Messages de AlectronaSS

Le 19 janvier 2021 à 09:35:39 BrunoCanard a écrit :

Le 19 janvier 2021 à 09:34:28 AlectronaSS a écrit :
Pourquoi les premiers à incendier les Trump sont toujours des Cohen, des Rothschild, des Levi

Toutes les filles de Trump sont mariées à des juifs jean complot
TRrump a reconnu Jéruslaem comme Capital d'Israel
Trump est financé par Sheldon Adelson

Certes, je n'ai nié le caractère enjuivé du mouvement Trump

Mais je constate une surreprésentation de ces personnes parmi ses détracteurs

https://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2021/03/2/1611045118-1500x500.jpg

Le premier à lui tomber dessus

Andy Cohen au milieu de ses _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Il a l'air de bien s'en remettre malgré la violence du choc

Sa graisse a encaissé toute l'énergie cinétique

change de navigateur

moi je suis obligé de cliquer 3 fois pour que ça marche

It has been an empirically observed fact that many "naturally" observed traits, like height or IQ, are NOT empirically normally distributed. At the very least they can't be truly normally distributed because they are always non-negative. But even more than that, before non-negativity is violated, it has been observed that the "tails" (values enough standard deviations away from the mean) tend to have higher probability than predicted by a normal distribution for the population, at least for certain traits. The only thing you can say is that if you take many samples and compute the mean, then the empirical mean for the sample should be approximately normally distributed under mild assumptions if you have enough samples (this is the central limit theorem).

As an aside, if you'd like a speculative theory for why many traits appear "somewhat normal", just consider the possibility that many factors affect the trait, e.g. many genetic factors and many environmental factors. If you have many factors and their effects are additive and you don't have too crazy distributions for each factor's effect, and the factors are independent enough, then the accumulated effect should be somewhat normal basically by the central limit theorem.

donc non ça ne suit pas une distribution normale, ce sont les statisticiens qui trafiquent les chiffres pour se branler sur des beaux graphiques

The (over a century old) history of IQ tests includes a number of dubious statistical practices, such as "removal" of inconvenient data and "re-designing" the questions to produce the "expected" results. It cannot really be said to measure "human intelligence" as we have since come to understand that term. The "defined" normal distribution is more imposed than observed. But it is so useful for some parties to "sieve" people by abusing the number that it has been difficult to get its application dropped entirely

source : un random de maths.stackexchange

et bim dans vos dents

Le 19 janvier 2021 à 06:27:25 theUSA a écrit :

Le 19 janvier 2021 à 06:25:48 LnDeTroie a écrit :
Dans le cadre d'une loi normale, moyenne = médiane

Donc l'OP a raison car il s'agit d'une hypothèse des tests de QI

Les femto-arms qui pensaient s'improviser stateux ont vite été remis à leur place

ok oui c'est vrai

comment ça se fait que la distribution ne soit pas plus irrégulière ?

COMMENT on trouve du taf à l'usine ?

j'aimerai y travailler en week end