Re: Statistics on non-free usage
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Statistics on non-free usage
- From: MJ Ray <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:26:03 +0000
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20040109164434.GC7661@iliana>
On 2004-01-09 16:44:34 +0000 Sven Luther <email@example.com>
The error rate is the proportion misclassified, which cannot be
under any circumstances where there are some subjects. I'm also not
how it applies here.
Ah, yes, that is the stuff taken in the other direction, but then, the
error ratio in my example would be 0 (as 0 correct over 5 total).
speaking of 0 error ratio doesn't seem reasonable. Maybe 100 % error
ratio would be what we want here.
No, the error rate would be 1 = 100% if we misclassified everyone,
which is what you seemed to claim. My definition is from B S Everitt's
Dictionary of Statistics.
Anyway, it is clear that the data provided by John were crap, and
Actually, John's tables didn't show that error rate, but they did wash
the results you're interested in away in the rounding.
There is probably a non-zero error, but I think it would need to be
than .5% before you can claim the table is showing the wrong number.
It shows 0, so if at least one person uses it (like me) then we
have 100% wrong values, no ?
No, they are %.
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ firstname.lastname@example.org
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/