Gabriel Sechan wrote:
>
>
> >From: "John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >I find that assumption to be so blatant (much like numbers w/o powers
> >are raised to first, numbers without signs are positive, 0 is neither
> >positive nor negative, 1 is neither prime nor composite) to not even be
> >worth mentioning.
> >
> >Unless, of course, someone confuses arithmetic mean (average) with
> >median. Or says 0 is positive, or 1 is prime.
> >
>
> Dear god, stop this thread already. Yes, you're right, 50% of a population
> is not necessarily below average. But in a normal distribution, the
^^^^^^
> difference between mean and median is statisticly insignificant. Such as
> in the example data posted, where the SAT differences was about 1%.
How many distributions are really normal? Think house prices in the
Fallbrook market?
http://sd.znet.com/~schester/fallbrook/home_prices/
Scroll down a bit, to find the Distribution Of Prices For Home Sales In
Fallbrook In 1995, 1997 and January-June 1998 topic.
I think ``Normal Distribution'' is far less common than assumed. The
bell curve is an ideal, and like most ideals, it is very hard to
achieve.
-john
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
