It seems you are not actually reading my posts ...
I conceded several times it IS a valid way to approach to problem and only added it for the math to work it must be clear there is a dependence.
Are suggesting wind and rain are ALWAYS dependent? I contend not.
How about this:
There...
Oh yes I have studied a little linear algebra, not as a formal class but have been introduced to it.I do not recall having to change the English language to make it valid...
And so it continues...in place of factual proofs it is simply a war of words.
The mere fact some of you can not concede the rest of the world has a very different definition and point of view for independence is quite humorous.
Thanks to some of you I now have a better grasp on how to...
I know EXACTLY what independent means. You forgot, as did my instruction, to say "you do not understand what independence means in the context of statistics." THAT would be a valid statement. without that clarification you could not be more wrong... See what I mean..
Independent:
1. not...
OK here is is verbatim:
"You take a quiz with 6 multiple choice questions. You surmise that you have an 80% chance of getting any individual question correct. In your own words, explain how you could create a simulation in which all 6 multiple choice questions are answered correctly."
My...
EXACTLY!
I get what you are saying but I could easily illustrate weather scenarios where at anyone point the wind and rain are clearly independent, from 2 separate weather fronts.
It is interesting how one could be so dead wrong basing an assumption on phenomena they have experienced...
In fact I apologize right now...I'm being a jerk and I'm sorry. I should be using more careful words to express my misgivings on the subject. I am still unconvinced of much of it's usefulness as I have had to work through numerous difficult problems and get abstract results and on top of that...
Not really...
I'm just waiting for the proof. So far it has been so much hot air and I contend it because it is puzzles and games. If it IS true math and science prove it with numbers not silly arguments.
Stats is a limited tool. There is not one problem I have had to solve this semester...
A "crazy leap of faith with "wind and rain must be independent!"" You're killing me!
See you are arguing with semantics instead of proving a point with math...because clearly you can not. It is puzzles that change according to input. Not just the result changes but reality has to be either...
I'm sorry but this drives my point home dramatically.
The problem was simple; probability of wind if rain... If stats is mathematics/science it must be grounded in reality and if one must make a leap that wind and rain are dependent to solve the problem... well that takes it out of the...
It's windy here right now and not a cloud in the sky. Rained the other day and no wind, rained last week lots of wind...If "dependent" the definition of "not independent" there would be a correlation and there is not.
In stats terms: R^2 = 0
W