spamandham

Sorry. You asked me stop wasting your time. So have I have. Figure it our for yourself.

aa5874

So, how come you have stated, without knowning my formula, that my statistics is bad? You have really have no idea what you are saying. You have shown that you need no data or formula for your preconceived beliefs.

And, how can you claim, in advance, you will show that I mi-used the formula? Again, you are clearly showing you do not need data to advance your pre-suppositions.

Ben C Smith

Because no such formula exists.

Because I am calling your bluff. There is no statistical formula to justify the numbers you gave.

If I am wrong, all you have to do is to produce the formula.

Ben.

Sheshbazzar

Two persons=100%
one person out a total population of two=50% of that total
In an entire population of only two, each individual person could only be 50% of that total population.
As the number of persons in a population increases, any individuals percentage within that population can only decrease.
At one hundred people in a population, one single individual only comprises 1% of that total population.

Ben C Smith

Everybody knows this. Nobody is merely calculating how big a percentage an individual comprises of a total population.

Ben.

aa5874

So, you know a formula exist. Why claim no formulas exist?

You were just a bluff when you claim no formulas exist.

Everybody knows formulas exist for probabilities.

Ben C Smith

I know a formula exists for calculating the percentage that an individual comprises of a population.

I did not claim that no formulas (plural) exist. I claimed that no formula (singular) exists that would justify your numbers. Prove me wrong. Give me the formula.

Ben.

Sheshbazzar

Then if (BIG IF) JC did exist, and was a resident of the population of Nazareth, and there were only 100 residents, then he would only comprise 1% of that population, and thus in a population of 100, could only have a 1% maximum possibility of being a member of that population, in a population of 1000 his maximum possibility of being a member of that population is reduced to .1 %

The only way that any individual could ever exceed a 50% probability in a "population"would be if he was the sole member of that "population", where he would then comprise 100% of the "population".
However, that would be predicated on that "population" actually existing, and could not support a 100% possibility of that "population" or individual ever existing.

show_no_mercy

The part in bold is the problem. You're equivocating fractions with statistical probabilities. Fractions are math, probabilities are a type of induction. If I've eaten 1/3 of a cookie, it doesn't meang that the probability that I've eaten a cookie is 33.3%, or that the probability that the cookie exists is 33.3% or 66.6%. Demonstrating the fallacious equivocation on another level, I can have 200% cookie. I can't have 200% probability.

Ben C Smith

Show_no_mercy has pointed out your equivocation. Let me add this much regarding your phrase:

If I can have a maximum possibility of 1% of belonging to a population of 100, then it would seem that I would have a maximum possibility of 100% of belonging to a population of 1, and a maximum possibility of 0.00001% of belonging to a population of 10,000,000, correct? This indicates that my chances of belonging to a small population are much greater than my chances of belonging to a large population. This is simply wrong (imagine living in a country with only a city of 10,000,000 and a village of 100; are my chances of belonging to the city really 100,000 times smaller than my chances of belonging to the village???), and show_no_mercy has pointed out why. Fractions are not (automatically) probabilities.

Ben.