tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post7972409103894705297..comments2020-05-27T17:06:38.303+01:00Comments on Holocaust Controversies: Bełżec mass graves and "Revisionist" mathematicsNicholas Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-44265187102566003372012-10-20T10:35:15.963+01:002012-10-20T10:35:15.963+01:00I wasn't sure where I could share these, but t...I wasn't sure where I could share these, but this seems like a good place.<br /><br />I was googling the "number of people in Tahrir square", to see how different agencies (in this case, news agencies) often come up with different numbers regarding an event. In my research, I found these: <br /><br />http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/02/how-many-people-are-in-tahrir-square-heres-how-to-tell/<br /><br />and<br /><br />http://www.majalla.com/eng/2011/10/article55226854<br /><br />Basically, the authors of the articles used the same method as Charles Provan when they tried to calculate the number of people who protested at Tahrir Square last year. That is, they got the total area of Tahrir square, and the side streets leading up to it, and divided it by the population density. The Wired article points out that the method was quite popular back in the sixties. A shame Provan's not with us anymore; these pretty much validate his method. They would've been great footnotes to his article.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02660486969581542489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-80054635342040144722012-06-04T08:00:05.083+01:002012-06-04T08:00:05.083+01:00Very well discussed and very impressive blog,thank...Very well discussed and very impressive blog,thanks for sharing,I am here to share a simple definition of Rational number as-A number that can be written as a simple fraction known as A rational number(i.e. as a ratio).<br />example:- 2.5 is a rational number because 2.5 = 5/2 <br /><a href="www.tutorcircle.com/antiderivative-of-arctan-f5Pjq.html" rel="nofollow">antiderivative of arctanx</a>amit khanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03713443692441052399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-5912070460880130232012-06-03T17:59:46.509+01:002012-06-03T17:59:46.509+01:00Second, concerning the difference between the resu...Second, concerning the difference between the result of the calculations, namely ~380 000 people for the capacity of the graves, and 434 508 people deported to Belzec. Actually, the problem here is in insufficient accuracy of this 380 000 figure. Indeed, this calculation is based on Provan's experiment where people were in clothes and still were able to breath normally. Therefore, parameter ro = 604.5 kg/m^3 is not at it's maximum possible. Average body mass 34 kg was calculated in the assumption of 2 adults + 1 child scenario, but we don't know the exact ratio of children among the deportees. Average adult body mass was calculated as average between the borders of "underweight" group in BMI table. In my opinion this is a good and quite conservative assumption, but we don't know exactly what is the deviation between this assumption and the real average mass. The same can be applied for average child body mass.<br /><br />We also don't know the ratio of women among the deportees (men are better for hard forced labor than women and women have lower body mass), and BMI-approach is not very good itself, see for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#Limitations_and_shortcomings<br /><br />Finally, none of the parameters used in the calculations is reliable, but all of them are approximations with different accuracies. During the calculations deviations between the "real" values of the parameters and our approximations are multiplied, therefore the final result, 380 000 people, just gives us the order of magnitude. In science it is not sufficient to find a result, it is also necessary to estimate it's error (due to measurements errors, processing errors, etc). In my opinion, the error of 380 000 result is much higher than the difference between 434 508 and 380 000 figures (14% difference). In other words, we cannot accurately distinguish 380 000 figure from the 434 508 one.Dmitryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159691798308569413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-31111516730614561612012-06-03T17:57:57.051+01:002012-06-03T17:57:57.051+01:00Since I'm the author of that letter Roberto ci...Since I'm the author of that letter Roberto cited here, I would like to make 2 clarifications.<br /><br /><br />First, I would like to repeat again in more specific way where exactly Snake Tongue used what I called "assumption 3" (paragraph starting with the phrase "In all calculations of such kind we make implicit assumption ...", seems, number 3 was lost during formatting) in his/her calculations. Assumption 3 was used when Snake Tongue wrote down the following equations:<br />x = a/(a+b+c)*0.44/3, y = b/(a+b+c)*0.44/4, z = c/(a+b+c)*0.44/1<br /><br />where x, y and z are average volumes necessary for an average adult, child or doll; a, b and c are summary weights of all adults, children and doll; 3, 4 and 1 - numbers of people in the corresponding groups, and 0.44 m^3 - volume they all occupied in Provan's experiment.<br /><br />Indeed, a/(a+b+c)*0.44/3 = (a/3)/(a+b+c)*0.44 is the multiplication of the total volume 0.44 m^3 by the ratio between the average adult mass (a/3) and the total Provan's group mass (a+b+c). When Snake Tongue equates average volume x necessary for an average adult body to a/(a+b+c)*0.44/3, he/she actually states that this average volume x is proportional to body mass (a/3). Then he/she repeats the procedure for children and doll groups.<br /><br />Or there could be another way: as I wrote in my letter, a/(a+b+c)*0.44 is the volume occupied by all adults, and dividing it by the number of adults n=3 gives Snake Tongue average volume necessary for an average adult body. But in order to write this down, namely that a/(a+b+c)*0.44 is the volume occupied by all adults, Snake Tongue needs proportionality between this necessary volume for adults and the group mass a.<br /><br />As you see, assumption 3 is used one way or another. Without assumption 3 Snake Tongue simply has no rights to write down his/her equations for x, y and z. But yet Snake Tongue still writes:<br /><br />"The method is deceitful because induce the reader to believe the human body volume variation is absolute proportional to the body mass variation".<br />(see http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8338038&postcount=2317)<br /><br />Snake Tongue tries simultaneously to use a method and to prohibit the same method to be used by the others.Dmitryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159691798308569413noreply@blogger.com