02-22-2008, 04:31 AM

gbausc Wrote:Hello Jerzy,

The text is a western edition of The Peshitta(o)- the 1905 Peshitta New Testament taken from the Online Bible module , which is free with the free Online Bible program as a download.

Dave, Thanks, I needed exactly this confirmation. I'm assuming that your have read Online Bible program licence agreement, specifically this sentence: "You may not rework the published modules and texts for use with other programs or publication in eBook formats or websites". And you have the permission of that program authors to convert OBs Peshitta module into a module of your code finder program. As you can see it is not so free for everyone. Independent verification of your results might be difficult, if not impossible.

Now I can state question number 2:

Do you understand statistical methods which you have mentioned in your book and logic behind them sufficiently enough to defend your methodology and experiment setup in a discussion with me here by yourself? Or when we'll start talking about logic and statistics I will have to talk to a statistician who gave you advice (or a man from Oregon who checked your calculations)?

Judging by many words that you have used in response to my simple question number one and looking at another thread that you have started, which I believe was a defending reaction (please remember that we are discussing YOUR book and not other Bible-code related stuff published by other people), I can foresee serious problems in further discussion. Many threads, long additional personal stories and explanations is exactly what I wanted to avoid in this discussion. Let's focus on the methodology used by you in your book. I'm trying to establish now if it the experiment concept and whole statistical proof methods are yours or I rather need to talk to the organ grinder.

gbausc Wrote:Not so, The Peshitta, no matter which version I used.The results are highly unusual, no matter which statistical analysis is used- ANOVA, Standard deviation, Chi Test, Wilcoxen, Poisson, you name it.

I might be interested in seeing how you are really applying all those. But in a moment, first things first.

Most classical statistical hypothesis testing is based on Jerzy Splawa-Neyman and Egon Pearson's "null hypothesis" method. The test that you have mentioned in your book (U Mann Whitney Wilcoxon) is one of the "implementations" of this method. Without understanding the logic of statistical hypothesis testing we could throw at each other statistical terms, ours and our colleagues PhDs and professionalism, book titles etc and come to no conclusion for months.

Some more clarification of question number 2. I have no problem accepting statistical proofs from a non-statistician if he speaks in a coherent and logical way and understands what he is doing. From what I have seen so far in this thread and in your book I have some doubts about that. I'm not speaking about the actual maths and formulas involved in a particular statistical test (although I have no problem understanding it) but rather the logic of your experiment, assumptions and necessary translation of your experimenters hypothesis(es) to that of a mathematical model which must be used in calculations. If you do not understand it and the logic was laid out by someone else then it is fine, just say it. For example, are you able to state clearly what is null hypothesis for your UMW test ? Who is "we" in most of chapter 12 of your book, is it you or someone else?

Shlama,

Jerzy

P.S. Just for your information - the name of the statistician who designed on of the statistical tests is Wilcoxon, not Wilcoxen. I wrote the same comment to you a year ago, apparently you have forgotten. Similar comment about Chi-test, it is known as chi-square test. Term chi-test is used very rarely (I have not seen it in any statistical book or article, only on some amateur websites). And I wouldn't call standard deviation a statistical method, rather a statistical measure (of variability). Poisson is a type of distribution (or model), I'm not sure what you would call a Poisson method (but as I said, we can come to that later, if you will be kind enough to write one sentence in answer to question 2).