Strictly speaking, there is always a mode and in your chosen example there are three modes. You are still making it up as you go along.
Not making it up, just not typing coherently. The internet does not handle inflections well, and merely emphasizing the word "BE" didn't convey my point. I should have emphasized "A" instead of "BE": not a unique value of the mode, corresponding to one value within the set which is guaranteed to appear more often than all the others.
But that would've been too cumbersome to explain on my third straight night of four hours sleep.
I wasn't making it up, I was remembering. It was a bug I found in someone else's computer program 15 years ago, and led to an eigenvalue subroutine four layers down dying from a divide-by-zero error. I can't remember anymore, but I *think* that series had either 7 or 15 elements in it.
[grey_whiskers #319] With the small sample set I was talking about, (you, neighbor, and Gates), there wouldn't BE a mode strictly speaking.[Woodpusher #321] Strictly speaking, there is always a mode and in your chosen example there are three modes. You are still making it up as you go along.
[grey_whiskers #324] Not making it up, just not typing coherently. The internet does not handle inflections well, and merely emphasizing the word "BE" didn't convey my point. I should have emphasized "A" instead of "BE": not a unique value of the mode, corresponding to one value within the set which is guaranteed to appear more often than all the others.
But that would've been too cumbersome to explain on my third straight night of four hours sleep.
That would change your #319 from:
[grey_whiskers #319] With the small sample set I was talking about, (you, neighbor, and Gates), there wouldn't BE a mode strictly speaking.
to the equally useless:
[grey_whiskers #319 reimagined] With the small sample set I was talking about, (you, neighbor, and Gates), there wouldn't be A mode strictly speaking.
Unfortunately, not even an irrelevant digression into an eigenvalue subroutine four layers down dying from a divide-by-zero error can rescue your claim of blithering nonsense about mode values. Whether you emphasize A or BE, your chosen example wit three values, all different, is multimodal and useless.
[Woodpusher #321, replying to grey_whiskers #319]
"In this study, 541 individuals were identified who died of fentanyl-induced overdose in New Hampshire from January 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016."
[emphasis in original]
I quoted the report to identify the specific number of individuals in the study and provided a link to the report itself.
Regardless of the number of subjects in the study which I provided, your chosen example would have been useless for demonstrating anything about mode values.
GroupingIn some cases (such as when all values appear the same number of times) the mode is not useful.
Id. You made up an example where mode is not useful. It was not easy to make up an example where mode is not useful, but you were up to the task.
Whether you emphasize A or BE, you still have the same problem. All your chosen values appear the same number of times (ONCE) and the mode of your chosen data is not useful. Like you unending excuses.