On the contrary, Watson's math is perfectly valid for demonstrating probabilities, especially in regards to scope and scale, hence this thread.
On the contrary, Watson's math is perfectly valid for demonstrating probabilities, especially in regards to scope and scale, hence this thread.
On the contrary, Watson's math is perfectly valid for demonstrating probabilities, especially in regards to scope and scale, hence this thread.
Reduced to mindlessly repeating yourself, eh? Here, read what I wrote until you grasp its meaning:
"True, but without being tied to actual processes to be modeled (and there are those "assumptions" again), his math is irrelevant to the topic at hand.""Demonstrating probabilities" is nothing but playing with a calculator if you don't have a valid model for the process you're trying to learn something about.
Period.
Deal with it.
Or if you can't or won't, give it up.