From Fifteen to Thirty

Statistic Chances for Correct Statistics from Insecure Items ... · Zero Polarity on Five Item Statistics · One Lifespan Too Short in Five · One Lifespan Too Long in Five · Method for Good Choice · Two LifeSpans Too Short in Five Items · Two Lifespans Too Long in Five · The More Extreme Variations or Deviations · Summary for Five Lifespans · From Five to Fifteen? · From Five to Ten, the Long Way · From Five and Ten to Fifteen, the Long Way · From Fifteen to Thirty · Is the Median Likely to be Correct?

From the table on From Five and Ten to Fifteen, the Long Way, I extract:

overall correct

0.53250254490066198554120957851409

one lifespan in deficit

0.19457948503687863317008595913649

one lifespan in excess

0.19457948503687863317008595913649

two lifespans in deficit

0.03491280835932598368558101356028

two lifespans in excess

0.03491280835932598368558101356028

three lifespans in deficit

0.00392996417819589468205813318492

three lifespans in excess

0.00392996417819589468205813318492

Would these add up adequately so as to not just be near hundred %, but also have square and cube near hundred %?

0.53250254490066198554120957851409
+ 0.19457948503687863317008595913649
+ 0.19457948503687863317008595913649
+ 0.03491280835932598368558101356028
+ 0.03491280835932598368558101356028
+ 0.00392996417819589468205813318492
+ 0.00392996417819589468205813318492
= 0.99934706004946300861665979027747

0.99934706004946300861665979027747² = 0.99869454642950502448207384608942
0.99934706004946300861665979027747³ = 0.99804245886175778042684226880683

Adequate.

Now let's take "the squares" of this, and here the results are:

overall correct

0.36175000993206913621967397518099

one lifespan in deficit

0.22108918665111880425579369718934

one lifespan in excess

0.22108918665111880425579369718934

two lifespans in deficit

0.07657287541117073361934460202963

two lifespans in excess

0.07657287541117073361934460202963

three lifespans in deficit

0.017772064396013268186943237353

three lifespans in excess

0.017772064396013268186943237353

four lifespans in deficit

0.00274828499954849653206355718914

four lifespans in excess

0.00274828499954849653206355718914

five lifespans in deficit

2.7441217242473860320450499292338e-4

five lifespans in excess

2.7441217242473860320450499292338e-4

six lifespans in deficit

1.5444618441902933850336700187036e-5

six lifespans in excess

1.5444618441902933850336700187036e-5

So, for an initial assumption of 95 % chance of each wikipedian life having a correct lifespan, and 2.5 % for it deviating in either direction, for thirty of them, for the first time in these calculations, I get a chance of the "overall sum" being correct at less than 50 %, namely 36 %, but for the deviations one up or one down, 22 % each. Meaning, the chances for none or just one lifespan deviating in 30 add up to 80 %. If we find even 2 lifespans overall deviation acceptable in 30, we get a probability of 96 %, and if you could find three up or three down acceptable too, the certainty of acceptable result is over 99 %.

This means, I have not made a major blunder in taking wikipedian articles and the lifespans of known persons of the past in these.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Paul of Narbonne
22.III.2019

Tired as I was, I misdated 22.II instead of 22.III, this is now corrected, however, St Paul of Narbonne is from today's martyrology, not from back in february:

Narbone, in Gallia, natalis sancti Pauli Episcopi, Apostolorum discipuli, quem tradunt fuisse Sergium Paulum Proconsulem. Hic, a beato Apostolo Paulo baptizatus, et ab eo, cum in Hispaniam pergeret, apud Narbonem relictus, ibidem Episcopali dignitate donatus est; ibique, praedicationis officio non segniter expleto, clarus miraculis migravit in caelum.