RE: math question verrrrrry off topic
Well, I am OT again. If it gets too much, just let me know. I don't know, somehow as I grow older, I seem to like things on the lighter side. Tonight I went to a meeting. I worked with university students a lot. Tonight I chatted to a young sophomore. He is really a smart guy. During the chat, I asked him how early did he have to go to school (because it is cold here in MI in the morning). He said it doesn't matter because he skipped most of his classes (he is an engineering student. Engineering subjects are more standardized and "fixed" especially for freshmen/sophomores so you can learn them yourself from textbook and homeworks). Then he said, "for my 1st and 3rd semester I skipped almost all the classes, and I got a GPA of 3.9. The 2nd semester I attended almost all of my classes, and I got a GPA of 3.6; so my conclusion is it is better to skip classes." Talk about making conclusion from statistical data, huh? :-) Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 9:49 PM > To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca > Subject: Re: math question verrrrrry off topic > > :--) > > > On Jan 18, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Diana Bloomfield wrote: > > > Hey Katharine, > > > > I don't know-- maybe. I honestly didn't read the other answers. :) > > > > > > On Jan 18, 2008, at 8:43 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote: > > > > > >> Hmm, I thought that's what we all already have said, isn't it? > >> That that theoretical probability (1/4x1/4x1/4) would hold only if > >> assumptions were met, and since assumptions are obviously not met > >> (for example, judging is not a random lottery of course > but is done > >> on the basis of criteria, arbitrary or otherwise but certainly not > >> random). Also, no one has said whether the 600 entries > are 600 works > >> or 600 people; I was assuming that they are 600 works representing > >> fewer than 600 people, in other words people could submit > more than > >> one work, in which case, as I said, the number of works > submitted per > >> person would also have to be figured into the equation somehow. > >> Besides, if one person submits ten pieces and another > person submits > >> one, the ten pieces by the one person couldn't be considered > >> independent entries in the same way one of those ten could be > >> considered independent of the one from the other person, and > >> independence is also an assumption that must be met in order to > >> consider the probability of acceptance to be the same for all > >> entries. > >> Katharine > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Diana Bloomfield wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Okay, Chris. Here is it-- straight from my resident statistician > >>> here: > >>> > >>> If they were the only 3 people from that institution who applied, > >>> AND if judging was completely random, then the > probability of this > >>> is roughly 1 in 64 (key word: roughly). If more than > that applied > >>> from this same institution, and only 3 got in, then the > calculation > >>> will be more complex. > >>> > >>> Hope that helps. :) > >>> On Jan 17, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Christina Z. Anderson wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Where else but this list can I ask these weird questions about > >>>> chemistry and math and computers and alt??? > >>>> > >>>> OK for you math people (Yves?): If there is a show and 600 > >>>> entries, and 150 are accepted, there is a 1 in 4 chance of > >>>> acceptance. If 3 people from the same institution are accepted > >>>> what percent chance is that--is it 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4 or a > 1.5% chance > >>>> or is it a more complex formula? > >>>> > >>>> Forgive the off topic request but it does relate to > photo as 3 of > >>>> our program got into a photo show and I want to be able to > >>>> mathematically brag about it to the dept. head/dean. > >>>> Chris > >>>> > >>>> Christina Z. Anderson > >>>> Assistant Professor > >>>> Photo Option Coordinator > >>>> Montana State University > >>>> CZAphotography.com > >>>> _______________ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > >
|