Difference between revisions of "Talk:1154: Resolution"
(Created page with "It's good! But self-explanatory? -- ~~~~") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
It's good! But self-explanatory? -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 16:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC) | It's good! But self-explanatory? -- [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 16:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The reference to a single data point may reference a common problem in "long-term" or "one-off" observations - that statistical significance can probably never be achieved because of the labour involved in creating individual data points. In this case Cueball essentially makes one data point per year (or many depending on whether you consider individual observations to happen throughout the year...), and thusly one year is insufficient to determine if there is a large "yearly" loop with nested daily/weekly loops. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Humans seem to have a biological mechanism to bypass this conundrum wherein we make linear extrapolations or use weak induction for situations where there is insufficient data. | ||
Revision as of 22:18, 31 December 2012
It's good! But self-explanatory? -- St.nerol (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The reference to a single data point may reference a common problem in "long-term" or "one-off" observations - that statistical significance can probably never be achieved because of the labour involved in creating individual data points. In this case Cueball essentially makes one data point per year (or many depending on whether you consider individual observations to happen throughout the year...), and thusly one year is insufficient to determine if there is a large "yearly" loop with nested daily/weekly loops.
Humans seem to have a biological mechanism to bypass this conundrum wherein we make linear extrapolations or use weak induction for situations where there is insufficient data.
