User:NorwegianBlue/kladd

This a page that I use for testing before posting an entry

There are no secrets here :-), but there may be nonsense, things in the middle of a cut-and-paste process, stuff that does not parse correctly, or a half-finished entry which I am preparing in response to something you wrote. In case of the latter, you are of course welcome to read it, but save your comments till the time when my entry is actually posted.

User commited identity

Committed identity: c6d479313bf81cf049d554c5697b7b51 is a MD5 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Conditional probabilities

I've been trying to calculate the consequences of adding a third laboratory test in a certain diagnostic setting, in terms of conditional probabilities. I ended up with the following table:

		CD pos		CD neg
		IgA pos	IgA neg	IgA pos	IgA neg
DGP pos	TTGA pos	a	b	c	d
	TTGA neg	e	f	g	h
DGP neg	TTGA pos	i	j	k	l
	TTGA neg	m	n	o	p

The letters a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o represent the relative proportion of the population in each table cell, the sum a...o is 1.

My interest for the time being is only in the subpopulation that is DGP pos TTGA neg, i.e. the cells e,f,g,h. I would like to know how introduction of the test IgA affects the conditional probabilities of P(CD pos).

I get

P(CD pos|DGP pos, TTG neg) = (e+f)/(e+f+g+h)

P(CD pos|DGP pos, TTG neg, IgA pos) = e/(e+g)

P(CD pos|DGP pos, TTG neg, IgA neg) = f/(f+h)

User:Fête is back

The IP asking questions on the entertainment desk about whether Chinese pop songs are in tune, is User:Fête. See question of 21 September 2013 and question of 22 September 2013. Previous discussions about this now permablocked user: Archive 95, Archive 100. For confirmation from Fête himself, see this little conversation on my talk page. He has a highly dynamic IP address in the 198.105 range. Collapsed below I've collected a list of the contributions from 90 IP-addresses that clearly are associated with the same user (compare with Special:Contributions/Fête)

The majority of the edits are questions on the talk pages of several editors. Often the same questions have been asked to different editors, mainly about Quebecois pronunciation and Chinese pop songs. Some of these editors have had saintly patience. More worryingly, he has made quite a few edits in article space, the majority modifying IPA pronunciations of words in French, Vietnamese, Chinese and other languages. Quite a few of these edits are the current version of the article. I'm not IPA savvy enough to judge whether these edits are improvements or not, but I've seen no obvious vandalism. It would be nice if someone with the necessary linguistic knowledge could take a look at some of the contributions, and see if there is a need for further action (if any action other than reverting bad edits is possible with such a dynamic IP address). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Diffs

Thanks. I included an American one as well. As of writing, only the edit on Belgian French is current.

General American: [1]

Belgian French (current): [2]

French phonology: [3]

Quebec French phonology: [4]

Quebec French phonology: [5]

Young temperament

The pitches in Hz should follow directly from the second table of the article. For example, for C, which is three semitones above A, and has an offset from equal temperament of +6 according to the table, the calculation should be 440 ^((3*100 + 6)/1200) = 525.068. The whole table, then becomes:

Note	Difference	Equal temp.	Young temp.
A	0	440	440
B♭	+6	466,164 Hz	467,782 Hz
B	-2	493,883 Hz	493,313 Hz
C	+6	523,251 Hz	525,068 Hz
C♯	0	554,365 Hz	554,365 Hz
D	+2	587,330 Hz	588,008 Hz
E♭	+4	622,254 Hz	623,693 Hz
E	-2	659,255 Hz	658,494 Hz
F	+6	698,456 Hz	700,881 Hz
F♯	-2	739,989 Hz	739,134 Hz
G	+4	783,991 Hz	785,804 Hz
G♯	+2	830,609 Hz	831,570 Hz
0	+2	880 Hz	880 Hz

However, when I try the same calculations using the base frequency of 262.513 for C as was given in the page you linked to for the frequencies of Young temperament (262.513, 276.557, 293.997, 311.127, 329.256, 350.018, 368.743, 392.882, 414.836, 440.000, 466.690, 492.769), I get slightly different values ((262.513, 277.161, 293.981, 311.822, 329.221, 350.413, 369.538, 392.871, 415.752, 439.965, 467.745, 493.274) than in the linked article. Maximum discrepancy is at Bb, 1.055 Hz. So either there's something wrong in my understanding or application of the calculations, or there is an error in either the linked page or our article, or there is round-off error somewhere. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 13:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)