That's interesting - page 10
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
What have I got to do with it? I told you - a lot of years, a lot of talented professionals. What is it against this shNol?
This is how you can slander all the pioneers of science.
Whether Schnoll is a science pioneer, I don't know. All I can see is that he is stubborn and confident in his rightness.
P.S. Calling such a man a zero does not allow me.
HideYourRichess:
нет там ничего подобного. Всё что есть прекрасно укладывается в матстат.
HideYourRichess:
...
A colleague wrote, "I was surprised by this statement that if you did measurements... Allegedly every meridian+time corresponds to patterns". He practically quoted from the book and expressed his doubt. You are calling him dumb. I will explain for the outsider:
A: I don't believe in the truth of "something"
B: I don't believe in the truth of "something" either.
A: you're stupid.
An old friend of mine, a physicist with whom I was at school, once showed me an English-Russian dictionary which contained a collection of nicknames among physicists. Still, it's a funny atmosphere...
Everything there is fits perfectly into the matstat.
And it all fits into the matstatistics. To fit into the matstatistics, no problem. The question he poses, in fact, a little different - but is it necessary to do? Maybe there is a phenomenon/phenomenon being recorded.
Asserting so - you will not find anything in principle. I'm not even going to argue here.
A bunch of people solve a problem.
One fool comes along and says we should do this.
The suggestion goes against established opinion, but it works.
PS. This doesn't apply to anyone in particular. It's just that sometimes the solution lies elsewhere, not where you're looking for it
A colleague wrote, "I was surprised by this statement that if you did measurements... Allegedly every meridian+time corresponds to patterns". He practically quoted from the book and expressed his doubt. You are calling him dumb.
. It's not my fault he's stupid. This has been pointed out by me in several threads already.
I will explain for the outsider:
A: I don't believe in the truth of "something"
B: I don't believe in the truth of "something" either.
A: you're stupid.
An old friend of mine, a physicist, whom I studied at school, once showed me an English-Russian dictionary which contained a collection of nicknames and expressions among physicists. Still, it's a funny atmosphere...
. ???
And he's got it all down to matstatistics. To fit into the matstatistics, no problem. In fact he poses the question a little differently - is it necessary to do it? Maybe we are still registering a phenomenon.
. This is a common misconception. To put something into matstatistics, so simply - it is impossible. If the professor registers a phenomenon in proteins, why not. But in my case, not in proteins, there is no such phenomenon. Although, say, there is a wonderful phenomenon of dependence of results on the proximity of a liquor store, for example. And so on.
Asserting so - you will not find anything in principle. Here I will not even argue.
. I'm not arguing at all. I'm expressing an opinion.
A bunch of people solve a problem.
One fool comes along and says we should do this.
The suggestion goes against established opinion, but it works.
PS. This does not apply to anyone in particular.
Why are you writing then? :о)
Sometimes the solution is just somewhere else, not where you're looking for it.
It is there :o(
A bunch of people solve a problem.
One fool comes along and says we should do this.
The suggestion goes against established opinion, but it works.
PS. This doesn't apply to anyone in particular. It's just that sometimes the solution lies elsewhere, not where you're looking for it
it's there :o(
Most people can't find it, stereotypes get in the way.
Only people don't like it and don't understand it.
There is actually no problem or solution here. It's just that someone saw something in their data that doesn't fit with the normal distribution of the results. And declared it an overarching effect. One of the rules is that the results of experiments must be repeatable. In independent studies.
There is something that sometimes falls outside the scope of the study. Many people ignore this (because it cannot be) and some build a new theory on it.
One of the rules states that the results of experiments must be repeatable. In independent studies.