Afonso wrote in another thread: "THE CANINE SUBSURVIENT , nor his master are able to derive D =  k/N - 0.5 - Z/(2*sqrt(N)) in spite off my repeteably inviations to do so. "

I have posted this derivation elsewhere, and Afonso has replied to it.  But apparently he is getting old and forgetful, so here I repost the derivation anew, in honor of his advancing senility.

Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - p)  where p = 0.5+D
Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - (0.5+D)) <== this is where Afonso made his mistake

Afonso wrote incorrectly Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - D), neglecting the 0.5 term as Dr Tomsky correctly pointed out.

To continue solving for D....
Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - (0.5+D))
Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - 0.5 -D)
Z/(2*sqrt(N))  = k/N - 0.5 -D

D =  k/N - 0.5 - Z/(2*sqrt(N))
=========>   Q.E.D.
=========
John ! Smith

D = k/N - 0.5 - Z/(2*sqrt(N))
that deserves be present in a HORROR MUSEUM.

On Jun 10, 5:26 pm, John Smith <jsmith_... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:





Afonso wrote in another thread: "THE CANINE SUBSURVIENT , nor his master are able to derive D =  k/N - 0.5 - Z/(2*sqrt(N)) in spite off my repeteably inviations to do so. "

I have posted this derivation elsewhere, and Afonso has replied to it.  But apparently he is getting old and forgetful, so here I repost the derivation anew, in honor of his advancing senility.

Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - p)  where p = 0.5+D
Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - (0.5+D)) <== this is where Afonso made his mistake

Afonso wrote incorrectly Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - D), neglecting the 0.5 term as Dr Tomsky correctly pointed out.

To continue solving for D....
Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - (0.5+D))
Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - 0.5 -D)
Z/(2*sqrt(N))  = k/N - 0.5 -D

D =  k/N - 0.5 - Z/(2*sqrt(N))
=========> >   Q.E.D.
=========
John ! Smith

___________MY RESPONSE
YOU DERIVATION CANINE SUBSERVIENT IS COMPLETELY WRONG
BECAUSE DOES NOT FOLLOWS THE CONDITIONS I PUT

_______X = N/2 + k

i.e. k IS THE HEADS EXCESS OVER HALF-FLIPS

_______p = 0.5 + D

To what results

______ Z = numerator / denominator 0

______ Z =  (N/(2 * N) + k / N - (0.5 + D) /denominator

______ Z = (1/2 + k/N - 0.5 - D ) / denominator

______ Z = ( k / N - D ) / denominator

THE CLOWN THINKS THAT ENDING BY A q.e.d. IS ALL CLOSEED.

The CANINE SUBSERVIENT doesn´t notice yet that my
transformations above were chosen in order to
have a more expressive formula, and the 0.5 at hi sone
IS COMPLETELY WRONG **** A MONSTRUOSITY> D =  k/N - 0.5 - Z/(2*sqrt(N))

that deserves be present in a HORROR MUSEUM.

HE IS STUPID ENOUGH TO DERIVE A FORMULA **** WITH DIFFERENT
ASSUMED CONDITIONS **** THAN I´D CHOSEN AND FINDING A DIFFERENT
EXPRESSION CLAIM THAT FOUND AN ERROR AT MY FORMULA.

Luis Amaral Afonso [the moderator destroyer]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Afonso wrote in another thread: "THE CANINE SUBSURVIENT , nor his master are able to derive D =  k/N - 0.5 - Z/(2*sqrt(N)) in spite off my repeteably inviations to do so. "

I have posted this derivation elsewhere, and Afonso has replied to it.  But apparently he is getting old and forgetful, so here I repost the derivation anew, in honor of his advancing senility.

Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - p)  where p = 0.5+D
Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - (0.5+D)) <== this is where Afonso made his mistake

Afonso wrote incorrectly Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - D), neglecting the 0.5 term as Dr Tomsky correctly pointed out.

To continue solving for D....
Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - (0.5+D))
Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - 0.5 -D)
Z/(2*sqrt(N))  = k/N - 0.5 -D

D =  k/N - 0.5 - Z/(2*sqrt(N))
=========>   Q.E.D.
=========
John ! Smith

On Jun 10, 5:26 pm, John Smith
jsmith_... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Afonso wrote in another thread: "THE CANINE
SUBSURVIENT , nor his master are able to derive D =
k/N - 0.5 - Z/(2*sqrt(N)) in spite off my repeteably
inviations to do so. "

I have posted this derivation elsewhere, and Afonso
has replied to it. But apparently he is getting old
and forgetful, so here I repost the derivation anew,
in honor of his advancing senility.

Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - p) where p = 0.5+D
Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - (0.5+D)) <== this is where
Afonso made his mistake

Afonso wrote incorrectly Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - D),
neglecting the 0.5 term as Dr Tomsky correctly
pointed out.

To continue solving for D....
Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - (0.5+D))
Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - 0.5 -D)
Z/(2*sqrt(N)) = k/N - 0.5 -D

D = k/N - 0.5 - Z/(2*sqrt(N))
==========
Q.E.D.
==========

John ! Smith

Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - p)

This is wrong , DEADLY WRONG, having in mind

that I defined k AS X = N/2 + k
therefore the observed proportion is
_____X/N = N/(2*N)+ k/N = 1/2 + k/N
THEN the CANINE SUBSERVIENT FORMULA
D= k/N - 0.5 - Z (2*sqrt(N))
IS HORRIBLE! ABSOLUTELY ! DREADFULL SHAME FOR THE
DUO!

Luis Amaral Afonso [the moderator destoyer]

My Comment
According to the redefinition of k this formula is
wrong

To the purpose to check a formula the first thing to do is take into account the quantities definitions: what they mean.
Nor Smith, nor Tomsky had this concern. Their * opacity * compels them that 0.5 should be isolated as a monomial (signal minus 0.5).  Why this defect? Simply, it’s clear, because they are * photographic * minds, not rational ones. In fact,   the numerator of Z has commonly the form of a difference * observed proportion - Population Parameter *. THIS KILLED THE SELF-CALLED EXPERT ON STATISTICAL MATHEMATICS. WHAT´S EVIDENT IS THAT A TASK EASILY SUPERSEADED BY THE AVERAGE 13-14 YEARS OLD HIGH SCHOOL PUPIL, AT LEAST IN EUROPE, SEEMLY TOO MUCH FOR A U.S. Ph. D. (?!!).
Smith called me a sneaky guy; he should change by agile on the most elementary Algebra, simply.
If he was a bit calmer, a little less anxious to point me errors, he will notice that my final parameters, definitions have as final goal an expression, as simpler possible, connecting D, k, N, Z: Is this simply, my formula’s realm.

Time to conclude: the TEAM finally concede that it was WRONG **************** MY FORMULA: _____________ Z = 2*sqrt(N)* ( k/N - D)_________
OF COURSE INDISPUTABILY CORRECT.

************
Luis Amaral Afonso

Z = 2*sqrt(N)* ( k/N - D)_________
OF COURSE INDISPUTABILY CORRECT.

************
Luis Amaral Afonso

Since Jun 1, 2008 , 5:22 PM

It was stated , by me, that


__________D = k/N - 0.5 * Z / sqrt(N)

__1__Concerning Jack Tomsky - John Smith´s action:
WE ARE FACING AN UNTENABLE LIAR and a deliberate
e TENTATIVE TO FRAUD THE READERS.
The Formula Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - p) they intend is the
true one IS INCORRECT (following my definitions).

My response

WHOEVER THAT INTEND TO CORRECT A DERIVATION SHOULD FOLLOW
THE AUTHOR´S DEFINITIONS: Tomsky does´t want to:
my k is the excess heads over half-flips.If there are imbeciles that find fun in an endless discussion is the exact measure of their mental illness: time to see a Doctor.

__1__Concerning Jack Tomsky - John Smith´s action:  WE ARE FACING AN UNTENABLE LIAR and a deliberate TENTATIVE TO FRAUD THE READERS.
The Formula Z = 2*sqrt(N)(k/N - p) they intend is the true one IS INCORRECT (following my definitions). The correct one is:
____________ bin  (X, N, p0)
____from X= N/2 + k________. p0= 0.5 + D
________Z = 2*sqrt(N) [X/N - p0]
________Z = 2*sqrt (N) [1/2 + k/N - (0.5 + D)]
 . .  as I´d the opportunity to show before. The CANINE SUBSERVIENT THINKS THAT HE IS HELPING HIS MASTER (Jack Tomsky) BUT, ON CONTRARY, *** THEY BOTH WILL SURELY BY THEIR STUPIDITY.
__2__ Here, in Europe, a land of properly educated people, is completely unthinkable that a Ph. D. (Jack Tomsky) be uncomfortable (ignorant) facing a matter that any  12 to 14 years old High School pupil can solved exact and easily.
__3__ Is time to ask: is this the U.S. standard in teaching.  Jack Tomsky in Europe was considered, surely, as a null in respect his competence. HOWEVER IT WAS SAID (Richard Ulrich), HERE in Sci. Stat Math., THAT HE WAS AN EMINENT AMERICAN STATISTICIAN (!!!!!!).  It should be a consensus at HOME. (???!!!): starting from Richard irony seems to be unthinkable.  He has no class to use a so sophisticated way.
FINALLY
From its appearance on June 1, The Afonso’s Conjecture Formula is more and more firmly established as
_______Z = 2*sqrt (N) [k/N -  D]
as long as one can put
_______sqrt (1 - 4 * D ^2 ) = 1 approximately.

(The trade mark of an imbecile should be there BWAHAHAHA).
************************

 Luis Amaral Afonso [The moderator destroyer]