On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:49:46 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 05:59:29 -0500, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> [...] > > And the cycle continues: > [...] > > Maybe we could just not? Thanks Ned for your attempts at bringing some order and sense in these parts of the universe > A reasonable request, but just because it's reasonable doesn't mean it is > a no-brainer that we shouldn't engage with Mark. Some basic statistics Suppose a random variable X takes 2 values x and y with probabilities p and q=1-p. Then expected value of X E[X] = px + qy p = probability of some good result from an interaction q = 1-p = No good x = benefit value y = harm value > Even if Mark is a crank and beyond the reach of logic, reason or facts, > and I'm 90% convinced his is, consider that he's not the only one reading > this thread. So you are pegging 'no-good-probability' at 90% and so p at 10%. Ok lets accept these. And in the benefit value you include the possible benefit to Mark, to whoever engages with him and the random [no relation of random variable X] lurking reader. So far so good And in the harm-value y, are you including the harm done to the random reader from a disorderly, abusive, fruitless and almost completely OT conversation? > If just one person learns something useful or new from a > reply to Mark, I believe that it is worthwhile. And if 3 people drop out because the levels of bullshit have crossed their thresholds? [BTW: My statistics was never very strong and is now quite rusty. So... Whos that guy who recently added a stats module to python?? Cant remember his name... Maybe I should take some tuitions from him...] -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
