Re: Two Types of Distributions Found In Nature



The main point of the OP was that there was only one distribution in Nature where median was a valid useful meaningful parameter but not ave. mean.

A large majority got his point.
Bret Cahill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which the OP has so far steadfastly refused to reveal. The only distribution from Nature that has been discussed in this thread so far is rainfall frequency, which the OP rejected as not the one that he had in mind.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not omniscient. Indeed I'm a very humble dialectician.

No one ever made a case supporting the vague notion that median was somehoe more important that ave. mean in the predicting rainfall distribution.
Bret Cahill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No one expects that. But it would be ideal if you knew what you were talking about when you claimed the existence of such a distribution. If you don't know what that one distribution is, what is your evidence that there is such a distribution.

Your humility in that regard is well founded.

Or, more accurately, no one has ever made such a case that you understood and accepted.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But everyone expects you to stick to the issue, namely, what distributions in Nature have an average mean which ain't important and a median that _is_ important.
So far, the only distribution with that unique status is income distribution.
Bret Cahill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. To have that status, income distribution would have to be an element of Nature, which it isn't--it is purely a man-made phenomenon--and the mean would have to be unimportant rather than just uninteresting. Why do you think that the mean is unimportant?
BTW, I thought of one other type of distribution, actually in Nature, for which people almost always refer to the median instead of the mean (although in this instance, they have exactly the same informational content). One almost always talks of the median time for atoms of a radioactive isotope to exist before they decay. The mean (which is 1/ln(2) times as long) is almost never mentioned.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You never answered it in the other thread.

You claim that there is no energy crisis because we will develop new technologies. You also claim that the development of new technologies is driven by free markets and private enterprise. The second claim is not borne out by the facts. Private investors do not like blue sky research.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What's not borne out by the facts? That private industry will develop new technologies - even speculative ones? If you think it won't than you are seriously ignorant of business history over the last 100-200 yrs.
Fred Weiss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Private industry is not investing in fusion
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So?
Should it be?
I mean, you gotta make a case here, Izzy.
Private industry had no trouble investing in the steam engine, in railroads, in electricity, in aviation, in radio, in television, etc. etc.
Fred Weiss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred Weiss wrote:

They won't until oil costs enough to make the speculation interesting.
In truth, the track record of people trying to replace oil has been abysmal - but cheap oil has made it a foolish thing.
IMO, we have to go back to the Standard Oil era for the example - rock oil was, in the hands of end consumers, 1/4 the cost of whale oil.
-- Les Cargill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Note Rob styles himself to be a self taught economist and an independent researcher.

Rob has no clue here because he doesn't do much mainstream reading. Translation is most economist have no interest in what Rob tries to do. Rob didn't realize that mainstream economics can not predict if employment will rise or fall in the long run after wages rises so he tried to claim a model where capital allocation was a choice variable was short run after the mainstream result was pointed out to him. When the paper was published the abstract said nothing about overturning the result just that labor demand could predict employment or another method but they both couldn't be used in conjuction. Rob has a tough time admitting he is wrong which is often.
Here is the abstract
On Labour Demand and Equilibria of the Firm
ROBERT L. VIENNEAU Independent Manchester School, Vol. 73, No. 5, pp. 612-619, September 2005
Abstract: This note considers a linear programming formulation of the problem of the firm. A neoclassical non-increasing labour demand function is derived from the solution of the linear program. Only a set of measure zero on this function, one or two points in the examples examined, provides equilibria of the representative firm. Equilibria of the representative firm are characterized by decisions of its managers that allow the same decisions to be made in successive periods. Hence, one can explain the quantity of labour that firms desire to hire either by a traditional neoclassical labour demand function or by equilibria of the firm, but generally not both.
Rob claims he shows the long run mainstream idea of substitution between capital and labor to be false in this paper yet, he clearly says "Hence, one can explain the quantity of labour that firms desire to hire either by a traditional neoclassical labour demand function or by equilibria of the firm, but generally not both."
So Rob if you prove the traditional neoclassical labor demand function wrong why do you conclude that it can be used to determine who many people a firm will want to hire?
Rob is a liar.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.