Personally, I just think writing is not your strong suit.

Tell me, how is this:

A random variable is a mapping from a collection of possible events and rules for combining them (called a sigma algebra) to a set of values it may take. More formally, a random variable is a measureable mapping from a probability space to a set of values it can take — fdrake

Not the same thing I said? When I said:

the frequency of possible outcomes from a repeated random event. — Jeremiah

Thanks for the reply, I'll have to examine it later when I have time for a response.

I did not intend you to feel intimidated or patronised, so please try to be less aggressive. — fdrake

I treat everyone the same, I equally dislike everyone, you are not special to me, therefore I see no reason to treat you any differently. Also, I am not interested in your excuses for such sloppy citation, if you hold a college degree you should know how to do proper citation regardless of area of study. You should know that referencing a whole course is just dumb, and it is what people typically do when they are evading. If you don't like my attitude, then don't talk with me, it is that simple and my feelings will not be hurt.

I am glad you are statistician, and to be honest I don't think we are that far apart, I just find some of your word choices confusing. However, it should be pointed out that as a base principle I reject notions of yielding to what may be seen as a greater authority. Which I admit you would hold that edge, but I can't surrender my own process of reasoning to someone I know nothing about.

Please clarify what you mean by "random variable." Or don't; if you don't like me enough to response I will understand.

I have taken some probability mathematics and still have more to go.

However, probability was defined in intro to stats, and has been echoed through all courses as the frequency of possible outcomes from a repeated random event. I am very clear on that, it is in my text books, it is defined and used that way in academic papers, and it is not a hard concept to grasp.

Also, if you're going to give a reference, then give a direct reference, and not a "it is somewhere in that general direction." Statistics is the second degree I am working on; writing was my first, and I know that that is a poor citation.

I am a 4th year statistic major, and to me it sounds like you are talking about deviation and not a probability distribution.

And what are your qualifications for making such an assessment?

I actually asked you if you wrote it or quoted it.

To understand what it's doing, we need to look at what a random variable is. A random variable is a mapping from a collection of possible events and rules for combining them (called a sigma algebra) to a set of values it may take. More formally, a random variable is a measureable mapping from a probability space to a set of values it can take. Intuitively, this means that any particular event that could happen for this random variable takes up a definite size in the set of all possible events. It is said that a random variable X satisfies a probability measure P if the associated size of an event (E) which induces a set of values from the random variable has probability P(E makes X take the set of values). — fdrake

This sounds more like deviation. Did you quote that from somewhere or are those your own words?

You have some aspects right and others wrong. The definition of probability is the frequency of possible outcomes of repeated random events (random in this context means that all events have an equal chance of being selected).

Think of probability as a ruler, and we are using it to measure possible outcomes, in the same way you might measure a length of string. Now, there is a true frequency of occurrences for those possible outcomes, which is every bit as objective and real as the length of the string, and, like the length of the string, we lack the ability to measure the true value. We can approximate the length of the string, but our methods and tools are not fine enough to find the true length of the sting. The same holds true with probability.

For the given possible outcomes, there is a true frequency of occurrences, which we measure and approximate with a "ruler" we call probability. The fact that those occurrences occur by contingent causation is irrelevant to that measurement, as that is not what we are measuring. We are measuring the frequency of possible outcomes, which does have a true value - even if we can only approximate it.

All possible odds, if something is not possible or becomes not possible then it is no longer a question of odds. May seem like an obvious point but people tend to think "chance" means anything is possible.

Playing poker for one million years means the probability of a given hand approches its true value for all players involved, this removes the influence of "luck of the draw". Assuming everyone has enough money to play that long.

In that time frame the impact of a winning streak is not significant.

Infinity is a number too large to be measured that means any relative odds are unknown, but they would in theroy approch certainty. Which is problematic as that applies to opposites.

It is far more likely that you are not aware that you are dreaming and can not recall the dream.

When I am aware that I am dreaming, which is rare, I do not enjoy it.

I guess philosophy is too deep and personal for most people. — CasKev

I found "philosophy" to be too shallow. I mean actual philosophy would be vast and deep, but their are so few actual philosophers left, and they are not the ones musing about the meaning of life.

I'm by no means a philosopher — Mattioso

Then you should fit in around here.

Like most people, you have a horrible understanding of what probability is. Probability is the frequency of possible outcomes. Whether or not that is a result of predetermination or "chance" is irrelevant.

I always feel good when I help others, maybe you are broken.

If anything human action is always a combination of things rather than moved by a single influence. I think it is a bit dumb to try and reduce it to only one thing.

Human action is a byproduct of several factors, like for example gravity.

"[You] want them to be happy. . ."

Sounds self serving to me.

So let me get this straight: You found out that you can change your own behavior?

Quick someone get this guy a Nobel Prize!

In academic settings if you don't use formal grammar then they don't read your paper, they just throw it in the trash.

If you are a student then you'll get marked down.

You may be able to get away with your name in all lowercase, but not the pronoun "I."

There are people who do not capitalize thier name. If you want to be one just do it: it is not a big deal. If you like get it changed legally to all lowercase.

The joke was funny — Hanover

Relative.

it didn't seem like you got it — Hanover

I am sure there are a lot of things you miss.

You have yet to show a real contradiction; all you did was babble your misunderstanding of the semantics.

"So, no meds for the delusions?"

I don't have delusions anymore, the episodes are triggered by some variable yet to be officially identified. I inherited the condition from my father. He had multiple episodes over his life. The doctors believe the trigger is stress, hence all the drugs. I decided if the trigger was stress, I would mange my own stress levels without the meds. I'll be honest the few years after that choice were the hardest of my life, but here I am over 15 years with no repeat episodes and no meds.

When I got out I dropped all the anxiety and depression medication I was on, they didn't help they just made me feel slightly stoned, and I didn't like that. I am of the philosophy that I need my sharpest wit to handle the cards dealt.

Do you mind if I PM you about these matters? — Posty McPostface

PM if you like, but I am currently working 20+ hours a week and going to college full time (non traditional student I am in my late 30s), so don't expect a speedy reply.

I was institutionalized against my will for having paranoid delusional schizophrenia and was diagnosed with severe depression with suicidal ideation. While I was there I had them give me a job cleaning up the grounds. I had a job before I went in, while I was having delusions, and I got a job when I got out.

I got the joke I just didn't think it was funny.

It was not Wells Fargo and I can't say which bank on any type of social media. However, if you are implying that the fact he was blind caused him to give a lesser service to the customers you would be wrong. He had special equipment that allowed him interact with his computer in braille. I have also worked with coworkers in wheelchairs, and people with metal handicaps. Not everyone with a "disability" allows it to limit them.

At my last job working service for small business banking one of my coworkers was blind.

In a way, the question comes down to: what differentiates the natural from the artificial? — darthbarracuda

You, as I certainly don't see what you are describing. In the respects of what is natural, I see no difference between my computer screen and the tree outside.

There is no logical fallacy that I am aware of; however, observation does not prove causation, especially if you expect there are confounding variables.

It basically just boils down to people arguing over opinions, and has very little to do with a scientific approach. That said, they could very well be right, if a, b and c are all explanatory variables of the response variable x, then one of the explanatory variables could have significantly more influence than the others.

You can neither prove or disprove unfalsiable claims.

You are tripping up on the semantics. Unconditional is the condition needed to call it unconditional, and not a condition of how that love is expressed. If you are unable to see that then clearly it would unconditional save that condition.

To be honest you are making a trivial point which does not disprove that unconditional love exist. Although I agree it likely does not exist but for different reasons.

To do stuff and things so I can do my stuff and things.

Show me one person who does not have some knowledge of something, is not ignorant of something, or is not confused about something.

They are worthless categories, as they encompass everyone.

That is a weak straw-man.

I never said they didn't exist, I said several times that they are too broad to be of any use. I said it directly, more than once, in plain simple English.

These categories also exist:

People with skin.
People who breathe.
People with a face.