From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10261c,68666e29d0425009 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: 1164ba,be6b7e036aa9236c X-Google-Attributes: gid1164ba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,be6b7e036aa9236c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 11390f,be6b7e036aa9236c X-Google-Attributes: gid11390f,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,be6b7e036aa9236c X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,be6b7e036aa9236c X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,68666e29d0425009 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,be6b7e036aa9236c X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: Lee Crites Subject: Re: Results of my test: Re: Friday 13th, try it yourself Date: 1996/09/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 185721731 references: <52hb32$ns5@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII organization: Jump Point Communications, Inc. mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.apl,comp.lang.basic,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.pascal.misc,comp.lang.smalltalk Date: 1996-09-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: > >However, the results are no different. Basically, the 13th falls > >uniformily across each day of the week. > > > > Sun found 687 times > > Mon found 685 times > > Tue found 685 times > > Wed found 687 times > > Thu found 684 times > > Fri found 688 times > > Sat found 684 times > > error found 0 times > > Something is really wrong here. The results show the opposite of the > poster's conclusions. No? No. It's all fine and good to try to be precise. But there comes a time when overprecision is uncalled for. This is one of them. "Basically, the 13th falls uniformally across each day of the week" is an accurate statement. Not only is something *not* wrong, it is not 'really wrong.' Sorry guys, but I'd forgotten how truly anal some of these discussions can become. I find it amazing that I'd be taken to task for saying that "basically" these results show a uniform distribution -- I figured anyone with sense enough to read the message in the first place could understand the term 'basically.' I guess I am wrong on that -- so I guess there WAS something 'really wrong' with my original message! It's my guess that if everyone knew there was only one more from the beginning, this discussion would have probably never happened! In fact, I guess if ANYONE knew the above distribution, this discussion wouldn't have happened. And for those dozen or more people who tried to point out some 'obvious' error (like the fact I set the initial date to 1752 or checked for < 400), go back through the scripts with as fine a tooth comb as you are using in interpreting the data, and then tell me what was wrong. After all, if you are going to be anal, do it right. (including looking up that term so you don't show more stupidity by trying to say anal=ass) Lee