Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Thumbs up so far... (Score 1) 100

a) you can't log into gmail from a different computer unless you brought your keys with you, because they don't have them; if you lose your keys, you're hosed.

Can have secure encryption at all without the "if you lose your keys, you're hosed" part? I have never seen a solution to this fundamental problem.

Comment: Re:It's still NP. (Score 1) 114

What WoOS writes seems ok to me. He's not rearranging the components, he's pointing out that the correct formula is a different one. There's a constant involved in the most common definition of the big-O notation --- look at line 3 of the wikipedia page that you linked to.

Comment: Re:Standard Deviation (Score 1) 199

by fph il quozientatore (#46965635) Attached to: Single Gene Can Boost IQ By Six Points
So, I've followed the notes on MIT's courseware up to this (first formula on page 3), and it seems that my "intuitive" test formula is correct apart of the fact that I am summing SDs instead of variances, which will account for a factor \sqrt{2} at most if I am not mistaken. Is that it? Or the fact that statistical significance \neq practical significance (which I was never claiming in the first place)?

Comment: Re:Standard Deviation (Score 2) 199

by fph il quozientatore (#46951721) Attached to: Single Gene Can Boost IQ By Six Points
That is my intuition anyway: if the SD of a single IQ measurement is 15, then the SD of the measurement on the population that possess the gene is 15/sqrt(718*1/5)=1.25. The SD of the measurement on the population without the gene is 15/sqrt(718*4/5)=0.63. The SD of the difference should be 1.25+0.62=1.88. So yes, 6 points is over 3-sigma. IANAS and I could be saying complete nonsense.

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Working...