aloha Narasimha... > Aloha Moses, > > This will be my last reply to you, barring any additional data of > significance being provided by you. > > If you give the birthdata of all the 52 astrologers you used, we can > look at the probabilities more logically. In statistics, the sample > set is selected very carefully. It is not just the number of samples > that matters. The composition of the sample set is also important. > Were your 52 samples ideally scattered in the sample space with > respect to all the key degrees of freedom? If not, it will introduce > a bias in the probability distribution. This is particularly an issue > when the sample set is small. No doubt this is true. But rather than listing the birth data of 52 people for you, i will tell you that the data is very reasonably scattered, although obviously not perfectly so. Yes, this will throw some VERY MINOR changes into the probabilities, but definitely not great ones, since there are only two influences that will be affected by this--essentially only 2 out of 23, Neptune and Pluto--and i have already factored in considerable differences based on the locations of bodies. While we're at it, we could also take into account the slight differences in the length of time during which different signs rise in the northern hemisphere. > > If you give all the birthdata, I may be able to elaborate. > > > Aloha Narahimsa, > > It is Narasimha. Pardon me, Narasimha. My mistake. > > > > people. If we are expecting 35-40% at each degree (among all > people) > > > and get 49% at one degree and 10% at another degree, it means > nothing. > > > > Again, you're quoting the wrong data. > > I am not "quoting" anything. That was just an example. Well then you were "quoting" a hypothetical example that was strangely similar to the data that i had presented, only inaccurate and wrong, and leaning in your favor, therefore deceptive. > > > be a bit higher than this, but not much) i only came up with one > degree > > around 49.0% of the time. The next closest degree was more than 10 > percentage > > points less, and none of the other degrees around the 49.0% degree > came up > > that high. That's enough to make me inquire more, which for some > reason you > > seem to have a problem with. > > I have no problem with it and constantly said "good luck and keep me > informed". However, I only pointed out that there is nothing > statistically significant so far. Finally we can agree, then. much love and aloha to all, moses www.astrologyforthesoul.com > > May Jupiter's light shine on us, > Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.