A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Numbers to think about



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 30th 06, 01:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default Numbers to think about

The real numbers a

1. If the test is proved correct, Floyd won't be back next year.
2. If the test is proved wrong, Floyd will have delayed his surgery due to
being distracted by the protesting such that he won't be back next year.

In either case the French win in keeping another USA contender out of the
race and improves their odd (hardly) of winning.





"CowPunk" wrote in message
oups.com...
Let's assume that the labs and their tests are 99% accurate.

The UCI did around 12000 tests last year, and about 380 came back
positive. These are just rough numbers off the top of my head.
It worked out to around 3.8% of all tests came back positive.

So, if you take that 99% accuracy number and apply it,
you end up with roughly 1 out of 3 positives due to bad testing.



Ads
  #12  
Old July 30th 06, 02:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default Numbers to think about


Montesquiou wrote:
"CowPunk" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
1% of 12000 = 120

120:380 ~ 1:3


Oh my friend !!!

With all due respect if it is way they teach statistic in your country ....
You are lost.

However as I have many friends in the USA and I know they are not so
ignorants in Math, I believe the problem is your.

Since your original post you DECIDED that 1% of the test were wrong.

So 1% of the 380 positive (that you DECIDED BY YOUR OWN) are wrong.

1% of 380 is 3.8.

Turn your problem the way you want 1% is allway 1% and NEVER 1:3 (33.33 %)
!!

Oh my God, pls help me !


I am here and I will help you.

First, in each test there is an A and B sample and the test is done on
each. So if the there is a 1% chance of error on any give sample,
then the probablitity or an error both is found be multiplying .01
times .01 or .0001 or 0.01%.

Second, do not assume any error percentage until one appears in the
scientific literature, that is one that has been established with a
proven protocol and by actual perfroming many blind tests with samples
of known quality. One of the difficulties in this area is that test
error rates have not been established and made publicly available.

  #13  
Old July 30th 06, 02:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Numbers to think about


"Chris" a écrit dans le message de news:
.. .
The real numbers a

1. If the test is proved correct, Floyd won't be back next year.
2. If the test is proved wrong, Floyd will have delayed his surgery due
to being distracted by the protesting such that he won't be back next
year.

In either case the French win in keeping another USA contender out of the
race and improves their odd (hardly) of winning.


Dear Chris,

Pls, There is no place here for political and/or Nationalist position.
I am very desapointed when I read such a post.
In the same way there is today in France the idea that the americans are
doing their best for to destroy the Tour de France.
It is a stupid idea.
Pls, I am sure that You and I want the same thing.
To eliminate the cheaters. You are doing it in with Gatlin and I
congratulate the US Lab. Unless you believe us, the French, are also behind
the scandal......




"CowPunk" wrote in message
oups.com...
Let's assume that the labs and their tests are 99% accurate.

The UCI did around 12000 tests last year, and about 380 came back
positive. These are just rough numbers off the top of my head.
It worked out to around 3.8% of all tests came back positive.

So, if you take that 99% accuracy number and apply it,
you end up with roughly 1 out of 3 positives due to bad testing.





  #14  
Old July 30th 06, 02:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Sandy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default Numbers to think about

Chris a écrit :
The real numbers a

1. If the test is proved correct, Floyd won't be back next year.
2. If the test is proved wrong, Floyd will have delayed his surgery due to
being distracted by the protesting such that he won't be back next year.

In either case the French win in keeping another USA contender out of the
race and improves their odd (hardly) of winning.


Hooray, asshole.
  #15  
Old July 30th 06, 02:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Numbers to think about


a écrit dans le message de news:
...

Montesquiou wrote:
"CowPunk" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
1% of 12000 = 120

120:380 ~ 1:3


Oh my friend !!!

With all due respect if it is way they teach statistic in your country
...
You are lost.

However as I have many friends in the USA and I know they are not so
ignorants in Math, I believe the problem is your.

Since your original post you DECIDED that 1% of the test were wrong.

So 1% of the 380 positive (that you DECIDED BY YOUR OWN) are wrong.

1% of 380 is 3.8.

Turn your problem the way you want 1% is allway 1% and NEVER 1:3 (33.33 %)
!!

Oh my God, pls help me !


I am here and I will help you.

First, in each test there is an A and B sample and the test is done on
each. So if the there is a 1% chance of error on any give sample,
then the probablitity or an error both is found be multiplying .01
times .01 or .0001 or 0.01%.

Second, do not assume any error percentage until one appears in the
scientific literature, that is one that has been established with a
proven protocol and by actual perfroming many blind tests with samples
of known quality. One of the difficulties in this area is that test
error rates have not been established and made publicly available.

***

Correct.

It was so difficult for me to explain to him his wrong mathematical
reasoning that I did not even argued on the wrong initial suppositions he
did.



  #16  
Old July 30th 06, 02:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Donald Munro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,811
Default Numbers to think about

Montesquiou wrote:
Oh my friend !!!

With all due respect if it is way they teach statistic in your country ...
You are lost.

However as I have many friends in the USA and I know they are not so
ignorants in Math, I believe the problem is your.


Why don't you just ask Kunich. He is the rbr expert on virtual probability
theory.
  #17  
Old July 30th 06, 02:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
RonSonic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,658
Default Numbers to think about

On 30 Jul 2006 06:09:25 -0700, wrote:


Montesquiou wrote:
"CowPunk" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
1% of 12000 = 120

120:380 ~ 1:3


Oh my friend !!!

With all due respect if it is way they teach statistic in your country ...
You are lost.

However as I have many friends in the USA and I know they are not so
ignorants in Math, I believe the problem is your.

Since your original post you DECIDED that 1% of the test were wrong.

So 1% of the 380 positive (that you DECIDED BY YOUR OWN) are wrong.

1% of 380 is 3.8.

Turn your problem the way you want 1% is allway 1% and NEVER 1:3 (33.33 %)
!!

Oh my God, pls help me !


I am here and I will help you.

First, in each test there is an A and B sample and the test is done on
each. So if the there is a 1% chance of error on any give sample,
then the probablitity or an error both is found be multiplying .01
times .01 or .0001 or 0.01%.

Second, do not assume any error percentage until one appears in the
scientific literature, that is one that has been established with a
proven protocol and by actual perfroming many blind tests with samples
of known quality. One of the difficulties in this area is that test
error rates have not been established and made publicly available.


Wouldn't that be part of promulgating a test? I would expect that before a test
is used it would be required that it's accuracy be measured. I'd also expect
that the development and proving of such a test be subject to peer review.

If that were not done I don't see how the testing protocol could be described as
"scientific" or be given the credence that laymen often accord to Science.

Ron
  #18  
Old July 30th 06, 03:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Simon Brooke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,493
Default Numbers to think about

in message , Chris
') wrote:

The real numbers a

1. If the test is proved correct, Floyd won't be back next year.
2. If the test is proved wrong, Floyd will have delayed his surgery
due to being distracted by the protesting such that he won't be back
next year.

In either case the French win in keeping another USA contender out of
the race and improves their odd (hardly) of winning.


Petulant, xenophobic and paranoid.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

  #20  
Old July 30th 06, 04:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default Numbers to think about


CowPunk wrote:
If the probability of a false positive is .01 then the probability of both
A and B samples receiving a false positives is .01 * .01 = .0001. I think


No I said 99% accuracy. Errors could be based on mishandling sample,
contamination, etc.... I just don't believe that a lab is 99.9%
accurate in their work.


We have 12000 test and 1% have a wrong result. 1% out of 12000 = 120.

Yes


380 Positive * 1% = 3.8 ( so 3.8 out of 380 are clean guys called cheaters)


So now you are applying 1% again.
Which means you are calculating based 0.1% accuracy. 1%x1%


Where we are diverging is you are applying 1% to the positives, while I
am applying 1%
to the total # of tests. IMHO, Accuracy of a test applies to the total
# of tests performed.



Dear Bovine:

Your reasoning is wrong. the french philosopher's explanation was on
target. 1% error does no mean that 1 out of 3 tests will be wrong. No
matter how you articulate the problem.

Andres

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wacky numbers on HR monitor [email protected] Techniques 6 May 10th 06 02:21 AM
frame deflection measurements - any numbers? [email protected] Techniques 0 March 22nd 06 02:09 PM
Ultegra Caliper Model Numbers ? Magnusfarce Techniques 3 April 16th 05 02:03 PM
disc brake caliper numbers Richard Goodman UK 2 September 3rd 03 12:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.