Xoj said:
Kasz216 said:
Xoj said:
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
The question totally misses the point in general.
In a statistical tie, the numbers ARE equal. One number isn't higher then the other. 1.31 and 1.36 are the same number.
It'd be like asking whish number is higher
.99999~ or 1
.9999999~ = 1 despite the fact that 1 looks higher.
They're the same number... period.
Numbers given with a margin of error aren't "real" numbers. They're the middle point expression of a possible range of numbers.
To say statistical ties don't matter is basically to say what NPD does is meaningless since you are disregarding the foundation on which said numbers are built.
It would be like saying you don't think the basic laws of physics are important but then taking physisits findings serious. It's incongruent with logic.
|
Uh, no. "Statistical tie" is the more generally used equivalent of a "statisitically insignificant difference" (the statistics term). The numbers are not necessarily equal. Rather, their ranges overlap. In statistics, the probability that the number you got is actually the exact correct value is infinitesimally small. Ranges are much more valuable, as they can represent a set of values that there is a 90%, 95%, 97%, etc. chance that the real value is in. Now, if we assume there is a + or - 5% margin of error with 95% confidence, a difference of 3.84% is very small. It's a fact that there is a statistically insignificant difference, and while it's true that it's more likely that the PS3 won, the chance that the X360 won isn't that small. It'd take some integration to figure out the exact value without the data, but it's probably somewhere between 20-35%.
|
The numbers are equal for all intensive purposes. Since you have no clue who the "winner" is. They would be considered equal in any study that produced them because no meaningful conclusion could be drawn from them.
Furthermore, NPD isn't the only numbers we have... we also have Vgchartz numbers which have 360 ahead of PS3... which further "pulls down" the probability of the PS3 beating the 360.
To say won beat the other is to disregard the process which built the numbers... meaning the numbers themselves are meaningless.
One can not logically state the PS3 beat the 360. (or vice versa for that matter.)
|
but u made your bet with VGC number or NPD?
it's NPD ps3 sold more.
|
I didn't make a bet with anybody. What are you talking about?
|
you used as someone made the bet, tahts why i underline that part of what u said
|
I... don't understand what your saying here.
I'll try and guess though. If you made a bet based on NPD which console sold more... it would still be a tie.
A statistical tie is a tie. To disregard that would be disregarding the foundation opon which the numbers were built.
All numbers from such a process inherently have a ~ or aproximation sign in front of them. Meaning one number really isn't higher then the other in a statistical tie.
What it really means is that "The PS3 has a higher chance of being higher then the 360."
However, also when taken with the VGchartz numbers... that makes the statistical refining even more murky to where you probably can't even say the PS3 has a higher chance.
To forsake the ~ and that it's an approximation built on the laws of statsitics of which the statistical tie is part of... is to forsake the entire report.
It's not really a point of opinion but a point of fact.
Just how an atheist can't claim divine intervention or a creationist can't claim something is a wonder of evolution.
To not think statistical ties matter and to take these numbers as meaning anything is a totally incongruent position.
