The urn model

In article ,
"Kerry Montgomery" wrote:

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mark J." wrote:

On 8/20/2011 3:36 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[much calculation snipped]
So the probability that most states define
a bicycle as a vehicle is 0.015.

There's an intuitive problem with phrasing your conclusion this way:
While your /sample/ results - the 17 states surveyed - are subject to
probability (assuming you really did pick the sampled state randomly),
the statement about "most states" is /not/ a matter of probability.
Either most states do or most states don't.

Since you did not quote my message in toto and discuss
the technical points on their merits, I infer that you
are not serious about discussing this---rather you want
to pick at it by way of philosophy. Let's make this
easy. I bet you $500 USA dollars that most states do
not define `vehicle' to include bicycles.

Since I am feeling charitable today (one time offer) I
will address your philosophy. Probability is the
science of making decisions from imperfect knowledge.
As long as you think of a probability for some event
existing in an ideal realm, you will go in circles.
Suppose I had stopped at 10 states as originally
planned. Then the probability works out to 0.0158193.
If I had stopped at 11 states Pr = 0.0409136. It is our
state of knowledge that we use to work out a
probability. (I stopped at 17 because I ran out of time.)


Reshuffle the "deck" of states, sample 17 as you did, and chances are
good you'll get a slightly different answer. But no amount of
reshuffling will change the percentage of states that define a bicycle
as a vehicle - it's not subject to probability.

So what?

Bayesian probabilists, I am told,

Then you do not know what you are talking about,
but rather are repeating an anonymous source.

would not have any problem with this
point, which is why I suspect the Bayesian point of view is not widely
held.

This is not a popularity contest.

Bayes' formula (which you used) make more sense to non-Bayesians
in situations for which both items are subject to probability, e.g.
"What's the probability that a randomly selected doping cyclist tests
positive" vs. "what's the probability that a randomly selected cyclist
who has tested positive is indeed doping."

Yes, I know how to do that.

All that said, if indeed 50% of states defined a bicycle as a vehicle, I
compute about a 2% chance of getting a random sample of 17 states with
only 5 that "do". Again, this relies on the sample being random. If
there are indeed 12 states that "don't", I could "pick" a sample that
fits yours with 100% probability.

Your sample /is/ surprising to me; I seem to remember a press release
some 20 years ago that /all/ 50 states defined a bicycle as a vehicle,
at that time a recent development. Was I misremembering, or has there
been backtracking by states?

Look up the state vehicle codes. Start with the first state
in my list that has not been researched, namely Tennessee.

Michael Press,
I'd like to get a piece of this action - or all $500 for that matter. I
believe that most states DO define bicycles as vehicles. Can't find the
beginning of this thread; which 17 states were in your sample, and which
ones didn't define bicycles as vehicles?
Thanks,
Kerry

You are on.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
"Kerry Montgomery" wrote:

"Kerry Montgomery" wrote in message
m...

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mark J." wrote:

On 8/20/2011 3:36 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[much calculation snipped]
So the probability that most states define
a bicycle as a vehicle is 0.015.

There's an intuitive problem with phrasing your conclusion this way:
While your /sample/ results - the 17 states surveyed - are subject to
probability (assuming you really did pick the sampled state randomly),
the statement about "most states" is /not/ a matter of probability.
Either most states do or most states don't.

Since you did not quote my message in toto and discuss
the technical points on their merits, I infer that you
are not serious about discussing this---rather you want
to pick at it by way of philosophy. Let's make this
easy. I bet you $500 USA dollars that most states do
not define `vehicle' to include bicycles.

Since I am feeling charitable today (one time offer) I
will address your philosophy. Probability is the
science of making decisions from imperfect knowledge.
As long as you think of a probability for some event
existing in an ideal realm, you will go in circles.
Suppose I had stopped at 10 states as originally
planned. Then the probability works out to 0.0158193.
If I had stopped at 11 states Pr = 0.0409136. It is our
state of knowledge that we use to work out a
probability. (I stopped at 17 because I ran out of time.)


Reshuffle the "deck" of states, sample 17 as you did, and chances are
good you'll get a slightly different answer. But no amount of
reshuffling will change the percentage of states that define a bicycle
as a vehicle - it's not subject to probability.

So what?

Bayesian probabilists, I am told,

Then you do not know what you are talking about,
but rather are repeating an anonymous source.

would not have any problem with this
point, which is why I suspect the Bayesian point of view is not widely
held.

This is not a popularity contest.

Bayes' formula (which you used) make more sense to non-Bayesians
in situations for which both items are subject to probability, e.g.
"What's the probability that a randomly selected doping cyclist tests
positive" vs. "what's the probability that a randomly selected cyclist
who has tested positive is indeed doping."

Yes, I know how to do that.

All that said, if indeed 50% of states defined a bicycle as a vehicle, I
compute about a 2% chance of getting a random sample of 17 states with
only 5 that "do". Again, this relies on the sample being random. If
there are indeed 12 states that "don't", I could "pick" a sample that
fits yours with 100% probability.

Your sample /is/ surprising to me; I seem to remember a press release
some 20 years ago that /all/ 50 states defined a bicycle as a vehicle,
at that time a recent development. Was I misremembering, or has there
been backtracking by states?

Look up the state vehicle codes. Start with the first state
in my list that has not been researched, namely Tennessee.

Michael Press,
I'd like to get a piece of this action - or all $500 for that matter. I
believe that most states DO define bicycles as vehicles. Can't find the
beginning of this thread; which 17 states were in your sample, and which
ones didn't define bicycles as vehicles?
Thanks,

Michael Press,
Did a little more searching; found the beginning of the thread, and the list
of 17 states. 6 of the states that you think DON'T define bicycles as
vehicles (Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, New Mexico) I think DO
define bicycles as vehicles. And one that you DO think defines bicycles as
vehicles (Louisiana) I think DOESN'T. From my count, 10 of your sample of 17
do, which will, I think, change the calculated probability that 50% (or more
than 50%) of the states do.
Kerry

This cannot be settled through belief.
It can be settled. The state vehicle
codes are definitive.

--
Michael Press

On Aug 23, 6:47*pm, "Kerry Montgomery" wrote:
"Kerry Montgomery" wrote in message

m...





"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mark J." wrote:

On 8/20/2011 3:36 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[much calculation snipped]
So the probability that most states define
a bicycle as a vehicle is 0.015.

There's an intuitive problem with phrasing your conclusion this way:
While your /sample/ results - the 17 states surveyed - are subject to
probability (assuming you really did pick the sampled state randomly),
the statement about "most states" is /not/ a matter of probability.
Either most states do or most states don't.

Since you did not quote my message in toto and discuss
the technical points on their merits, I infer that you
are not serious about discussing this---rather you want
to pick at it by way of philosophy. Let's make this
easy. I bet you $500 USA dollars that most states do
not define `vehicle' to include bicycles.

Since I am feeling charitable today (one time offer) I
will address your philosophy. Probability is the
science of making decisions from imperfect knowledge.
As long as you think of a probability for some event
existing in an ideal realm, you will go in circles.
Suppose I had stopped at 10 states as originally
planned. Then the probability works out to 0.0158193.
If I had stopped at 11 states Pr = 0.0409136. It is our
state of knowledge that we use to work out a
probability. (I stopped at 17 because I ran out of time.)

Reshuffle the "deck" of states, sample 17 as you did, and chances are
good you'll get a slightly different answer. *But no amount of
reshuffling will change the percentage of states that define a bicycle
as a vehicle - it's not subject to probability.

So what?

Bayesian probabilists, I am told,

Then you do not know what you are talking about,
but rather are repeating an anonymous source.

would not have any problem with this
point, which is why I suspect the Bayesian point of view is not widely
held.

This is not a popularity contest.

Bayes' formula (which you used) make more sense to non-Bayesians
in situations for which both items are subject to probability, e.g.
"What's the probability that a randomly selected doping cyclist tests
positive" vs. "what's the probability that a randomly selected cyclist
who has tested positive is indeed doping."

Yes, I know how to do that.

All that said, if indeed 50% of states defined a bicycle as a vehicle, I
compute about a 2% chance of getting a random sample of 17 states with
only 5 that "do". *Again, this relies on the sample being random. *If
there are indeed 12 states that "don't", I could "pick" a sample that
fits yours with 100% probability.

Your sample /is/ surprising to me; I seem to remember a press release
some 20 years ago that /all/ 50 states defined a bicycle as a vehicle,
at that time a recent development. *Was I misremembering, or has there
been backtracking by states?

Look up the state vehicle codes. Start with the first state
in my list that has not been researched, namely Tennessee.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press,
I'd like to get a piece of this action - or all $500 for that matter. I
believe that most states DO define bicycles as vehicles. Can't find the
beginning of this thread; which 17 states were in your sample, and which
ones didn't define bicycles as vehicles?
Thanks,
Kerry

Michael Press,
Did a little more searching; found the beginning of the thread, and the list
of 17 states. 6 of the states that you think DON'T define bicycles as
vehicles (Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, New Mexico) I think DO
define bicycles as vehicles. And one that you DO think defines bicycles as
vehicles (Louisiana) I think DOESN'T. From my count, 10 of your sample of 17
do, which will, I think, change the calculated probability that 50% (or more
than 50%) of the states do.
Kerry

I have no dog in this fight but I have a data point.
Colorado Revised Statutes 42-1-102. -Definitions.

(112) "Vehicle" means a device that is capable of moving itself, or of
being moved, from place to place upon wheels or endless tracks.
"Vehicle" includes, without limitation, a bicycle, electrical assisted
bicycle, or EPAMD, but does not include a wheelchair, off-highway
vehicle, snowmobile, farm tractor, or implement of husbandry designed
primarily or exclusively for use and used in agricultural operations
or any device moved exclusively over stationary rails or tracks or
designed to move primarily through the air.

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext...templates&2.0#

If "The marble is white if the code defines a bicycle to be a
vehicle, black otherwise," the Colorado marble is quite light in
color

DR

On Aug 23, 7:52*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
*"Kerry Montgomery" wrote:





"Kerry Montgomery" wrote in message
om...

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mark J." wrote:

On 8/20/2011 3:36 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[much calculation snipped]
So the probability that most states define
a bicycle as a vehicle is 0.015.

There's an intuitive problem with phrasing your conclusion this way:
While your /sample/ results - the 17 states surveyed - are subject to
probability (assuming you really did pick the sampled state randomly),
the statement about "most states" is /not/ a matter of probability.
Either most states do or most states don't.

Since you did not quote my message in toto and discuss
the technical points on their merits, I infer that you
are not serious about discussing this---rather you want
to pick at it by way of philosophy. Let's make this
easy. I bet you $500 USA dollars that most states do
not define `vehicle' to include bicycles.

Since I am feeling charitable today (one time offer) I
will address your philosophy. Probability is the
science of making decisions from imperfect knowledge.
As long as you think of a probability for some event
existing in an ideal realm, you will go in circles.
Suppose I had stopped at 10 states as originally
planned. Then the probability works out to 0.0158193.
If I had stopped at 11 states Pr = 0.0409136. It is our
state of knowledge that we use to work out a
probability. (I stopped at 17 because I ran out of time.)

Reshuffle the "deck" of states, sample 17 as you did, and chances are
good you'll get a slightly different answer. *But no amount of
reshuffling will change the percentage of states that define a bicycle
as a vehicle - it's not subject to probability.

So what?

Bayesian probabilists, I am told,

Then you do not know what you are talking about,
but rather are repeating an anonymous source.

would not have any problem with this
point, which is why I suspect the Bayesian point of view is not widely
held.

This is not a popularity contest.

Bayes' formula (which you used) make more sense to non-Bayesians
in situations for which both items are subject to probability, e.g.
"What's the probability that a randomly selected doping cyclist tests
positive" vs. "what's the probability that a randomly selected cyclist
who has tested positive is indeed doping."

Yes, I know how to do that.

All that said, if indeed 50% of states defined a bicycle as a vehicle, I
compute about a 2% chance of getting a random sample of 17 states with
only 5 that "do". *Again, this relies on the sample being random. *If
there are indeed 12 states that "don't", I could "pick" a sample that
fits yours with 100% probability.

Your sample /is/ surprising to me; I seem to remember a press release
some 20 years ago that /all/ 50 states defined a bicycle as a vehicle,
at that time a recent development. *Was I misremembering, or has there
been backtracking by states?

Look up the state vehicle codes. Start with the first state
in my list that has not been researched, namely Tennessee.

Michael Press,
I'd like to get a piece of this action - or all $500 for that matter. I
believe that most states DO define bicycles as vehicles. Can't find the
beginning of this thread; which 17 states were in your sample, and which
ones didn't define bicycles as vehicles?
Thanks,

Michael Press,
Did a little more searching; found the beginning of the thread, and the list
of 17 states. 6 of the states that you think DON'T define bicycles as
vehicles (Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, New Mexico) I think DO
define bicycles as vehicles. And one that you DO think defines bicycles as
vehicles (Louisiana) I think DOESN'T. From my count, 10 of your sample of 17
do, which will, I think, change the calculated probability that 50% (or more
than 50%) of the states do.
Kerry

This cannot be settled through belief.
It can be settled. The state vehicle
codes are definitive.

Which is why it seems silly to conduct any sort of statistical mumbo
jumbo when the entire "population" can be readily (if tediously)
reviewed.
Geeze, leave the voodoo to Frank. Misunderstanding, misinterpretation
and misdirection are HIS specialty.
DR

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kerry Montgomery" wrote:

"Kerry Montgomery" wrote in message
m...

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mark J." wrote:

On 8/20/2011 3:36 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[much calculation snipped]
So the probability that most states define
a bicycle as a vehicle is 0.015.

There's an intuitive problem with phrasing your conclusion this way:
While your /sample/ results - the 17 states surveyed - are subject to
probability (assuming you really did pick the sampled state
randomly),
the statement about "most states" is /not/ a matter of probability.
Either most states do or most states don't.

Since you did not quote my message in toto and discuss
the technical points on their merits, I infer that you
are not serious about discussing this---rather you want
to pick at it by way of philosophy. Let's make this
easy. I bet you $500 USA dollars that most states do
not define `vehicle' to include bicycles.

Since I am feeling charitable today (one time offer) I
will address your philosophy. Probability is the
science of making decisions from imperfect knowledge.
As long as you think of a probability for some event
existing in an ideal realm, you will go in circles.
Suppose I had stopped at 10 states as originally
planned. Then the probability works out to 0.0158193.
If I had stopped at 11 states Pr = 0.0409136. It is our
state of knowledge that we use to work out a
probability. (I stopped at 17 because I ran out of time.)


Reshuffle the "deck" of states, sample 17 as you did, and chances are
good you'll get a slightly different answer. But no amount of
reshuffling will change the percentage of states that define a
bicycle
as a vehicle - it's not subject to probability.

So what?

Bayesian probabilists, I am told,

Then you do not know what you are talking about,
but rather are repeating an anonymous source.

would not have any problem with this
point, which is why I suspect the Bayesian point of view is not
widely
held.

This is not a popularity contest.

Bayes' formula (which you used) make more sense to non-Bayesians
in situations for which both items are subject to probability, e.g.
"What's the probability that a randomly selected doping cyclist tests
positive" vs. "what's the probability that a randomly selected
cyclist
who has tested positive is indeed doping."

Yes, I know how to do that.

All that said, if indeed 50% of states defined a bicycle as a
vehicle, I
compute about a 2% chance of getting a random sample of 17 states
with
only 5 that "do". Again, this relies on the sample being random. If
there are indeed 12 states that "don't", I could "pick" a sample that
fits yours with 100% probability.

Your sample /is/ surprising to me; I seem to remember a press release
some 20 years ago that /all/ 50 states defined a bicycle as a
vehicle,
at that time a recent development. Was I misremembering, or has
there
been backtracking by states?

Look up the state vehicle codes. Start with the first state
in my list that has not been researched, namely Tennessee.

Michael Press,
I'd like to get a piece of this action - or all $500 for that matter. I
believe that most states DO define bicycles as vehicles. Can't find the
beginning of this thread; which 17 states were in your sample, and
which
ones didn't define bicycles as vehicles?
Thanks,

Michael Press,
Did a little more searching; found the beginning of the thread, and the
list
of 17 states. 6 of the states that you think DON'T define bicycles as
vehicles (Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, New Mexico) I think
DO
define bicycles as vehicles. And one that you DO think defines bicycles
as
vehicles (Louisiana) I think DOESN'T. From my count, 10 of your sample of
17
do, which will, I think, change the calculated probability that 50% (or
more
than 50%) of the states do.
Kerry

This cannot be settled through belief.
It can be settled. The state vehicle
codes are definitive.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press,
Some definitive links for you:
Alabama:
http://law.onecle.com/alabama/motor-...32-5A-281.html
Colorado:
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext...main-h.htm&cp=
Hawaii:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur...0291C-0001.htm
Kansas:
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/stat...74_032_0009_k/
Maine:
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legi...-Asec2322.html
New Mexico:
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpe...-hit-h.htm&2.0
You definitely owe me $500.
Kerry

In article
,
DirtRoadie wrote:

On Aug 23, 7:52Â*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Â*"Kerry Montgomery" wrote:





"Kerry Montgomery" wrote in message
om...

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mark J." wrote:

On 8/20/2011 3:36 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[much calculation snipped]
So the probability that most states define
a bicycle as a vehicle is 0.015.

There's an intuitive problem with phrasing your conclusion this way:
While your /sample/ results - the 17 states surveyed - are subject to
probability (assuming you really did pick the sampled state randomly),
the statement about "most states" is /not/ a matter of probability.
Either most states do or most states don't.

Since you did not quote my message in toto and discuss
the technical points on their merits, I infer that you
are not serious about discussing this---rather you want
to pick at it by way of philosophy. Let's make this
easy. I bet you $500 USA dollars that most states do
not define `vehicle' to include bicycles.

Since I am feeling charitable today (one time offer) I
will address your philosophy. Probability is the
science of making decisions from imperfect knowledge.
As long as you think of a probability for some event
existing in an ideal realm, you will go in circles.
Suppose I had stopped at 10 states as originally
planned. Then the probability works out to 0.0158193.
If I had stopped at 11 states Pr = 0.0409136. It is our
state of knowledge that we use to work out a
probability. (I stopped at 17 because I ran out of time.)

Reshuffle the "deck" of states, sample 17 as you did, and chances are
good you'll get a slightly different answer. Â*But no amount of
reshuffling will change the percentage of states that define a bicycle
as a vehicle - it's not subject to probability.

So what?

Bayesian probabilists, I am told,

Then you do not know what you are talking about,
but rather are repeating an anonymous source.

would not have any problem with this
point, which is why I suspect the Bayesian point of view is not widely
held.

This is not a popularity contest.

Bayes' formula (which you used) make more sense to non-Bayesians
in situations for which both items are subject to probability, e.g.
"What's the probability that a randomly selected doping cyclist tests
positive" vs. "what's the probability that a randomly selected cyclist
who has tested positive is indeed doping."

Yes, I know how to do that.

All that said, if indeed 50% of states defined a bicycle as a vehicle, I
compute about a 2% chance of getting a random sample of 17 states with
only 5 that "do". Â*Again, this relies on the sample being random. Â*If
there are indeed 12 states that "don't", I could "pick" a sample that
fits yours with 100% probability.

Your sample /is/ surprising to me; I seem to remember a press release
some 20 years ago that /all/ 50 states defined a bicycle as a vehicle,
at that time a recent development. Â*Was I misremembering, or has there
been backtracking by states?

Look up the state vehicle codes. Start with the first state
in my list that has not been researched, namely Tennessee.

Michael Press,
I'd like to get a piece of this action - or all $500 for that matter. I
believe that most states DO define bicycles as vehicles. Can't find the
beginning of this thread; which 17 states were in your sample, and which
ones didn't define bicycles as vehicles?
Thanks,

Michael Press,
Did a little more searching; found the beginning of the thread, and the list
of 17 states. 6 of the states that you think DON'T define bicycles as
vehicles (Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, New Mexico) I think DO
define bicycles as vehicles. And one that you DO think defines bicycles as
vehicles (Louisiana) I think DOESN'T. From my count, 10 of your sample of 17
do, which will, I think, change the calculated probability that 50% (or more
than 50%) of the states do.
Kerry

This cannot be settled through belief.
It can be settled. The state vehicle
codes are definitive.

Which is why it seems silly to conduct any sort of statistical mumbo
jumbo when the entire "population" can be readily (if tediously)
reviewed.
Geeze, leave the voodoo to Frank. Misunderstanding, misinterpretation
and misdirection are HIS specialty.

You have no idea what I am talking about.
That is okay. Implying that it is
"Misunderstanding, misinterpretation
and misdirection" is another matter.
You cannot fault the technical details.
Find somebody skilled in the art and
have their opinion on what I wrote.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
"Kerry Montgomery" wrote:

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kerry Montgomery" wrote:

"Kerry Montgomery" wrote in message
m...

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mark J." wrote:

On 8/20/2011 3:36 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[much calculation snipped]
So the probability that most states define
a bicycle as a vehicle is 0.015.

There's an intuitive problem with phrasing your conclusion this way:
While your /sample/ results - the 17 states surveyed - are subject to
probability (assuming you really did pick the sampled state
randomly),
the statement about "most states" is /not/ a matter of probability.
Either most states do or most states don't.

Since you did not quote my message in toto and discuss
the technical points on their merits, I infer that you
are not serious about discussing this---rather you want
to pick at it by way of philosophy. Let's make this
easy. I bet you $500 USA dollars that most states do
not define `vehicle' to include bicycles.

Since I am feeling charitable today (one time offer) I
will address your philosophy. Probability is the
science of making decisions from imperfect knowledge.
As long as you think of a probability for some event
existing in an ideal realm, you will go in circles.
Suppose I had stopped at 10 states as originally
planned. Then the probability works out to 0.0158193.
If I had stopped at 11 states Pr = 0.0409136. It is our
state of knowledge that we use to work out a
probability. (I stopped at 17 because I ran out of time.)


Reshuffle the "deck" of states, sample 17 as you did, and chances are
good you'll get a slightly different answer. But no amount of
reshuffling will change the percentage of states that define a
bicycle
as a vehicle - it's not subject to probability.

So what?

Bayesian probabilists, I am told,

Then you do not know what you are talking about,
but rather are repeating an anonymous source.

would not have any problem with this
point, which is why I suspect the Bayesian point of view is not
widely
held.

This is not a popularity contest.

Bayes' formula (which you used) make more sense to non-Bayesians
in situations for which both items are subject to probability, e.g.
"What's the probability that a randomly selected doping cyclist tests
positive" vs. "what's the probability that a randomly selected
cyclist
who has tested positive is indeed doping."

Yes, I know how to do that.

All that said, if indeed 50% of states defined a bicycle as a
vehicle, I
compute about a 2% chance of getting a random sample of 17 states
with
only 5 that "do". Again, this relies on the sample being random. If
there are indeed 12 states that "don't", I could "pick" a sample that
fits yours with 100% probability.

Your sample /is/ surprising to me; I seem to remember a press release
some 20 years ago that /all/ 50 states defined a bicycle as a
vehicle,
at that time a recent development. Was I misremembering, or has
there
been backtracking by states?

Look up the state vehicle codes. Start with the first state
in my list that has not been researched, namely Tennessee.

Michael Press,
I'd like to get a piece of this action - or all $500 for that matter. I
believe that most states DO define bicycles as vehicles. Can't find the
beginning of this thread; which 17 states were in your sample, and
which
ones didn't define bicycles as vehicles?
Thanks,

Michael Press,
Did a little more searching; found the beginning of the thread, and the
list
of 17 states. 6 of the states that you think DON'T define bicycles as
vehicles (Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, New Mexico) I think
DO
define bicycles as vehicles. And one that you DO think defines bicycles
as
vehicles (Louisiana) I think DOESN'T. From my count, 10 of your sample of
17
do, which will, I think, change the calculated probability that 50% (or
more
than 50%) of the states do.
Kerry

This cannot be settled through belief.
It can be settled. The state vehicle
codes are definitive.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press,
Some definitive links for you:
Alabama:
http://law.onecle.com/alabama/motor-...32-5A-281.html

(81) VEHICLE. Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks or electric personal assistive mobility devices; provided, that for the purposes of this title, a bicycle or a ridden animal shall be deemed a vehicle, except those provisions of this title, which by their very nature can have no application.


Colorado:
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext...main-h.htm&cp=

That link does not open for me. In
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2 Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=125 1692464099&ssbinary=true
the Colorado Motor Vehicle Industry Laws & Regulations
fails to define a vehicle at all.

Hawaii:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur...0291C-0001.htm

http://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2010/division1/title17/chapter286/286-2/
Hawaii
2010 Hawaii Code
DIVISION 1. GOVERNMENT
TITLE 17. MOTOR AND OTHER VEHICLES
286. Highway Safety
§286-2 Definitions.
"Vehicle" means every device in, upon, or by which any
person or property is or may be transported or drawn
upon a highway, but excludes devices moved by human
power or devices used exclusively upon stationary rails
or tracks and mopeds.



Kansas:
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/stat...74_032_0009_k/

http://law.justia.com/codes/kansas/2011/Chapter8/Article1/8-126.html
Kansas
2011 Kansas Code
Chapter 8. - AUTOMOBILES AND OTHER VEHICLES
Article 1. - GENERAL PROVISIONS
8-126. Definitions. The following words and phrases
when used in this act shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed to them herein:

(a) "Vehicle" means every device in, upon or by which
any person or property is or may be transported or
drawn upon a public highway, excepting electric
personal assistive mobility devices or devices moved by
human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails
or tracks.


Maine:
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legi...-Asec2322.html
http://law.justia.com/codes/maine/2009/title29a/title29-Asec101.htmlMaine2009 Maine Code
TITLE 29-A: MOTOR VEHICLES (HEADING: PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. A, @2 (new); Pt. B, @5 (aff))
Chapter 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
29-A §101. Definitions

91. Vehicle. "Vehicle" means a device for conveyance of
persons or property on a way. "Vehicle" does not
include conveyances propelled or drawn by human power
or used exclusively on tracks or snowmobiles as defined
in Title 12, section 13001 or an electric personal
assistive mobility device as defined in this section.


New Mexico:
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpe...-hit-h.htm&2.0


http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2009/chapter-66/article-1/section-66-1-4-19/
2009 New Mexico Code
Chapter 66 - Motor Vehicles.
Article 1 - General Provisions
Section 66-1-4.19 - Definitions.
66-1-4.19. Definitions.
As used in the Motor Vehicle Code:

B. "vehicle" means every device in, upon or by which
any person or property is or may be transported or
drawn upon a highway, including any frame, chassis,
body or unitized frame and body of any vehicle or motor
vehicle, except devices moved exclusively by human
power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks

You definitely owe me $500.

I found 5 states that define vehicle to include bicycles.
That is far short of 26. I refuted all your claims that
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, and New Mexico define
a vehicle to be a bicycle.

So far I have 12 states that do not define a bicycle
to be a vehicle. Five proofs are in this message.

--
Michael Press

In article
,
DirtRoadie wrote:

On Aug 23, 6:47Â*pm, "Kerry Montgomery" wrote:
"Kerry Montgomery" wrote in message

m...





"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mark J." wrote:

On 8/20/2011 3:36 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[much calculation snipped]
So the probability that most states define
a bicycle as a vehicle is 0.015.

There's an intuitive problem with phrasing your conclusion this way:
While your /sample/ results - the 17 states surveyed - are subject to
probability (assuming you really did pick the sampled state randomly),
the statement about "most states" is /not/ a matter of probability.
Either most states do or most states don't.

Since you did not quote my message in toto and discuss
the technical points on their merits, I infer that you
are not serious about discussing this---rather you want
to pick at it by way of philosophy. Let's make this
easy. I bet you $500 USA dollars that most states do
not define `vehicle' to include bicycles.

Since I am feeling charitable today (one time offer) I
will address your philosophy. Probability is the
science of making decisions from imperfect knowledge.
As long as you think of a probability for some event
existing in an ideal realm, you will go in circles.
Suppose I had stopped at 10 states as originally
planned. Then the probability works out to 0.0158193.
If I had stopped at 11 states Pr = 0.0409136. It is our
state of knowledge that we use to work out a
probability. (I stopped at 17 because I ran out of time.)

Reshuffle the "deck" of states, sample 17 as you did, and chances are
good you'll get a slightly different answer. Â*But no amount of
reshuffling will change the percentage of states that define a bicycle
as a vehicle - it's not subject to probability.

So what?

Bayesian probabilists, I am told,

Then you do not know what you are talking about,
but rather are repeating an anonymous source.

would not have any problem with this
point, which is why I suspect the Bayesian point of view is not widely
held.

This is not a popularity contest.

Bayes' formula (which you used) make more sense to non-Bayesians
in situations for which both items are subject to probability, e.g.
"What's the probability that a randomly selected doping cyclist tests
positive" vs. "what's the probability that a randomly selected cyclist
who has tested positive is indeed doping."

Yes, I know how to do that.

All that said, if indeed 50% of states defined a bicycle as a vehicle, I
compute about a 2% chance of getting a random sample of 17 states with
only 5 that "do". Â*Again, this relies on the sample being random. Â*If
there are indeed 12 states that "don't", I could "pick" a sample that
fits yours with 100% probability.

Your sample /is/ surprising to me; I seem to remember a press release
some 20 years ago that /all/ 50 states defined a bicycle as a vehicle,
at that time a recent development. Â*Was I misremembering, or has there
been backtracking by states?

Look up the state vehicle codes. Start with the first state
in my list that has not been researched, namely Tennessee.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press,
I'd like to get a piece of this action - or all $500 for that matter. I
believe that most states DO define bicycles as vehicles. Can't find the
beginning of this thread; which 17 states were in your sample, and which
ones didn't define bicycles as vehicles?
Thanks,
Kerry

Michael Press,
Did a little more searching; found the beginning of the thread, and the list
of 17 states. 6 of the states that you think DON'T define bicycles as
vehicles (Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, New Mexico) I think DO
define bicycles as vehicles. And one that you DO think defines bicycles as
vehicles (Louisiana) I think DOESN'T. From my count, 10 of your sample of 17
do, which will, I think, change the calculated probability that 50% (or more
than 50%) of the states do.
Kerry

I have no dog in this fight but I have a data point.
Colorado Revised Statutes 42-1-102. -Definitions.

(112) "Vehicle" means a device that is capable of moving itself, or of
being moved, from place to place upon wheels or endless tracks.
"Vehicle" includes, without limitation, a bicycle, electrical assisted
bicycle, or EPAMD, but does not include a wheelchair, off-highway
vehicle, snowmobile, farm tractor, or implement of husbandry designed
primarily or exclusively for use and used in agricultural operations
or any device moved exclusively over stationary rails or tracks or
designed to move primarily through the air.

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext...templates&2.0#

Yes, Colorado defines a bicycle to be a vehicle.
I retract my claim on Colorado.

If "The marble is white if the code defines a bicycle to be a
vehicle, black otherwise," the Colorado marble is quite light in
color

--
Michael Press

Michael Press writes:

In article ,
"Kerry Montgomery" wrote:

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kerry Montgomery" wrote:

"Kerry Montgomery" wrote in message
m...

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mark J." wrote:

On 8/20/2011 3:36 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[much calculation snipped]
So the probability that most states define
a bicycle as a vehicle is 0.015.

There's an intuitive problem with phrasing your conclusion this way:
While your /sample/ results - the 17 states surveyed - are subject to
probability (assuming you really did pick the sampled state
randomly),
the statement about "most states" is /not/ a matter of probability.
Either most states do or most states don't.

Since you did not quote my message in toto and discuss
the technical points on their merits, I infer that you
are not serious about discussing this---rather you want
to pick at it by way of philosophy. Let's make this
easy. I bet you $500 USA dollars that most states do
not define `vehicle' to include bicycles.

Since I am feeling charitable today (one time offer) I
will address your philosophy. Probability is the
science of making decisions from imperfect knowledge.
As long as you think of a probability for some event
existing in an ideal realm, you will go in circles.
Suppose I had stopped at 10 states as originally
planned. Then the probability works out to 0.0158193.
If I had stopped at 11 states Pr = 0.0409136. It is our
state of knowledge that we use to work out a
probability. (I stopped at 17 because I ran out of time.)


Reshuffle the "deck" of states, sample 17 as you did, and chances are
good you'll get a slightly different answer. But no amount of
reshuffling will change the percentage of states that define a
bicycle
as a vehicle - it's not subject to probability.

So what?

Bayesian probabilists, I am told,

Then you do not know what you are talking about,
but rather are repeating an anonymous source.

would not have any problem with this
point, which is why I suspect the Bayesian point of view is not
widely
held.

This is not a popularity contest.

Bayes' formula (which you used) make more sense to non-Bayesians
in situations for which both items are subject to probability, e.g.
"What's the probability that a randomly selected doping cyclist tests
positive" vs. "what's the probability that a randomly selected
cyclist
who has tested positive is indeed doping."

Yes, I know how to do that.

All that said, if indeed 50% of states defined a bicycle as a
vehicle, I
compute about a 2% chance of getting a random sample of 17 states
with
only 5 that "do". Again, this relies on the sample being random. If
there are indeed 12 states that "don't", I could "pick" a sample that
fits yours with 100% probability.

Your sample /is/ surprising to me; I seem to remember a press release
some 20 years ago that /all/ 50 states defined a bicycle as a
vehicle,
at that time a recent development. Was I misremembering, or has
there
been backtracking by states?

Look up the state vehicle codes. Start with the first state
in my list that has not been researched, namely Tennessee.

Michael Press,
I'd like to get a piece of this action - or all $500 for that matter. I
believe that most states DO define bicycles as vehicles. Can't find the
beginning of this thread; which 17 states were in your sample, and
which
ones didn't define bicycles as vehicles?
Thanks,

Michael Press,
Did a little more searching; found the beginning of the thread, and the
list
of 17 states. 6 of the states that you think DON'T define bicycles as
vehicles (Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, New Mexico) I think
DO
define bicycles as vehicles. And one that you DO think defines bicycles
as
vehicles (Louisiana) I think DOESN'T. From my count, 10 of your sample of
17
do, which will, I think, change the calculated probability that 50% (or
more
than 50%) of the states do.
Kerry

This cannot be settled through belief.
It can be settled. The state vehicle
codes are definitive.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press,
Some definitive links for you:
Alabama:
http://law.onecle.com/alabama/motor-...32-5A-281.html

(81) VEHICLE. Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may
be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power
or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks or electric personal
assistive mobility devices; provided, that for the purposes of this title, a
bicycle or a ridden animal shall be deemed a vehicle, except those provisions of
this title, which by their very nature can have no application.

Colorado:
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext...main-h.htm&cp=

That link does not open for me. In
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2 Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=125 1692464099&ssbinary=true
the Colorado Motor Vehicle Industry Laws & Regulations
fails to define a vehicle at all.

Hawaii:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur...0291C-0001.htm

http://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2010/division1/title17/chapter286/286-2/
Hawaii
2010 Hawaii Code
DIVISION 1. GOVERNMENT
TITLE 17. MOTOR AND OTHER VEHICLES
286. Highway Safety
§286-2 Definitions.
"Vehicle" means every device in, upon, or by which any
person or property is or may be transported or drawn
upon a highway, but excludes devices moved by human
power or devices used exclusively upon stationary rails
or tracks and mopeds.

Kansas:
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/stat...74_032_0009_k/

http://law.justia.com/codes/kansas/2011/Chapter8/Article1/8-126.html
Kansas
2011 Kansas Code
Chapter 8. - AUTOMOBILES AND OTHER VEHICLES
Article 1. - GENERAL PROVISIONS
8-126. Definitions. The following words and phrases
when used in this act shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed to them herein:

(a) "Vehicle" means every device in, upon or by which
any person or property is or may be transported or
drawn upon a public highway, excepting electric
personal assistive mobility devices or devices moved by
human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails
or tracks.

Maine:
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legi...-Asec2322.html
http://law.justia.com/codes/maine/2009/title29a/title29-Asec101.htmlMaine2009 Maine Code
TITLE 29-A: MOTOR VEHICLES (HEADING: PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. A, @2 (new); Pt. B, @5 (aff))
Chapter 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
29-A §101. Definitions

91. Vehicle. "Vehicle" means a device for conveyance of
persons or property on a way. "Vehicle" does not
include conveyances propelled or drawn by human power
or used exclusively on tracks or snowmobiles as defined
in Title 12, section 13001 or an electric personal
assistive mobility device as defined in this section.

New Mexico:
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpe...-hit-h.htm&2.0

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2009/chapter-66/article-1/section-66-1-4-19/
2009 New Mexico Code
Chapter 66 - Motor Vehicles.
Article 1 - General Provisions
Section 66-1-4.19 - Definitions.
66-1-4.19. Definitions.
As used in the Motor Vehicle Code:

B. "vehicle" means every device in, upon or by which
any person or property is or may be transported or
drawn upon a highway, including any frame, chassis,
body or unitized frame and body of any vehicle or motor
vehicle, except devices moved exclusively by human
power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks

You definitely owe me $500.

I found 5 states that define vehicle to include bicycles.
That is far short of 26. I refuted all your claims that
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, and New Mexico define
a vehicle to be a bicycle.

So far I have 12 states that do not define a bicycle
to be a vehicle. Five proofs are in this message.

Astonishing self nuke from the first person.

On Aug 23, 11:21*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,









*DirtRoadie wrote:
On Aug 23, 7:52*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
*"Kerry Montgomery" wrote:

"Kerry Montgomery" wrote in message
om...

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mark J." wrote:

On 8/20/2011 3:36 PM, Michael Press wrote:
[much calculation snipped]
So the probability that most states define
a bicycle as a vehicle is 0.015.

There's an intuitive problem with phrasing your conclusion this way:
While your /sample/ results - the 17 states surveyed - are subject to
probability (assuming you really did pick the sampled state randomly),
the statement about "most states" is /not/ a matter of probability.
Either most states do or most states don't.

Since you did not quote my message in toto and discuss
the technical points on their merits, I infer that you
are not serious about discussing this---rather you want
to pick at it by way of philosophy. Let's make this
easy. I bet you $500 USA dollars that most states do
not define `vehicle' to include bicycles.

Since I am feeling charitable today (one time offer) I
will address your philosophy. Probability is the
science of making decisions from imperfect knowledge.
As long as you think of a probability for some event
existing in an ideal realm, you will go in circles.
Suppose I had stopped at 10 states as originally
planned. Then the probability works out to 0.0158193.
If I had stopped at 11 states Pr = 0.0409136. It is our
state of knowledge that we use to work out a
probability. (I stopped at 17 because I ran out of time.)

Reshuffle the "deck" of states, sample 17 as you did, and chances are
good you'll get a slightly different answer. *But no amount of
reshuffling will change the percentage of states that define a bicycle
as a vehicle - it's not subject to probability.

So what?

Bayesian probabilists, I am told,

Then you do not know what you are talking about,
but rather are repeating an anonymous source.

would not have any problem with this
point, which is why I suspect the Bayesian point of view is not widely
held.

This is not a popularity contest.

Bayes' formula (which you used) make more sense to non-Bayesians
in situations for which both items are subject to probability, e.g.
"What's the probability that a randomly selected doping cyclist tests
positive" vs. "what's the probability that a randomly selected cyclist
who has tested positive is indeed doping."

Yes, I know how to do that.

All that said, if indeed 50% of states defined a bicycle as a vehicle, I
compute about a 2% chance of getting a random sample of 17 states with
only 5 that "do". *Again, this relies on the sample being random. *If
there are indeed 12 states that "don't", I could "pick" a sample that
fits yours with 100% probability.

Your sample /is/ surprising to me; I seem to remember a press release
some 20 years ago that /all/ 50 states defined a bicycle as a vehicle,
at that time a recent development. *Was I misremembering, or has there
been backtracking by states?

Look up the state vehicle codes. Start with the first state
in my list that has not been researched, namely Tennessee.

Michael Press,
I'd like to get a piece of this action - or all $500 for that matter. I
believe that most states DO define bicycles as vehicles. Can't find the
beginning of this thread; which 17 states were in your sample, and which
ones didn't define bicycles as vehicles?
Thanks,

Michael Press,
Did a little more searching; found the beginning of the thread, and the list
of 17 states. 6 of the states that you think DON'T define bicycles as
vehicles (Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, New Mexico) I think DO
define bicycles as vehicles. And one that you DO think defines bicycles as
vehicles (Louisiana) I think DOESN'T. From my count, 10 of your sample of 17
do, which will, I think, change the calculated probability that 50% (or more
than 50%) of the states do.
Kerry

This cannot be settled through belief.
It can be settled. The state vehicle
codes are definitive.

Which is why it seems silly to conduct any sort of statistical mumbo
jumbo when the entire "population" can be readily (if tediously)
reviewed.
Geeze, leave the voodoo to Frank. Misunderstanding, misinterpretation
and misdirection are HIS specialty.

You have no idea what I am talking about.
That is okay. Implying that it is
"Misunderstanding, misinterpretation
and misdirection" is another matter.
You cannot fault the technical details.
Find somebody skilled in the art and
have their opinion on what I wrote.

I was merely pointing out that trying to apply a complicated
statistical analysis to estimate characteristics of a population which
can be determined accurately, completely and directly by simple
counting seems to be the epitome of exalting form over substance.

We could similarly estimate the gender proportions of a given
kindergarten class by applying your analytical procedure to one or
more "samples" of the students.

On the othe hand we could have one of the students simply count the
number of boys and girls. Both methods work within some known degree
of accuracy. But I'll go with the second, despite the likelihood that
the kindergartener is not "skilled in the art" of your method.

DR