More bikes fewer cars.

JNugent

Nick Finnigan wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan wrote:

>>> Average commute distance 8.7 miles, the break down may well be similar.

>> Is that "average" the mode, the mean or the median?

> Arithmetic mean.

So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same way
that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per person in the
UK is less than two)?

JNugent

Nick Finnigan wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:

>>>>> Average commute distance 8.7 miles, the break down may well be
>>>>> similar.

>>>> Is that "average" the mode, the mean or the median?

>>> Arithmetic mean.

>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same
>> way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per person
>> in the UK is less than two)?

> No.

Sorry.. "no" to what?

Nick Finnigan

JNugent wrote:
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>
>>>> Average commute distance 8.7 miles, the break down may well be
>>>> similar.
>
>
>>> Is that "average" the mode, the mean or the median?
>
>
>> Arithmetic mean.
>
>
> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same way
> that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per person in the
> UK is less than two)?

No.

Nick Finnigan

JNugent wrote:
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same
>>> way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per person
>>> in the UK is less than two)?
>
>
>> No.
>
>
> Sorry.. "no" to what?

"No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.

JNugent

Nick Finnigan wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:

>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same
>>>> way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per person
>>>> in the UK is less than two)?

>>> No.

>> Sorry.. "no" to what?

> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.

I think we must be at cross purposes.

Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.

Clive George

"JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
newsvKdncEl64r16K3VnZ2dnUVZ8t7inZ2d@pipex.net...
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same
>>>>> way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per person
>>>>> in the UK is less than two)?
>
>>>> No.
>
>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>
>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>
> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>
> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be taken
> as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say) 8.7 miles
> might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of 8.7 miles. I
> don't think that can be what you mean.

You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your example
there. Hence 'no'.

Meanwhile, is it important if 8.7 angels can fit on a pin? Are you
developing a useful argument, or just messing with definitions?

JNugent

Clive George wrote:

> "JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>> JNugent wrote:

>>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the
>>>>>> same way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per
>>>>>> person in the UK is less than two)?

>>>>> No.

>>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?

>>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.

>> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
>> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
>> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
>> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.

> You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your
> example there. Hence 'no'.

The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly calculated.

> Meanwhile, is it important if 8.7 angels can fit on a pin? Are you
> developing a useful argument, or just messing with definitions?

I was wondering whether the argument that some average commute is 8.7
miles tells us anything useful.

Peter Grange

On Fri, 16 May 2008 06:36:48 -0700 (PDT), TimB <timburford@onetel.net>
wrote:


>> Still doesn't get me to work 28 miles away in a decent amount of time..
>>
>> --
>> Conor
>>
>> I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
>> looking good either. - Scott Adams
>
>That's because you either live or work in the wrong place.

That's not always the answer. I do short term contract work in
different places. My last contract was about 35 miles east of my home.
My current contract is for 5 weeks, and is about 15 miles SW. Should I
move house for each contract? (Replies saying "Yes" and signed "Gordon
Brown" or "Alistair Darling" will be ignored ).

pete

Nick Finnigan

JNugent wrote:
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>
>
>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same
>>>>> way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per
>>>>> person in the UK is less than two)?
>
>
>>>> No.
>
>
>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>
>
>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>
>
> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>
> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.

No, I did not deny any fact.

Adam Lea

"JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
news:4qCdnWuLmtVi5a3VnZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Clive George wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same
>>>>>>> way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per person
>>>>>>> in the UK is less than two)?
>
>>>>>> No.
>
>>>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>
>>>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>
>>> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>>> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
>>> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
>>> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
>>> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.
>
>> You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your example
>> there. Hence 'no'.
>
> The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
> example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly
> calculated.
>

What you need to know is what distribution does the data best fit.

JNugent

Adam Lea wrote:
> "JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
> news:4qCdnWuLmtVi5a3VnZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> Clive George wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same
>>>>>>>> way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per person
>>>>>>>> in the UK is less than two)?
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>>>>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>>>> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>>>> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
>>>> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
>>>> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
>>>> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.
>>> You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your example
>>> there. Hence 'no'.
>> The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
>> example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly
>> calculated.
>>
>
> What you need to know is what distribution does the data best fit.

Ideally, of course.

Not that there is any choice here - the statement was that the mean was
used.

JNugent

Nick Finnigan wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the
>>>>>> same way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per
>>>>>> person in the UK is less than two)?
>>
>>
>>>>> No.
>>
>>
>>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>>
>>
>>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>>
>>
>> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>>
>> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
>> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
>> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
>> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.
>
> No, I did not deny any fact.

So what were you saying "no" to?

Daniel Barlow

JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> writes:

> The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
> example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly
> calculated.

Misleading to morons, perhaps. Anyone with GCSE maths should have no
trouble with it.


-dan

Roger Merriman

JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> Clive George wrote:
>
> > "JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >> Nick Finnigan wrote:
> >>> JNugent wrote:
> >>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
> >>>>> JNugent wrote:
>
> >>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the
> >>>>>> same way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per
> >>>>>> person in the UK is less than two)?
>
> >>>>> No.
>
> >>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>
> >>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>
> >> I think we must be at cross purposes.
> >> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
> >> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
> >> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
> >> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.
>
> > You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your
> > example there. Hence 'no'.
>
> The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
> example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly calculated.
>
> > Meanwhile, is it important if 8.7 angels can fit on a pin? Are you
> > developing a useful argument, or just messing with definitions?
>
> I was wondering whether the argument that some average commute is 8.7
> miles tells us anything useful.

not that much unless one could look at the number per mile, ie how many
under a mile, and so on, up. some people do have long journeys.

but with out looking at how spread out or not they are the mean of 8.7
miles doesn't tell one much.

when i was in wales my commute was about 8 miles and about 10mins, i was
by far the longest distance traveller a few walked one biked, a most
drove the 2 to 6 miles, these days my distance varies though tends to be
less, but since this is london, i can spend longer waiting at lights
than my orginal coummute.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com