News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Matt Maroon - But Seriously by timr on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @11:57AM (#333402)
The second curve is wrong -- because it was stretched graphically, it has more total area beneath the curve. That's important, because if you assume that the mean is the same, but the std. dev. is larger, the probability for the most expected outcomes are actually lower (i.e. the peak of the second bell curve should be below the first one).

This is more than just a pedantic observation -- it's an illustration that the VC way leads to a lower probability of success at the most common valuations, but a small chance at a much higher valuation.

Re:Matt Maroon - But Seriously by nuclear_eclipse on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @01:22PM (#333486)
It was only stretched so that the bottom axis shared the same scale as the first graph. The scales match, so unless I'm missing something, the second curve isn't wrong at all...
Re:Matt Maroon - But Seriously by jedbrown on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @01:26PM (#333496)
Then you would have to change the measure to get both curves to integrate to 1. Of course the distribution is nonsense to begin with.
Re:Matt Maroon - But Seriously by DougBTX on Wednesday October 15, 2008 @02:07PM (#333550)
The vertical scales don't match, was the thrust of the comment.