>> The supposed clustering is in fact typical
>> of 'random' data.
> Didn't someone on this list test the data for
> randomness using a Poisson distribution a few months
> ago?
I remember suggesting it but not being statistically bright enough (or motivated
enough) to know how to do it... I know someone did test it, though. (Brian maybe?).
The results were the usual statistical double-talk... e.g. "There is not enough
evidence to suggest that the (logarithmic) gaps do *not* follow a Poisson
distribution". There's nothing in the existing data to indicate anything other than
natural, uncorrelated, Geiger-counter type noise.
In particular, as yet the island theory has no statistical support. Our eyes (and
human nature) deceive us. I have a feeling too that the investigator considered how
much more data we'd need before the existence of non-random data would even show up in
the statistical test - after all, sample size has to improve by a factor of 4 before
such confidence tests improve by a factor of 2.
Whatever the answer, 38 sure wasn't enough data, and the indication seems to be we'd
need to discover a great deal more before we could even conclude what we were looking
at isn't just Poisson randomness.
Chris
_________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
