/lit/ - Literature

>>16876347
>>16876398
Again, you don't even have a basic understanding of math. I do not work in probability or statistics, but I understand them. My undergraduate work and hopefully my graduate work has focused on dynamical systems, combinatorics, and game theory. This would be clear to anyone with even a basic understanding of math. You don't even understand basic terminology, let alone the nature of contemporary mathematics.

For instance, you clearly don't even know what probability actually is. Probability as a field of contemporary mathematics is in no way itself probabilistic, nor is it an empirical science. Probability basically refers to the theory of sigma algebras, and measureable sets. This closely connected with descriptive set theory and model theory, all subjects and concepts which you've probably never even heard off.

You are just playing semantic games and trying to distract from the actual point of my post. As I said, I am not a statistician, but I clearly have a far deeper understanding of probability and statistics than you, given that you don't even know what a measureable set or a sigma algebra are.

Moreover, your post is pure cope. Imagine if you were in a debate with some low IQ redneck about some political topic, and you pointed to facts and data to support your argument, and they responded by saying 'oh yeah? Well I think statistics is fucking bullshit. God damn marxist professors and their data sets and probability hocus-pocus'. How would you react to that? I think you're a liar if you don't admit that you would consider that completely retarded and intellectually disingenuous. For instance, I'm sure you don't doubt the statistics on COVID? Just to be clear, I'm not a COVID skeptic, but my point is that you would probably call someone a schizo/nazi/etc if they were to suggest that COVID stats are inaccurate. I'm correct, aren't I?