Definitive proof ;-)

[Ziggy]

On 19 Mar 2007 22:30:03 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Feynman introduces the concept of negative probability in the context
>of Young’s double-slit experiment and in doing so sheds a new light on
>the problem. However, there are, as Feynman notes, conceptual problems
>as well as insights associated with this point of view. The micromaser
>which-path (Welcher-Weg) detector eliminates these conceptual
>difficulties. We also emphasize that the concept of negative
>probability yields useful insight into the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
>(EPR) problem."

And I trust that even you cab see quite clearly that this has absolutely no
bearing whatsoever on the probability you were refering to and that you simply
embarrassed yourself by getting it spectacularly wrong.

No one with even a GCSE in statistics would have talked about a negative
probability.

Trying to gain some comfort from Tony's quite spurious mention of quanum
probability will only make you look even more foolish, not less.
>
>Btw, can you explain why calling Tony a plonker is not ad-hominem.
>I'm sure it isn't, because you've recently made clear how much you
>deplore ad-hominem argument.

Oh, didn't you notice?

He plonked a while back.

It's that simple English word thing you have so much trouble with cropping up
again.

If you speak you are a speaker. If you drive, you are a driver.

If you plonk, you are a plonker.

Simple, isn't it, once it's explained?

And not a hint of an ad-hominem.

 

[Ziggy]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:39:00 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:57:56 GMT, [email protected] (Ziggy)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:46:22 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>that one day not wearing a helmet could cost me my life.
>>>
>>>And that "possibility" is, um, zero (or perhaps negative) -
>>>statistically; at least that's what the best and largest studies show
>>>us.
>>
>>In the first place, may I suggest that you learn something about statistics?
>>
>
>You could; it isn't needed.

Oh, I think if you expect to have any credibility when talking about statistics
it IS necessary that you know something about them.
>
>Of course there is not a negative probability - but how else would
>one, in a conversational way, imply that the inverse result of an
>implied probability was really the case? Go ahead and pick nits...I
>can too; I didn't use the term "probability"...

Sorry. Negative possibility is just aas bad.

Trying to use that simply shows that you do not unerstand the concept, no matter
what words you dress it up with.

The smallest possibility is no possibility.

There is no negative possibilty.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:41:58 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> And his trick at the shuttle inquirey with the liquid nitrogen is
> worthy of mention.

Oops. Careful ziggy - the facade is slipping. It was iced water.

You wouldn't be talking outside your knowledge would you? It
wouldn't be remotely notable that rubber becomes less resilient at
liquid nitrogen temperatures.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ziggy]

On 19 Mar 2007 22:38:55 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:04:08 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 19 Mar 2007 21:42:12 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Tony's argument does not appear to me to be what you calim. I have
>> >elaborated elsewhere.
>>
>> Oh, good grief.
>>
>> You really can't understand basic English at all, can you?
>>
>> How on earth can you not understand:
>>
>> "it seems likely that helmets will prevent some number of head
>> injuries each year and reduce the seriousness of some other number"
>>
>> followed by:
>>
>> "you are wrong for a whole load of reasons"
>
>The statement _is_ wrong - the number of injuries is greater. The
>action (wearing of helmet) caused as meany injuries as avoiding the
>action and then some, so it is not reasonable to describve it as
>having prevented some number of injuries.

That's already been debunked.

Apart from the absurdity of the whole idea of summing accidents that both did
and did not happen, it begs the overall question in the most egregious way
imaginable.

 

[Ziggy]

On 19 Mar 2007 22:54:57 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:41:58 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> And his trick at the shuttle inquirey with the liquid nitrogen is
>> worthy of mention.
>
>Oops. Careful ziggy - the facade is slipping. It was iced water.
>
>You wouldn't be talking outside your knowledge would you?

I just forgot.

It was a damn good trick, nontheless.

 

[Buck]

On 2007-03-19 21:00:36 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2007-03-19 13:44:14 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said:
>>> The "not much in it anyway" argument is crass, by the way. Did your
>>> medical training extend to telling you people that disagree with you
>>> must be stupid?
>>
>> No Ian, that was your training that told you that anyone that
>> disagrees with you is stupid.
>
> Where have I said that?
>
> Can you provide any example where I have claimed that someone that
> disagrees with me is brainless?
>
> regards, Ian SMith

I think you are a sad little butt monkey who needs to get a life.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

On 2007-03-19 22:29:28 +0000, [email protected] (Ziggy) said:
> " in the real world.
>
> It's as desperate a tactic as getting the length of the frame half an inch out
> and then claiming that you were actually correct because if you were going fast
> enough ...

Ziggy, you are talking to fools about foolish things, they are the
experts, they exist to
ratify each other but they exist nowhere else but here, in the real
world they live in
shadow and obscurity. Do your self a favour and walk away.

--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

On 2007-03-19 20:45:05 +0000, [email protected] (Ziggy) said:
>
> People don't usually bang their heads against the hard things and soft
> things to
> determine which hurts and jolts their heads most.

>

I think a lot of folk on here have spent a lot of time doing just that,
don't over estimate
their intelligence.

--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

On 2007-03-19 18:40:45 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> said:
> f the polystyrene being fairly irrelevant.
>
> As for a poor attempt at an argument, starting with skull fracture and
> then when the data shows helmets will do nothing for fractures,
> shifting the goal posts and sayings its acceleration force on the brain
> instead is a dishonest way of arguing. You sir are starting to display
> the standard characteristics of a troll.

Tony, you started all this, you are the king of trolls and you know it well ;-)


--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:01:54 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2007 22:44:24 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >Lucky that no-one's doing that then, isn't it.
>
> But that's *exactly* what you're trying to do.
> The sad thing is you don't even realise it.

As a point of fact, I know what I am trying to do. You do not, and
cannot. This is self-evident to anyone that does not consider you
omniscient.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 19 Mar, Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2007-03-19 21:00:36 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said:
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 2007-03-19 13:44:14 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said:

> >>> The "not much in it anyway" argument is crass, by the way. Did
> >>> your medical training extend to telling you people that disagree
> >>> with you must be stupid?
> >>
> >> No Ian, that was your training that told you that anyone that
> >> disagrees with you is stupid.
> >
> > Where have I said that?
> >
> > Can you provide any example where I have claimed that someone that
> > disagrees with me is brainless?
>
> I think you are a sad little butt monkey who needs to get a life.

Oh well, in the face of such a finely crafted argument, obviously I
suddenly see that everything I have ever believed is wrong. The
scales fall from my eyes and I realise Buck knows everything there is
to know. How can I have been so foolish?

I am struggling to understand why not calling someone stupid (I have
not said anyone taht disagrees with me is stupid, though you criticise
me for doing so) is bad, but calling someone "a sad little butt
monkey" is entirely reasonable. Since you are so brilliant, and know
even thngs that have not happened, can you explain it to me?

regads, Ian MSith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Tony Raven]

Buck wrote on 19/03/2007 23:22 +0100:
>
> Tony, you started all this, you are the king of trolls and you know it
> well ;-)
>
>

Guilty as charged. Sorry I can't chat, I have to clean out under the
bridge and then I've got a meeting with three billy goats to discuss the
merits of wearing helmets while crossing bridges.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Buck]

On 2007-03-20 07:06:11 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said:

> On Mon, 19 Mar, Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2007-03-19 21:00:36 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said:
>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 2007-03-19 13:44:14 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said:
>
>>>>> The "not much in it anyway" argument is crass, by the way. Did
>>>>> your medical training extend to telling you people that disagree
>>>>> with you must be stupid?
>>>>
>>>> No Ian, that was your training that told you that anyone that
>>>> disagrees with you is stupid.
>>>
>>> Where have I said that?
>>>
>>> Can you provide any example where I have claimed that someone that
>>> disagrees with me is brainless?
>>
>> I think you are a sad little butt monkey who needs to get a life.
>
> Oh well, in the face of such a finely crafted argument, obviously I
> suddenly see that everything I have ever believed is wrong. The
> scales fall from my eyes and I realise Buck knows everything there is
> to know. How can I have been so foolish?
>
> I am struggling to understand why not calling someone stupid (I have
> not said anyone taht disagrees with me is stupid, though you criticise
> me for doing so) is bad, but calling someone "a sad little butt
> monkey" is entirely reasonable. Since you are so brilliant, and know
> even thngs that have not happened, can you explain it to me?
>
> regads, Ian MSith

I think you actually know where I am coming from on this, I'm not going to
play your game, you love to insult others but cannot handle it yourself.


--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

On 2007-03-20 07:50:23 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> said:

> Buck wrote on 19/03/2007 23:22 +0100:
>>
>> Tony, you started all this, you are the king of trolls and you know it well ;-)
>>
>>
>
> Guilty as charged. Sorry I can't chat, I have to clean out under the
> bridge and then I've got a meeting with three billy goats to discuss
> the merits of wearing helmets while crossing bridges.

What next? Which chain oil? ;-)
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Ziggy]

On 20 Mar 2007 07:01:49 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:01:54 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 19 Mar 2007 22:44:24 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Lucky that no-one's doing that then, isn't it.
>>
>> But that's *exactly* what you're trying to do.
>> The sad thing is you don't even realise it.
>
>As a point of fact, I know what I am trying to do.

If only that were true

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

[scythe]

Guys, guys, we've done all this. All of us know where all of us stand on
the matter. Even if there were newbies to be informed, they won't be
informed by the amount of heat we'll generate on this issue, so...

We've done all this.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If any council in the country has anything to say to cyclists
;; about cycle paths, it should be: "We are terribly, terribly sorry."
- Zoe Williams, The Guardian, 13th Sept 2006

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2007 13:45:29 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:07:19 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that helmets are oversold does not mean they are never a
>>> lifesaver.
>>
>>Which is true.
>>
>>But no more true than that it's possible for a lucky rabbit's foot to
>>save your life.

> I can't really agree with that.

> Only under truly bizarre circumstances could a rabbit's foot save your life.

> On the other hand, there must be a number of cases worldwide each year, however
> small, where a cyclist dies of a head injury where the impact was just hard
> enough to be fatal and where even a small layer of foam would have decreased the
> effect of the impact at the skull sufficiently to save the cyclists life.

What we don't know is whether that number is more than offset by the
number for whom the small layer of foam turned a near miss or
non-damaging impact into a damaging acceleration of head twist. The
inconclusive nature of the best statistical studies to date does
suggest that either they do no good, or that the good is
counterbalanced by the bad.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:53:23 +0000, Anthony Jones <[email protected]>
> wrote:

>>[email protected] wrote:
>>> I'm fed up of the helmet debate anyway.
>>
>>As are most of us I think.
>>
>>> If you don't want to give what
>>> is in your head a fighting chance, there may not be much in it to
>>> protect anyway.
>>
>>So, you're fed up with the helmet debate, but you're implying that those who
>>don't wear helmets are idiots? Well done.
>>
>>> Go ahead an add your statistics and stuff now.
>>
>>I'm guessing your 'medical training' didn't involve much in the way
>>of 'statistics and stuff' and this is why you'd rather rely on meaningless
>>anecdotal evidence instead.

> The 'statistics and stuff', on both sides of the debate, are pretty meaningless
> because of the impossibility of doing like for like studies over meaningful
> populations.

> So we have to fall back to simple physics.

> Any structure will, upon impact, be affected to a degree determined by the
> accelerative force on that structure.

> Anything that decreases that accellerative force will reduce the potential
> damage.

Provided that it doesn't at the same time increase the risk of other
damage, such as by the increased rotational accelerations that
anything that makes the head a bit bigger will inevitably, by simple
physics, cause.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Ziggy]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:17:34 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm <[email protected]>
wrote:

>What we don't know is whether that number is more than offset by the
>number for whom the small layer of foam turned a near miss or
>non-damaging impact into a damaging acceleration of head twist. The
>inconclusive nature of the best statistical studies to date does
>suggest that either they do no good, or that the good is
>counterbalanced by the bad.

Which is true but no reason for denying that the posited effect exists.

Trying to bury facts that are inconvenient to your argument (not that I'm
suggesting *you* are trying to do that) only detracts from your credibility.

Far better to be honest and say "yes, we know that happens, but we know there
are far more cases[1] where *this* happens, and this is where a helmet makes
matters worse.


[1] Assuming we can show this to be true.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 17 Mar, 20:54, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Buck wrote on 17/03/2007 20:07 +0100:
>>
>>> On 2007-03-15 21:16:15 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> said:
>>>> The definitive proof that lack of a helmet saves your life:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRi6JVTGSDI
>>>> (starts just after 1min50s in)
>>> Nah, he would have walked away from it if he was wearing a helmet.
>> Yeah, sorry, I forgot helmets protect against 75% of leg injuries
>> according to Thompson, Rivara & Thompson ;-)
>>
> Legs heal beter than brains, according to my medical training.
>

Funny, I know (and know of (e.g. Richard Hammond)) people who've had
severe brain injuries who've made near full recoveries, despite very
severe injuries. I don't know of anyone whose legs have been as severely
injured who walk again without limping.

Whether the brain is more important than the legs is a different matter,
of course. And one too obvious for debate (at least since the 5th
century BC)
--
A