Richard Wordingham wrote:

--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com,
"H.M. Hubey" <hubeyh@...> wrote:
> I can give you N more
constructions. What does it mean?
It will never
> convince a scientist.
> It is only good enough for you.
That is real propaganda. Nobody has
to
> be flimflammed
> in math courses.
No flim-flam?  From my statistics
courses, I recall:

This is good. Since I am not a statistician I have to
check these. It might be an excellent discussion topic.
That will help all of us. Let me make some comments.
If there is not enough interest, we might move the
discussion to another list where people will be interested.

Thanks for bringing this up.

1. 'Regularity conditions' e.g. for
Cramer-Rao lower bound.  I believe
there are counter-examples!

I take this to mean that without some "regularization"
it is not possible to compute the said bound. Is this
correct? If so, then this is an approximation result.
Is this true?

2. Wilkes' Theorem - how many
attempts to produce a valid proof?

I looked around on the Internet and could not find
something that explained what it is. From what you
write above it seems like "attempts to success".
Maybe you can explain what it is.

3. Continuous Markov processes
without delta skeletons.  Remember
'coffin states'?

I do not know what this is.

Some of the material on the Internet refers to ergodic
processes, others to stability, and others to ergodicity
but I cannot see what exactly it is. It looks like some kind
of contradiction, but there is a whole book of mathematical
theorems and counterexamples, so it does not surprise me
that there is some fraying at the edges. But maybe you can explain
how this is considered flim-flam.

4. In many branches, the word
'obvious' is tantamount to 'proof
by intimidation'.

In statistics?

Richard.
[EOM]-------------
It starts with fundamentals and its
success can be seen
> all over the
> world.
>
> But then again, this is a
linguistics list, especially a
historical
> linguistics list, and
traditionally
> this branch has had the worst
rascals and racists. It looks like
we are
> going to have to
> relive that era again.
>
> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "H.M. Hubey"
<hubeyh@...>
> > To:
<Nostratica@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 01,
2003 7:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nostratica] One,
first, head, finger
> >
> >
> > > I guess I have to explain it
differently. The heuristic is only
a 
> > heuristic. The gold standard of
science is math.
> >
> > You keep rephrasing the same
propaganda. Don't advertise the
merits of
> > the method. Show me some
concrete results it has yielded.
The standard
> > comparative method has given us
numerous protolanguage
> > reconstructions; it has been
used to identify scores of language
> > families (not just IE, for your
information). What has any alterno
> > method produced so far?
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group,
send an email to:
> >
Nostratica-unsubscribe@...
com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is
subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service
> >
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
.
>
>
> --
> M. Hubey
> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
> The only difference between
humans and machines is that humans
> can be created by unskilled
labor. Arthur C. Clarke
>
> /\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\/\/
http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hube
y


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nostratica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

-- 
M. Hubey
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
The only difference between humans and machines is that humans
can be created by unskilled labor. Arthur C. Clarke

/\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\/\/ http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey