NavList:

RE : [NavList 14789]

To the attention of George Brandebourg,

George,

In [NavList 14789], you wrote :

QUOTE

Your 25% probability of inclusion applies to an average over all possible LOP triplets. In this game you measure N LOP triplets where N is a very large number. The larger the number N of measurements taken, the closer you will get to the ideal 25% figure.

UNQUOTE

*******
*******

YES ! You have possibly found what seems the best explanation as to why John Karl and George Huxtable results may be so different.

They both are right, however, and it was subtle to understand that they are NOT addressing exactly the same subject. John also has given interesting most recent insight showing that he also thinks that himself and G.H. are actually treating a DIFFERENT subject.

I would warmly welcome additional advice on this specific point (i.e. SAME subject or DIFFERENT subject between J.K. and G.H. ?) from our NavList Members. Pending such additional advice, it may very well be that your viewpoint George is (very close to ?) the truth.

Best Regards

Antoine

Antoine M. "Kermit" Couëtte

PS : TO THE ATTENTION OF FRANK E REED

This phantastic thread brings again some kind of an asked questions :

"WHO REPLIED TO WHOM?".

Since we do not have a "tree view" layout you once might have contemplated, with an example of such tree view display given here "http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/forum.cgi" - , it might be quite difficult to accurately follow-up this actual discussion when there are so many almost simultaneous contributions, and where - due to personal time availabilities to reply to a specific colleague's post - meanwhile up to 10 people might have jumped into the arena to contribute.

This holds especially true since in our current thread "That darned old cocked hat", 2 different topics - although (very) closely related - are addressed :

- The computation of the cocked hat surface probability, a still controversial debate between J.K. and G.H. , and

- The determination inside the cocked had of the point where the ratio "Probability/Surface" reaches its maximum value, a non-controversial point with its usual and very interesting "super fine tuning" explanations.

This why I keep attempting - but not every single time I confess ... - to start a new post with the explicit "Re : [NavList #]" mention of the post to which I am replying (e.g. on top of this current post). However it is no longer easy nowadays to readily retrieve the exact Number of a previous post since it no longer shows up on the header of the post itself, nor its date either.

Therefore with our current post "identity display system",

- if you just want the [NavList #] of a specific post, you have to navigate back to the list of the posts "http://www.fer3.com/arc/" - that's the easiest way to retrieve a MOST RECENT post [NavList #] - , and

- if you want to retrieve the date of a specific post, you then have to navigate to the Archive List - which also indicates the posts dates - e.g. "http://www.fer3.com/arc/sort2.aspx?y=201012". :-((

I am well aware that this topic has been discussed earlier on NavList, and that there might be "hard rock" technical reasons to preclude even re-inserting just a Post number on top of it, not to mention its date of publication,

however, I keep dreaming .... :-))

Best Regards to you too Frank, and thanks again for our very interesting and nice NavList Forum !

Antoine

----------------------------------------------------------------
NavList message boards and member settings: www.fer3.com/NavList
Members may optionally receive posts by email.
To cancel email delivery, send a message to NoMail[at]fer3.com
----------------------------------------------------------------