tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post483817841352353401..comments2023-10-26T05:03:32.201+13:00Comments on BIG NEWS: Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post-28308773975863294282008-05-01T02:23:00.000+12:002008-05-01T02:23:00.000+12:00Anyway, I don't think they'll have any trouble get...Anyway, I don't think they'll have any trouble getting the extra signatures they need.Idiot/Savanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993069909613708957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post-73864445808259524772008-05-01T01:30:00.000+12:002008-05-01T01:30:00.000+12:00it's technically possible that every signature in ...<I>it's technically possible that every signature in the sample is an illegal duplicate of another signature somewhere else in the petition.</I><BR/>And, given the illegible signatures, you`d never prove it as its pretty hard to match two illegible signatures, or an illegible one with its matching legible one. It's also technically possible that every signature in the sample is a triplicate, some of which have two in the sample :-) Unlikely, of course <BR/><BR/>Its also technically possible that none of the signatories outside the sample are on the electoral roll.<BR/><BR/>we could go on....Swimminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12913329810121951824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post-56476946510682319212008-04-30T19:10:00.000+12:002008-04-30T19:10:00.000+12:00Ooooh. NOW I get it (well kind of). Thanks guys.Ooooh. NOW I get it (well kind of). Thanks guys.Muerkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00983180202172098977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post-90320591210829845412008-04-30T16:29:00.000+12:002008-04-30T16:29:00.000+12:00I/S quite right, what I meant when I wrote that wa...I/S quite right, what I meant when I wrote that was that there are at least 1600 replicates *plus* the other matches in the rest of the population. Have corrected the post to clarify that - as if you sample x, and y is a duplicate outside the sample, but x is removed as he is not on the electoral roll. Unsampled y is erroneously included if you use the formula outlined by Family First, but taken into account by the statistician.Swimminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12913329810121951824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post-37703559505656842742008-04-30T16:00:00.000+12:002008-04-30T16:00:00.000+12:00Because there`s 160 replications, that suggests th...<I>Because there`s 160 replications, that suggests there will be a further 1600 replicates in the rest of the population.</I><BR/><BR/>Not quite. 160 duplicates in the sample suggests another 1600 duplicates in the sample where <I>the other match</I> is in the rest of the population. Which, as Graeme points out, means an extra 17,600 duplicates over and above the number you'd get if you just counted internal duplicates.Idiot/Savanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993069909613708957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post-31903096137832311002008-04-30T11:09:00.000+12:002008-04-30T11:09:00.000+12:00No problem - I realised after writing this that it...No problem - I realised after writing this that it might be helpful to consider this: even with the check done, it's technically possible that every signature in the sample is an illegal duplicate of another signature somewhere else in the petition.Graeme Edgelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03928755583921638414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post-29853590938013084042008-04-30T10:35:00.000+12:002008-04-30T10:35:00.000+12:00Thanks Graeme, Yeah, that's why I stopped, I knew ...Thanks Graeme, <BR/>Yeah, that's why I stopped, I knew there must have been some compounding factor.Swimminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12913329810121951824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post-70801694500424635632008-04-30T08:13:00.000+12:002008-04-30T08:13:00.000+12:00I wrote this in answer on Kiwiblog, so thought I'd...I wrote this in answer on Kiwiblog, so thought I'd drop it here too, though you seem to have the answer from I/S.<BR/><BR/><I>Dave - there were 160 signatures in the sample that were proved duplicated (because they appeared twice or three times within the sample).<BR/><BR/>If you were to then individually check the other samples (i.e. look at the remaining 10 1/11's), you would likely find a similar number within each sample. That is, you would find 160 signatures within each sample that were duplicated within that sample.<BR/><BR/>But this would ignore any signature that was in both sample A, and sample B. Or sample A, and sample C (0r any of the 110 combinations of elevenths).<BR/><BR/>You should consider, if they found 160 signatures that were duplicated within a sample, how many would they find if the compared that sample to the remaining 10/11's of signatures?), approximately another 1600.<BR/><BR/>Consider the next 1/11. There would be 160 internal duplicates, but also duplicates that look valid because you haven't checked everyone else, a further 1440. In the third 1/11 sample, there'd be another 160 internal duplicates, and 1280 external ones. Keep doing this and you get around 19,000 duplicates - not the 1760 you'd estimate.</I>Graeme Edgelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03928755583921638414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post-24202770128703187672008-04-30T03:34:00.000+12:002008-04-30T03:34:00.000+12:00Answer here.Answer <A HREF="http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/04/satanic-statistics.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Idiot/Savanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993069909613708957noreply@blogger.com