smokers revenge

"Cruzinsure" wrote in message
...
And what if the base percent was 90%. How much is 14% on top of that?
Then
what number do you get? Then it's like 13% if you do it your way.

Don't confuse pure math with the application of math to statistical
analysis.
Having 2.3 kids in a family is perfectly valid from a math point of view
but if
you sample 10,000 families you probably will never find that exact
situation.

Statistics has a framework of rules and conventions that restrict what is
and
is not possible in its context, no matter what is possible with pure math.
Let's look at your example above:

You're right,

Thank you.

restricting yourself to looking at this from a pure math point of
view the answer would be 103%. But looking at it from a statistics
viewpoint
you've run into a logical fallacy. How can you have a sample that's 103%
of a
given population? You can't. So even though from a pure math standpoint
the
calculation is perfectly valid, when applied to this problem the result is
meaningless and would, to the statistician, indicate some sort of error in
either the way the sampling was done or in the compilation of the data.
That
result would be thrown out.

Remember the starting premise. He said that being around second hand
smoke
increases the likelihood of getting cancer by 14%.

Perfectly valid statement to make, both mathematically and statistically.
(making no judgment on whether it is in fact true)


No it's not. Because he didn't establish verbally (or in writing) whether
the 14% increase was against the 2% base case cancer rate or against the
100% total population base. He left it open to interpretation - NOT GOOD.

As an educated person, he should have been more clear.

Hopefully he designs his student's tests more clearly than that.

--Tom

"Gregory C. Read" wrote in message
...
Tom,

Again, he did NOT write 14% by itself. He said an INCREASE of 14%. It does
NOT mean 14% of the POPULATION. It means 14% MORE than get it NOW.

You're not explaining it any more clearly than he did. Did the 14% increase
change the number from 2% up to 16% or did it change it from 2% to 2.3%?
That can't be clearly interpreted from your sentence. Or from Howie's
sentence.

If it went from 2% up to 16%, isn't that a 14% increase? Against the 100%
total base it is. Against the 2% cancer base it isn't.

The origainal statement lacks clarity.

And you
can't just arbitrarily say what about a base of 0 and how do you increase
it
by 14%. You can't increase 0 by 14% anymore than you can take 14% of the
one
and only person who lives with a smoker in any particular home, as you
want
to interpret it.

He didn't clearly write if the 14% rate was against the 2% base or against
the 100% total population.

When you deal with percentage changes over a percent of population you need
to be clear as far as what you describe. He wasn't.

If your salary is INCREASED by 14% do you get 14% of all the company funds
added to your present salary? NO. You get 14% MORE than you got before.



If I got a 7% raise in January and an additional 10% increase in July, did I
get 17% or did I get 7.7% for that year?

I would of course hope that I'm getting a 17% raise. But that's not how you
and How are interpreting his sentence.

You have to be specific how you state percent changes.

--Tom

Tom & Linda wrote:

"In a population with a base case cancer rate of 2%, living with a smoker
would increase the cancer rate to 2.3%." This is how a scientist or
engineer would say it, in order to be very clear. Instead you made a
moronic statement about a 14% increase, which leaves things open to
interpretation - as to whether that's against the 100% total or the 2% base
for cancer.

For the record only, the way I stated it is exactly the way it is stated
in all that anti-smoking dribble that you and many others misinterpret
in your own incorrect and moronic way.

Howie - who thinks teaching is both real and important work, and wishes
Tom would have learned more when he was in school.

Tom & Linda wrote:

"Cruzinsure" wrote in message
...

And what if the base percent was 90%. How much is 14% on top of that?

Then

what number do you get? Then it's like 13% if you do it your way.

Don't confuse pure math with the application of math to statistical

analysis.

Having 2.3 kids in a family is perfectly valid from a math point of view

but if

you sample 10,000 families you probably will never find that exact

situation.

Statistics has a framework of rules and conventions that restrict what is

and

is not possible in its context, no matter what is possible with pure math.
Let's look at your example above:

You're right,


Thank you.


restricting yourself to looking at this from a pure math point of
view the answer would be 103%. But looking at it from a statistics

viewpoint

you've run into a logical fallacy. How can you have a sample that's 103%

of a

given population? You can't. So even though from a pure math standpoint

the

calculation is perfectly valid, when applied to this problem the result is
meaningless and would, to the statistician, indicate some sort of error in
either the way the sampling was done or in the compilation of the data.

That

result would be thrown out.

Remember the starting premise. He said that being around second hand

smoke

increases the likelihood of getting cancer by 14%.

Perfectly valid statement to make, both mathematically and statistically.
(making no judgment on whether it is in fact true)



No it's not. Because he didn't establish verbally (or in writing) whether
the 14% increase was against the 2% base case cancer rate or against the
100% total population base. He left it open to interpretation - NOT GOOD.

As an educated person, he should have been more clear.

Hopefully he designs his student's tests more clearly than that.

--Tom

Guess you couldn't pass my classes, Tom. Lucky you never took a course
with me when you attended Upsala.

Howie

"Cruzinsure" wrote in message
...


In my town 50% of the residents suffer from hay fever. But I'm going to
win the
Nobel Prize because I just discovered a nose spray that will decrease the
incidence of hay fever by 80%! That's huge! I'm going to be rich.

If you get rich... could you pay to get Howie a math tutor?

--Tom

"Howie" wrote in message
...
Tom & Linda wrote:

"In a population with a base case cancer rate of 2%, living with a
smoker
would increase the cancer rate to 2.3%." This is how a scientist or
engineer would say it, in order to be very clear. Instead you made a
moronic statement about a 14% increase, which leaves things open to
interpretation - as to whether that's against the 100% total or the 2%
base
for cancer.

For the record only, the way I stated it is exactly the way it is stated
in all that anti-smoking dribble that you and many others misinterpret
in your own incorrect and moronic way.

Howie - who thinks teaching is both real and important work, and wishes
Tom would have learned more when he was in school.


Oh, lord... I'm having fun with this...

--Tom

"Howie" wrote in message
...


Guess you couldn't pass my classes, Tom. Lucky you never took a course
with me when you attended Upsala.

Howie


I knew enough to stay in the building with the scientists... and not wander
over to the building with the psycho (or is that psych?) guys...

--Tom

In article , "Tom & Linda"
wrote:

If it went from 2% up to 16%, isn't that a 14% increase? Against the 100%
total base it is.
If it was rate (and I lost track) it would be an 800% increase. So you have
2 people gettting sick versus 16 people getting sick (for a group of 100).

Against the 2% cancer base it isn't.

The origainal statement lacks clarity.


If I got a 7% raise in January and an additional 10% increase in July, did I
get 17% or did I get 7.7% for that year?

Technically for the year, it would be neither. Say you have a base salary of
$100 a month (1200 a year to keep the math easy ) on 12-31. On 1-1 that goes
to $107 a month and on 7-1 it goes to $117.70 for the rest of the year. Thus
you made $1348.62 over the year or about 12% since it was a blend of the two.
This is also a little of a tutorial on the good things that happen through
compounding interest (g).

I would of course hope that I'm getting a 17% raise. But that's not how you
and How are interpreting his sentence.
Because that ain't your raise on an annualized basis.


You have to be specific how you state percent changes.

Fer sure.

--
"Annual Reports: Like Parent's Day at camp. Everything is made
to look as appealing as possible, but the counselors know different."
-Andrew Tobias in Money Angles

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , "Tom & Linda"
wrote:


If it went from 2% up to 16%, isn't that a 14% increase? Against the 100%
total base it is.

If it was rate (and I lost track) it would be an 800% increase. So you have
2 people gettting sick versus 16 people getting sick (for a group of 100).

Against the 2% cancer base it isn't.

The origainal statement lacks clarity.



If I got a 7% raise in January and an additional 10% increase in July, did I
get 17% or did I get 7.7% for that year?


Technically for the year, it would be neither. Say you have a base salary of
$100 a month (1200 a year to keep the math easy ) on 12-31. On 1-1 that goes
to $107 a month and on 7-1 it goes to $117.70 for the rest of the year. Thus
you made $1348.62 over the year or about 12% since it was a blend of the two.
This is also a little of a tutorial on the good things that happen through
compounding interest (g).


I would of course hope that I'm getting a 17% raise. But that's not how you
and How are interpreting his sentence.

Because that ain't your raise on an annualized basis.


You have to be specific how you state percent changes.


Fer sure.


Tom's a hoot. His lack of skill in this arena, coupled with these
endless posts, has to break an all-time record for usenet stupidity.

Howie

In article ,
wrote:

chip3130... Just out of curiousity, do you avoid campfires? ...Jon

I don't know about Chip but I try to avoid campfires at all costs.
Nothing to do with the smoke though!!!

Second Hand smoke. I prefer not to be around it. If there is a choice I
am in the non smoking area. If there are people in a smoking area I
want to socialize with, or music I want to listen too, then I will
choose to be in that area. My priority is not the smoke. While I am
positive the second hand smoke is effecting me unseen, and I should not
be in a smoking area, I will only leave a smoking area if it is or
becomes physically irritating, that I can feel it, which happens
sometimes in poorly ventilated areas. I don't tell people I am leaving
because of the smoke, just that I am tired.

Since I don't live with a smoker and the times that I am in a smoking
area these days are few, I think the harm to me is statistically small.
But there is harm. I make some compromises because it is not a perfect
world, and I don't expect there will be a perfect world in my lifetime.


I do think the norm should be no smoking in any public place, and that
includes not only the inside public areas of cruise ships, but also the
outside decks, but until that time comes, which I believe it will come.
That has been the trend in my lifetime, I remember when smoking was
allowed everywhere except theaters, and the trend toward smoke-free
won't be reversed.

--
Charles