<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Idle Analytics&#187; Math</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.idleanalytics.com/category/math/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.idleanalytics.com</link>
	<description>Semi-scientific thoughts, explanations, and musings on the world</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Dec 2013 05:26:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.40</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Statisticians need to see how experimental science really works, then shut up about it</title>
		<link>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2013/11/13/statisticians-need-to-see-how-experimental-science-really-works-then-shut-up-about-it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2013/11/13/statisticians-need-to-see-how-experimental-science-really-works-then-shut-up-about-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2013 04:46:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reuben]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Math]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.idleanalytics.com/?p=2502</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This kind of irks me. The plague of non-reproducibility in science may be mostly due to scientists’ use of weak statistical tests, as shown by an innovative method developed by statistician Valen Johnson, at Texas A&#38;M University in College Station. The article goes on to specify an amazing new Bayesian test the person invented which &#8230; </p><p><a class="more-link block-button" href="http://www.idleanalytics.com/2013/11/13/statisticians-need-to-see-how-experimental-science-really-works-then-shut-up-about-it/">Continue reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2013/11/13/statisticians-need-to-see-how-experimental-science-really-works-then-shut-up-about-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jeopardy contestants don&#039;t know good game theory</title>
		<link>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2013/10/03/jeopardy-contestants-dont-know-good-game-theory/</link>
		<comments>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2013/10/03/jeopardy-contestants-dont-know-good-game-theory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 19:02:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reuben]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Math]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.idleanalytics.com/?p=2465</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two things demonstrate to me that Jeopardy contestants don't understand rudimentary game theory. Case 1: In many cases you have a score where one person is way ahead, and the other two trail by an amount so that it's a "run-away", meaning that even if the second place contestant bet the maximum amount in final &#8230; </p><p><a class="more-link block-button" href="http://www.idleanalytics.com/2013/10/03/jeopardy-contestants-dont-know-good-game-theory/">Continue reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2013/10/03/jeopardy-contestants-dont-know-good-game-theory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hollywood&#039;s box office debacle this summer is not hard to understand</title>
		<link>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2013/07/26/hollywoods-box-office-debacle-this-summer-is-not-hard-to-understand/</link>
		<comments>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2013/07/26/hollywoods-box-office-debacle-this-summer-is-not-hard-to-understand/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:29:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reuben]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Math]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.idleanalytics.com/?p=2443</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Via Slashdot: In the weeks since Spielberg’s prediction, six wannabe blockbusters have cratered at the North American box office: “R.I.P.D.,” “Turbo,” “After Earth,” “White House Down,” “Pacific Rim,” and “The Lone Ranger.” These films featured big stars, bigger explosions, and top-notch special effects—exactly the sort of summer spectacle that ordinarily assures a solid run at &#8230; </p><p><a class="more-link block-button" href="http://www.idleanalytics.com/2013/07/26/hollywoods-box-office-debacle-this-summer-is-not-hard-to-understand/">Continue reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2013/07/26/hollywoods-box-office-debacle-this-summer-is-not-hard-to-understand/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Calling Republicans the party of racism is questionable</title>
		<link>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2012/11/04/calling-republicans-the-party-of-racism-is-questionable/</link>
		<comments>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2012/11/04/calling-republicans-the-party-of-racism-is-questionable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Nov 2012 20:13:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reuben]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Math]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.idleanalytics.com/?p=1984</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bill Maher is fond of repeating his line: "Being a Republican doesn't make you a racist, but if you're a racist you're probably a Republican." This attitude has obvious anecdotal examples to support it. The numerous racist signs shown at Tea Party rallies, the incredibly low minority support for and participation in the GOP, things &#8230; </p><p><a class="more-link block-button" href="http://www.idleanalytics.com/2012/11/04/calling-republicans-the-party-of-racism-is-questionable/">Continue reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2012/11/04/calling-republicans-the-party-of-racism-is-questionable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Understanding polls (part 2)</title>
		<link>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2012/10/15/understanding-polls-part-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2012/10/15/understanding-polls-part-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reuben]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Math]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.idleanalytics.com/?p=1924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a previous installment, I showed the results of sampling a population to determine some fact: In that case, it was a hypothetical measurement of the number supporting Obama. By taking 50 "people" at random in the set and tabulating their responses, one gets a rough estimate of the actual proportion of the population who &#8230; </p><p><a class="more-link block-button" href="http://www.idleanalytics.com/2012/10/15/understanding-polls-part-2/">Continue reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2012/10/15/understanding-polls-part-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Strange things in conditional probability</title>
		<link>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2012/10/10/strange-things-in-conditional-probability/</link>
		<comments>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2012/10/10/strange-things-in-conditional-probability/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 05:41:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reuben]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Math]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.idleanalytics.com/?p=1883</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A test for cancer is positive 99% of the time that a patient actually has cancer, and is negative 95% of the time a patient does not have cancer (suppose only 1/1000 in the population has this type of cancer). Question: if a patient's test comes up positive, what is the probability he has cancer? &#8230; </p><p><a class="more-link block-button" href="http://www.idleanalytics.com/2012/10/10/strange-things-in-conditional-probability/">Continue reading &#187;</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.idleanalytics.com/2012/10/10/strange-things-in-conditional-probability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
