/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9865863]

If at 12% of the population blacks commit 52% of the murders, then assuming the same murder rate for blacks, what percentage of the murders would they commit if they were 50% of the population? Show your work.

(Or, if you don't want to be racist, do it this way: Say you're an apple dealer, and you normally get 12% of your apples from company A, and apples from company A account for 52% of your bad apples that you have to throw out. Then say that you have to increase the percent of your apples that you get from company A to 50%. Now what percentage of your bad apples will come from company A?)

[Anonymous No.9865868]

>>9865863

Okay and what percentage of black people living in affluent areas are committing murders?

[Anonymous No.9865881]

>>9865868
Do it for apples, then.

[Anonymous No.9865884]

>>9865863
If at whatever % the white population commits whatever % of murders, then assuming the same murder rate for whites, what percentage of the murders would they commit if they were 100% of the population?

THIS PROVES WHITE PEOPLE ARE HORRIBLE.

[Anonymous No.9865899]

>>9865884
Yeah, I get that at 0% of the population, a group will commit 0% of the murders, and at 100% of the population they will commit 100% of the murders.

But what I'm trying to get is that if at 12% of the population we know that a group commits 52% of the murders, then what percent of the murders would they commit if they were 50% of the population?

It seems like the math would be straightforward, but I can't can come up with anything that gives a reasonable answer.

[Anonymous No.9865914]

>>9865899
>but I can't can come up with anything that gives a reasonable answer.
Oh, so you are unironically unable to solve it yourself? Fuck man, how dumb must you be. This is certainly a bad look for white superiority.

[Anonymous No.9865917]

>>9865914
Imagine being this insecure

[Anonymous No.9865919]

>>9865914
That's why I asked the question.
And I don't know what made you assume I am white. I might be Chinese for all you know.

[Anonymous No.9865918]

>>9865863
most of their crimes are black on black though so who cares

[Anonymous No.9865921]

>>9865918
It matters because of the cost of police, courts, and prisons required to deal with the problem, and nonblacks pay most of those costs.

[Anonymous No.9865923]

>>9865914
/thread

[Anonymous No.9865925]

>>9865923
So you don't know how to solve it.

[Anonymous No.9865927]

>>9865919
No man, trust me, only white retards care this much about race. Chinese people are literally chilling, succeeding in white countries even more than white people themselves. They are cool. They have no hate for other races.

[Anonymous No.9865930]

>>9865927
So do it for apples, then. It's a general math problem that applies to anything.

[Anonymous No.9865936]

>>9865927
>Chinese people... have no hate for other races
lmao you don't know any chinese people then jesus christ

[Anonymous No.9865937]

>>9865930
No, I'm having too much fun waiting for you to figure out what is actually happening.
Pro tip: You are actually much more retarded than you think you are

I'm counting the minutes so whenever you figure it out, post it.

[Anonymous No.9865941]

>>9865937
What's happening is that no one knows how to solve this problem.

[Anonymous No.9865942]

>>9865937
Oh the famous
>i know how to do it but won't say
>oh and btw you're so fucking stupid for not knowing how to do it XD

[Anonymous No.9865943]

>>9865936
It's obvious that all non-whites are perfect angles who could never do anything wrong. It's only the white people who come and cause all the problems.

[Anonymous No.9865949]

>>9865941
>>9865942
Okay retards. You want to find a function [math] f [/math] that takes as input the percentage of the black population, and outputs the percentage of murders they will commit.

The only property of this function you have is that [math] f(12) = 52 [/math].

You don't know if the function is linear, quadratic, exponential, rational, algebraic, etc. What does this mean, you fucking retarded white monkeys?

[Anonymous No.9865953]

>>9865949
This is a probability question you mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.9865958]

>>9865949
Is this bait?

[Anonymous No.9865959]

>>9865953
Then all you have to do is normalize what I did, you absolute fucking retard. I can't believe I literally spelled it out for you, and you cannot figure it out.

THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF WHITE PEOPLE

Okay, let me make it more obvious: YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION, YOU PIECE OF SHIT DISGUSTING WHITE SUBHUMAN GARBAGE.

[Anonymous No.9865973]

>>9865959
The original problem says "assuming the same murder rate for blacks." That is, whatever rate it is that allows them to commit 52% of the murders at 12% of the population stays the same, but we just increase their percent of the population to 52%.

Does that help?

[Anonymous No.9865976]

>>9865973
That "rate" is actually not well defined in any way. Think about it for a second you poor poor whitey.

[Anonymous No.9865982]

>>9865976
Given the problem, we don't know what the rate is. We just are assuming that the rate is staying the same. Is that not enough to solve the problem?

[Anonymous No.9865983]

It's a compound statistics, because murders are racially motivated too
You'd need to know what % of crime is vs black and vs white for the black population to have a reliable projection.
If you want to remove that additional trait, you're literally just making up an unreliable projection based on the fact that blacks will commit murder regardless of race, which is kind of stupid since everything they do is related to race.

That said, if 12% of the population commits 52% of the murders and the rest of 88% of the population number remains unvaried, then the black population would need to grow to 733% of the current to match. Less if the rest of the population is shrinking, more if it's increasing.

If the crime % is also constant in the population regardless of its size or composition (protip, it isn't because both are huge determiners) then murders would be 429% compared to the current number, or roughly 3 and a quarter times higher. In this, the black population would be committing about 88.81% of the murders with the aforementioned limitations.

Again, this is back of the envelope shitculations, if you want proper statistics to take over you A) need proper statistics and B) need to fucking pay me or whoever takes over

[Anonymous No.9865995]

>>9865976
>Think about it for a second you poor poor whitey.
Why are you so upset niglord?

[Anonymous No.9865998]

>>9865863
wouldn't make more sense to think about this in terms of men and women too? Since men commit the vast majority of crimes, I don't have
a great figure but it would be something like 4:1(http://law.jrank.org/pages/1250/Gender-Crime-Differences-between-male-female-offending-patterns.html).). If this is the case then we can assume that around 6% (black males in this case or apples) of the population is responsible for about 42-4% of crime. Sorry if this just complicates things but I think it's something to consider.

[Anonymous No.9866045]

>>9865868
Since you brought up this irrelevancy, it's worth nothing that the poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics are about the same, yet blacks commit much more murder than Hispanics do, which poverty does not explain.

[Anonymous No.9866053]

>>9865982
I am not even talking about what the rate is as a value. I am talking about what the rate is as a concept. It is not well defined.

If you think it is, define it formally. Assuming that an analytic solution to your problem exists, what would this "rate" represent. A coefficient? A constant in a differential equation? What would be the equation?

[Anonymous No.9866054]

>>9866045

Nice graph for one year. Now do it for a 10 year period.

[Anonymous No.9866057]

>>9865919
>>9865927
>>9865936
Chinese people are pretty good at maths tho

[Anonymous No.9866066]

>>9865983
thank you, chinese anon

[Anonymous No.9866073]

>>9866066
The "Fuck you, pay me" doctrine is an international one senpai

[Anonymous No.9866076]

>>9866053
The rate would be a fraction with number of black murderers in the numerator and number of blacks in the denominator.

[Anonymous No.9866081]

[Anonymous No.9866082]

>>9866076
Oh so by rate you just mean percentage of black murderers.

1) That rate would not define a unique solution to your problem
2) You lack variables to even determine what that rate is

[Anonymous No.9866086]

>>9865863
216.67%

[Anonymous No.9866102]

>>9866053
Try using the law of definite proportions.

[Anonymous No.9866105]

>>9866057
They don't fall victim to hedonism and know how to keep their heads down to get ahead. Also, they have strong family support networks even in poverty tier conditions, at least in the US.

[Anonymous No.9866108]

>>9866076
which is kind of nonsense, since the numbers that were to be used are not "all blacks" but not all blacks are able to commit murder. When a toddler unholsters or discharges a gun it's not murder, it's an accident. There's people that aren't self-sufficient, those are counted in too.
Statistics are hard to make meaningful, and even harder to get right.
>>9866081
see this is another pitfall. You're mixing in white on black and black on white murder and using that number.
Take interracial murder out and reponder the number, you'll have whites committing slightly more than 2.0 pro capite (still pretty much within normal standards) and blacks committing roughly around 8 or 9 pro capite (still aplenty to make a point, but not completely skewed). You want specific numbers, fuck you, pay me.

[Anonymous No.9866110]

>>9865927
lol bruh Chinese hate black people

[Anonymous No.9866115]

>>9865937
Spotted the dark man.

[Anonymous No.9866116]

>>9865927
>Chinese people
You haven't been around chinese people.
They are very aware about race, more so than whites.
Same goes for japanese people.

Also, i'm just gonna leave this here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzyaa2tfwBk&t=4s

[Anonymous No.9866119]

>>9866102
First, why would you do that with no reason for such a thing to have to hold? Second, try it yourself. When hit you a brick wall you can come back to me and admit that you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.9866125]

>>9866119
The only reason why you can't calculate by doing that is because the amount of murders would exceed the total population. But you can to estimate the amound of violent criminals that you would have in a society.

[Anonymous No.9866127]

>>9865868
(https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/229381)) Land, McCall, and Cohen 1990 collected data on the homicide rates of cities, standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs), and states for the years 1960, 1970, and 1980. In each year they included all 50 states and every city and SMSA included in the census. They then looked at how well the following 11 variables predicted crime variation between these areas: population size, population density, percent black, percentage aged between 15 and 29, percent divorced, percent of kids without two parents, median family income, the poverty rate, income inequality, the unemployment rate, and whether or not the city/SMSA/State was in the south. All of these variables were entered into a single regression model, meaning that the estimated effect size for each variable held all other 10 variables constant. This analysis thus produced 9 total models explaining crime variation in cities, SMSAs, and states, across 3 decades. Across these 9 models, race was a better predictor of homicide than unemployment, poverty, and median income, in 7, or 78%, cases, and a better predictor than income inequality in 8, or 89%, cases. Thus, over 3 decades of very large data sets, race was pretty consistently a better predictor of homicide rates than economic variables were.

(http://www.unz.com/article/race-and-crime-in-america/)) Another relevant analysis was carried out by Unz.com owner Ron Unz. Unz 2013 looked at how well median income, population density, poverty, and % black, correlated with the crime rates of large American cities between 2006 and 2011. He found that the size of the black population of a substantially better predictor than any of the other variables tested.

[Anonymous No.9866128]

>>9866125
>The only reason why you can't calculate by doing that is because the amount of murders would exceed the total population.
Amazing! Mr. Retardo finally figured it out!

Everyone, please, this is an achievement for this piece of shit. Everyone please clap and congratulate this poor young man. He can finally do math.

>But you can to estimate the amound of violent criminals that you would have in a society.
Whoops, not what is asked in the OP TRY AGAIN MY DUDE.

[Anonymous No.9866130]

it's another episode of:
>/pol/ tries to learn basic math in order to handwave a shoddy justification for racism

>what is a logistic curve

[Anonymous No.9866132]

>>9866128
No you moron, the amount of people that is killed is a probability function that takes the number of violent criminals at the society.
So you need that proportion.

[Anonymous No.9866134]

>>9865868
(https://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/)) Similarly, the New Century Foundation’s report “The Color of Crime” analyzed the violent crime rates of the 50 U.S. states and D.C for the year 2005. The analysis found that state violent crime rates correlated at .81 with the percentage of the population that was Black or Hispanic, .37 with the state’s percentage of high-school drop outs, .36 with the states poverty rate, and .35 with the state’s unemployment rate.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289611000900)) Templer and Rushton 2011 significantly replicated the New Century Foundation’s results. They analyzed crime variation across the 50 U.S. states and found that the percent of the population that was black was a stronger correlate than average income for murder rates (.84 v -.40), robbery rates (.77 v .06) and assault rates (.54 vs -.23) The paper did find that income was a stronger predictor than black population size for rape rates (-.16 v -.22), but neither of these correlates were statistically significant or large.

(https://www.jstor.org/stable/591624?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)) Kposowa, Breault, and Harrison 1995 analyzed crime variation across 2,078 U.S counties. As can be seen in pic related (standardized beta coefficients are under the “beta” column), the percent of the population that is black was a stronger explanatory variable than poverty, income inequality (gini), and unemployment, for explaining variation in both property and violent crime.

[Anonymous No.9866138]

>>9866132
Top kek beautiful. Define what a probability function is. You clearly know nothing about everything.

[Anonymous No.9866144]

>>9865982
Let's say there's 1 nigger and 9 people, and that nigger commits 1 murder and people commit 1 murder. So at 5 niggers and 5 people, niggers would commit 5 murders and people would commit 5/9 murders, which means niggers commit 90% of murders if rates stayed the same.

[Anonymous No.9866145]

>>9866138
> Define what a probability function is.
A function of a discrete random variable that gives the probability that the outcome associated with that variable will occur

Why would you even that?

[Anonymous No.9866150]

>>9866145
>Why would you even that?
*Ask that

[Anonymous No.9866153]

>>9866145
You are retarded if you think this is a discrete problem. You are even more retarded if you think that anything in the OP properly defines such a thing.

[Anonymous No.9866155]

>>9865863
I wonder what percentage of white collar crimes are committed by whites and Jews? You know, the ones that actually have a large impact on society. How many billions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted by decisions made by whites and Jews? Can we discuss that too? Or do we all suddenly care about black gang violence in some poor ghetto that we will never enter?

[Anonymous No.9866156]

>>9866138
>>9866144
shut the fuck up and look at my posts instead of talking vainly talking about probability functions
>>9866134
>>9866127

[Anonymous No.9866157]

>>9866156
What do your posts have to do with the question?

[Anonymous No.9866160]

>>9866153
>Ducking the question
No, you are a moron who wanna pretend that there is no correlation with the amount of murders and the size of the black population in a society.

[Anonymous No.9866163]

>>9866160
I am actually not saying anything about real life. I am saying that the problem you posed is not well defined, and the fact that you think it just shows how ignorant you are. You are worse than a retarded person. You are so dumb that you are breaking the limits of what dumb people should be capable of.

But well, that is to be expected of a white person. Basically subhumans.

[Anonymous No.9866164]

>>9866157
Oh I thought this was another episode of "race is meaningless its all environment hehe" and pulled out my standard response. Nevermind me I guess lol.

[Anonymous No.9866166]

>>9866045
Don’t even try they will always move the goalposts when it comes to race but accept lesser correlated things as facts. They are working from the axiom “all races are exactly the same” which is just wrong.

[Anonymous No.9866172]

>>9866166
I suppose someone could ask them what evidence there is to support the theory that blacks are equal to whites and see if they have any.

[Anonymous No.9866173]

>>9866163
>But well, that is to be expected of a white person. Basically subhumans.

Tried too hard here.

But you are right, there is no way to know what the crime rate would be if they were 50% of the population. The relation is probably not linear.

[Anonymous No.9866177]

>>9866163
>I am actually not saying anything about real life. I am saying that the problem you posed is not well defined
That's not what you are saying.
You could say that but still recognize that what i said is true.
But you denied it in the first place and is trying to shift the goal post to save face.
Sorry pall, the only reason you've been able to get away with this kind of bullshit reasoning is because they had a quota to fill.

[Anonymous No.9866179]

>>9866173
I know I'm right. I'm not white so I'm not this fucking retarded.

>The relation is probably not linear.
It is obviously not linear. What pisses me off is that literally 50 posts ago I said this. Not only that but I told you motherfuckers that to solve this problem, you'd need to know what class of function this is. A value at a single point would not be enough.

But nope, white people gotta white.

[Anonymous No.9866181]

>>9865959
Keep all racism in /pol/

[Anonymous No.9866182]

>>9866181
That's a really good idea, let's keep all like-minded people in a room.

[Anonymous No.9866209]

52% of reported murders.

[Anonymous No.9866210]

>>9866182
>let's keep all like-minded people in a room.
>Implying that doesn't happen naturally anyways

[Anonymous No.9866214]

>>9865863
Easy. Lets make it easy to compute: Blacks commit 52 murders and whiteoids, Asians, Hispanics and other commit 48. Now multiply the number of murders committed by blacks by 50/12.

Now they commit 216.67 murders. They thefore commit 216.67/(216.67 + 48) of the murders which turns out to be 81.86%

[Anonymous No.9866215]

>>9866210
I fucking wish, so they'd fucking leave me alone.

[Anonymous No.9866281]

>its a /pol/ is terrible at math episode

[Anonymous No.9866286]

>>9866214
>Now multiply the number of murders committed by blacks by 50/12.
?????

[Anonymous No.9866299]

Whenever you want to tell yourself this place isn't a racist shithole and you're proud of this board and would publicly and openly discuss it. Think of this thread.

[Anonymous No.9866300]

>tfw blacks commit the same amount of murder per capita if you assume they're 3/5 of a person and a black on black murder is only 9/25 of a murder

[Anonymous No.9866308]

>>9866299
with love, /sci/.

[Anonymous No.9866333]

>>9865863
WOULD YOU PLEASE JUST FUCK OF ALREADY YOU FUCKING RETARD

That is all.

[Anonymous No.9866338]

>>9866299
If you aren't "racist", you aren't correct.

[Anonymous No.9866340]

>>9866286
Think

[Anonymous No.9866350]

This retardation must be the work of an enemy stand!

[Anonymous No.9866371]

>>9865863
Cb, Cw - Black, nonblack murders per capita
n = total population size
m = total murders

Cb = 0.52m/0.12n = 4.3 m/n
Cw = 0.48m/0.88n = 0.54 m/n

Hypothetical total murders = 0.5nCb + 0.5nCw
Black fraction = 0.5nCb / (0.5nCb + 0.5nCw) = Cb/(Cb+Cw)
q = m/n
Cb/(Cb+Cw) = 4.3q/(4.3q + 0.54q) =

4.3/(4.3+0.54) = 0.8884297520661157

Which is very close to what smartanon got >>9865983

[Anonymous No.9866397]

>>9866371
To follow up, I got this for the ratio of new # of murders to old # of murders, but maybe I made a mistake.

(0.5nCb+0.5nCw)/m =

[0.5n(m/n)(4.3+0.54)] /m =
0.5(4.3+0.54) = 2.42

[Anonymous No.9866406]

>>9866299
We could go back to posting cheese pizza to keep the normies away. Racism's pretty tame desu.

[Anonymous No.9866420]

>>9866340
That's not a reason.

[Anonymous No.9866432]

>>9866214
>Now multiply the number of murders committed by blacks by 50/12.
I.e. multiply the number of blacks by 50/12.
So now, in terms of the old population, we have 50% black, and 88% nonblack.
50/(50+88) ~= 36% black, so you've failed to reproduce the OP's scenario.

[Anonymous No.9866445]

>>9866299
Why do you think this place is racist?

[Anonymous No.9866495]

It would likely be a greater majority but it would never surpass 100% because you would still be dividing that number from the total number of crimes committed. Unless you were comparing it to the initial figure in which case you would account for all those things and you could say something like “mo blackies raised the crime rate by 5 gorrilion percent bruther”

[Anonymous No.9866520]

433%

[Anonymous No.9866529]

>>9866445
If you're not racist, you're denying science

[Anonymous No.9866560]

>>9866529
Racism is prejudice or discrimination based on race.
How does that have anything to do with science?

[Anonymous No.9866566]

>>9866560
Prejudice against niggers is perfectly rational, given all the evidence for their aggressiveness and their willingness to resort to violence

[Anonymous No.9866568]

>>9866566
>given all the evidence for their aggressiveness and their willingness to resort to violence
That's the point. You are not being prejudicious because you are acting on empirical evidence, therefore it's not racism.

[Anonymous No.9866572]

>>9866566
Maybe posts like this would go over better if you avoided using racial slurs and inserted some language about Bayesian priors.

[Anonymous No.9866581]

>>9866572
What word should I use instead of nigger?

[Anonymous No.9866587]

>>9865863
12/52=50/x
Solve for x.

[Anonymous No.9866595]

>>9866587
x = 216.66...

[Anonymous No.9866602]

>>9866595
so increase the number of murders done by blacks by %216 and there is your answer.

[Anonymous No.9866609]

>>9866602
Number of murders is not given, retard. This is how you do it >>9866371