Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 288
  1. #151
    Thailand Expat
    Iceman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:53 AM
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,404
    ^
    i think my link in post #144 should lead you to the answer

  2. #152
    Thailand Expat
    Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:41 AM
    Location
    In the EU
    Posts
    11,114
    Quote Originally Posted by david44 View Post
    and you still cannot determine how many false negatives from your data set, I give up
    The question should be reworded to state 95% sensitivity (% false positive results) rather than 95% accuracy. The latter implies a combination of sensitivity and specificity (% of false negative results) and so, as david44 has suggested, the answer cannot be determined.

  3. #153
    Thailand Expat taxexile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,058
    willy
    It's basic statistics.
    something you have singularly failed to understand.

    first, select 1000 people and test them.

    now, how many do we expect to have the disease? 1/1000 of 1000 people is 1.

    only 1 of 1000 test subjects actually has the disease, the other 999 do not.

    we also know that 5% of those tested but who do not have the disease will actually test positive.

    and as there are 999 disease-free people, so we would expect 5% of those, i.e. about 50, to test positive who do not have the disease.

    now back to the original question.

    there are 51 people who test positive in our example (the one unfortunate person who actually has the disease, plus the 50 people who tested positive but don’t).

    only one of these people has the disease, so thats 1 in 51 or 2% give or take.

    geddit?

  4. #154
    Thailand Expat
    DrWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:52 AM
    Posts
    5,928
    Quote Originally Posted by taxexile View Post
    willy


    something you have singularly failed to understand.

    first, select 1000 people and test them.

    now, how many do we expect to have the disease? 1/1000 of 1000 people is 1.

    only 1 of 1000 test subjects actually has the disease, the other 999 do not.

    we also know that 5% of those tested but who do not have the disease will actually test positive.

    and as there are 999 disease-free people, so we would expect 5% of those, i.e. about 50, to test positive who do not have the disease.

    now back to the original question.

    there are 51 people who test positive in our example (the one unfortunate person who actually has the disease, plus the 50 people who tested positive but donít).

    only one of these people has the disease, so thats 1 in 51 or 2% give or take.

    geddit?
    I'm sorry, your reasoning is flawed on several levels. It's not your fault.

  5. #155
    Thailand Expat taxexile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,058
    please explain.

  6. #156
    Thailand Expat
    Iceman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:53 AM
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,404
    Cheers Tax

    I did provide a link from the Washington facility of education but in true TD style that was ignored as well

  7. #157
    Thailand Expat
    DrWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:52 AM
    Posts
    5,928
    Your reasoning is. About as sound as this old chestnut


    So you want a day off? Let’s take a look at what you are asking for!

    There are 365 days this year.

    There are 52 weeks per year in which you already have 2 days off per week, leaving 261 days available for work.

    Since you spend 16 hours each day away from work, you have used up 170 days, leaving only 91 days available.

    You spend 30 minutes each day on coffee break. That accounts for 23 days each year, leaving only 68 days available.

    With a one hour lunch period each day, you have used up another 46 days, leaving only 22 days available for work.

    You normally spend 2 days per year on sick leave. This leaves you only 20 days available for work.

    We are off for 5 holidays per year, so your available working time is down to 15 days.

    We generously give you 14 days vacation per year which leaves only one day available for work and I’ll be damned if you’re going to take that day off!

  8. #158
    Thailand Expat taxexile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,058
    willy can only count up to 5, the number of repo comments per page. beyond that he is lost in the humid mists of his confusion.

  9. #159
    SANS SOUCI
    david44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    SOFA SO GOOD
    Posts
    17,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy View Post
    The question should be reworded to state 95% sensitivity (% false positive results) rather than 95% accuracy.
    Exactly a category the the poser needs rewording

  10. #160
    Thailand Expat taxexile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,058
    what difference would that make to the question or the answer?

  11. #161
    Thailand Expat
    Iceman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:53 AM
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,404
    If I read anymore shit about this teaser, I am packing up my toys and taking them all home.

  12. #162
    SANS SOUCI
    david44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    SOFA SO GOOD
    Posts
    17,583
    So still no answer on how many were false negatives nor where you mention 49 late in the debate but not in the OP

  13. #163
    Thailand Expat
    Iceman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:53 AM
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,404
    Did you go to the link I provided?

  14. #164
    SANS SOUCI
    david44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    SOFA SO GOOD
    Posts
    17,583
    Quote Originally Posted by david44 View Post
    So still no answer on how many were false negatives
    Yes

    but still do not explain how many were false negatives, if you know plese post up a simple number or probability.

    If you don't know say so

  15. #165
    Thailand Expat
    Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:41 AM
    Location
    In the EU
    Posts
    11,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceman123 View Post
    Did you go to the link I provided?
    From the link:

    A test to detect this disease has a false positive rate of 5%.
    Assume that the test diagnoses correctly every person who has the disease.
    I.e 0% false negatives

    That makes it 95% accurate but only stating 95% accurate does not provide the same information

  16. #166
    Thailand Expat
    Iceman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:53 AM
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,404
    ^^
    try 0 does that work for you.

  17. #167
    SANS SOUCI
    david44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    SOFA SO GOOD
    Posts
    17,583
    Yes but the wording does not say that as Troy indicates

    In terms of machine learning and pattern classification, the labels of a set of random observations can be divided into 2 or more classes. Each observation is called an instance and the class it belongs to is the label. The Bayes error rate of the data distribution is the probability an instance is misclassified by a classifier that knows the true class probabilities given the predictors.
    For a multiclass classifier, the expected prediction error may be calculated as follows:[3]
    {\displaystyle EPE=E_{x}[\sum _{k=1}^{K}L(C_{k},{\hat {C}}(x))P(C_{k}|x)]}where x is the instance, {\displaystyle E[]} the expectation value, Ck is a class into which an instance is classified, P(Ck|x) is the conditional probability of label k for instance x, and L() is the 0-1 loss function:
    {\displaystyle L(x,y)=1-\delta _{x,y}={\begin{cases}0&{\text{if }}x=y\\1&{\text{if }}x\neq y\end{cases}},}where {\displaystyle \delta _{x,y}} is the Kronecker delta.
    When the learner knows the conditional probability, then one solution is:
    {\displaystyle {\hat {C}}_{B}(x)=\arg \max _{k\in \{1...K\}}P(C_{k}|X=x)}This solution is known as the Bayes classifier.
    The corresponding expected Prediction Error is called the Bayes error rate:
    {\displaystyle BE=E_{x}[\sum _{k=1}^{K}L(C_{k},{\hat {C}}_{B}(x))P(C_{k}|x)]=E_{x}[\sum _{k=1,\ C_{k}\neq {\hat {C}}_{B}(x)}^{K}P(C_{k}|x)]=E_{x}[1-P({\hat {C}}_{B}(x)|x)]},where the sum can be omitted in the last step due to considering the counter event. By the definition of the Bayes classifier, it maximizes {\displaystyle P({\hat {C}}_{B}(x)|x)} and, therefore, minimizes the Bayes error BE.
    The Bayes error is non-zero if the classification labels are not deterministic, i.e., there is a non-zero probability of a given instance belonging to more than one class.[citation needed]. In a regression context with squared error, the Bayes error is equal to the noise variance.[3]

  18. #168
    Thailand Expat
    Iceman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:53 AM
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,404
    Just a small observation, both Willy and David gave wrong answers early in the thread #104 and #106 and then suddenly needed more information. Funnily they did not need this info prior to getting the answer wrong.

  19. #169
    SANS SOUCI
    david44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    SOFA SO GOOD
    Posts
    17,583
    Quote Originally Posted by dirk diggler View Post
    What was the currency of Germany During WWII?
    It was the Reichsmark , still have some, between the RentenMarks and the much lamented Deutschmark which gave way to plastic ECB mafia debt on German working class to support Graeco Latin criminals profligates and assorted hangers on

    Of course during the last few Months of the conflict a pack of American camels could get you a lot of action

  20. #170
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    1,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceman123 View Post
    Ok letís ramp it up a little

    Your doctor tells you that you have a tested positive for a fatal disease that has a prevalence of 1 in 1000 of the general population.The test to determine if you have disease is 95% accurate. You have tested positive for the disease. What are the odds you actually have the disease?
    I am going to ask a simple question, where in the Op does it say that a 1000 people were tested?
    Icey please take your toys throw them out of the cot and piss off or is that a false negative?

  21. #171
    Thailand Expat
    Iceman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:53 AM
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    5,404
    ^
    We could test 10,000,100,000 1,000,000 the result would be the same. I don’t think you quite get it.

  22. #172
    A Cockless Wonder
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:37 PM
    Posts
    14,290
    That 9 dots one was depressing because I think I would have got it 5 or 10 years ago

    With the medical test with 95% accuracy (or 5% false positive), if 1000 people are tested then 50 will test positive but only 1 will actually have the disease so the probability that you have the disease if you test positive is 1/50 or 2%

    I read somewhere that 80% of doctors get that one wrong so if your doctor tells you you are positive then you still only have 2.5% chance of being positive

  23. #173
    Thailand Expat
    Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:41 AM
    Location
    In the EU
    Posts
    11,114
    Quote Originally Posted by taxexile View Post
    what difference would that make to the question or the answer?
    The difference is that 95% accurate could also mean 0% false positives and 5% false negatives, which means a positive result indicates you are 100% likely to have the disease.

    The answer assumes that 95% accurate is based on 5% false positives and 0% false negatives, assumptions that are supplied in the link but not in the question posed.

    Apologies for being pedantic, I didn't bother answering the question originally, I am just explaining what david44 is talking about

  24. #174
    Thailand Expat
    DrWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:52 AM
    Posts
    5,928
    Information that kceman thinks he is clever in not providing.

  25. #175
    Thailand Expat
    DrWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:52 AM
    Posts
    5,928
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceman123 View Post
    ^
    We could test 10,000,100,000 1,000,000 the result would be the same. I don’t think you quite get it.
    :facepalm:

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •