←back to thread

105 points lapnect | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
wodenokoto ◴[] No.41913255[source]
> You can see that the data is clustered around the mean value. Another way of saying this is that the distribution has a definite scale. [..] it might theoretically be possible to be 2 meters taller than the mean, but that’s it. People will never be 3 or 4 meters taller than the mean, no matter how many people you see.

The way the author defines definite scale is that there is a max and a minimum, but that is not true for a gaussian distribution. It is also not true that if we keep sampling wealth (an example of a distribution without definite scale used in the article), there is no limit to the maximum.

replies(2): >>41913691 #>>41914085 #
klysm ◴[] No.41913691[source]
I think he’s saying that the distribution of human heights has definite scale, not the Gaussian?
replies(2): >>41914005 #>>41915070 #
1. nwnwhwje ◴[] No.41915070[source]
Nothing is Gaussian then. What probability distribution allows for Graham's Number to be a possibility?