Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 AnimeSuki Forum [Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 5 End of the golden witch

 2010-01-17, 15:15 Link #2261 Jan-Poo 別にいいけど     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: forever lost inside a logic error As I said in my premise this is the real world logic. If your claim is that Erika thinks as if she is inside a mystery novel I certainly won't disagree. However this kind of reasoning is far from being logic, unless Erika really was inside a mystery novel. I'll be clear. What I am actually arguing is that there are only two possibilities: 1) Erika is going against the knox rules by the fact even so she's using wrong logic she happens to find the right murder spot. Lucky. 2) Erika is inside a novel where novel rules apply therefore her reasoning is correct. of course I choose number 2 __________________
Klashikari

Graphic Designer
Moderator

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Age: 30
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jan-Poo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder search for japan. In Japan there is only 1 murder over 200.000 persons per year. Since the family meetings happens only once time per year I can agree that the 4 october represents this 1 per year chance of a murder occurring. this basically means that on a randomly selected sample of 100 japanese people you'd have a 0.0005% of probability to get one that committed a murder that year. On 18 people that would become 0.00009%
Again, why are you applying statistics on humans? And to "global" setup to boot?
Again, stastics cannot work over a specific case, they are representative as a summary to a given subject, to a given population. By no mean it can be applied to everyone on a smaller sample. Moreover, this kind of sample doesn't mean jack when the given situation isn't even represented to the whole country.

That's like suddenly saying that "no matter what, you will have 50% chance of having head, 50% having tails by flipping a coin", and yet, there is nothing that prevents you to have a odd result, having 8 heads, and 22 tails after 30 coin flips.
We can't apply probabilities and statistics to human beings, let alone when you have peculiar circumstances in a given situation and possible backstory etc.

Realistic or not, you really cannot use an observed statistics to be possibly applied as if these 18 persons were in the same situation (or remotely the same) of a whole population.
__________________

Antera Caramichael
French Maid

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Poitiers; France
Age: 24
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jan-Poo As I said in my premise this is the real world logic. If your claim is that Erika thinks as if she is inside a mystery novel I certainly won't disagree. However this kind of reasoning is far from being logic, unless Erika really was inside a mystery novel.
And she is, look a her beahavior, at how she is quoting mystery novels, how she calls herself "intellectual rapist", how she is searching for riddles, trying to create even some.
in a way, she make me think of Maria, who can quote you any sentence of the Bible in hebrew. Erika is really light comparing to her...

 2010-01-17, 15:32 Link #2264 rogerpepitone Senior Member   Join Date: Sep 2008 Klashikari: Your foreshadowing hints seem to me to be the equivalent of "The detective suddenly stares at the ground, says "Aha", and picks an unknown object up out of some corner. Ten chapters later, during the big reveal, he produces the object, explains what it is, and how it incriminates the suspect." The whole point of the Knox rules is that the reader is supposed be on an even footing with the detective, and should be able to perform the same deductions. It's not enough to know that some passages were sealed in a way that they couldn't be used; the reader has to know which passages were sealed and when.
Klashikari

Graphic Designer
Moderator

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Age: 30
Quote:
 Originally Posted by rogerpepitone Klashikari: Your foreshadowing hints seem to me to be the equivalent of "The detective suddenly stares at the ground, says "Aha", and picks an unknown object up out of some corner. Ten chapters later, during the big reveal, he produces the object, explains what it is, and how it incriminates the suspect."
The idea is that the clues were setup.
I didn't claim they were reastically done. To begin with, we can all agree that Erika was blatantly setting up, with all the crappy joust in the meta world.
Quote:
 The whole point of the Knox rules is that the reader is supposed be on an even footing with the detective, and should be able to perform the same deductions. It's not enough to know that some passages were sealed in a way that they couldn't be used; the reader has to know which passages were sealed and when.
That work for the original application of the knox rule, but in umineko, the application of the rules are sort of different. There isn't nothing about the "readers" here, but how the rules are followed by the characters within their own scope of actions. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any weird rewording of the said rules, especially the ninth one.

The reasoning behind the sealing was already introduced by Eva a while ago, and we were presented Erika meddling around. That said, that "clue" isn't exactly self explanatory either.
__________________

Jan-Poo

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Klashikari Again, why are you applying statistics on humans? And to "global" setup to boot? Again, stastics cannot work over a specific case, they are representative as a summary to a given subject, to a given population. By no mean it can be applied to everyone on a smaller sample. Moreover, this kind of sample doesn't mean jack when the given situation isn't even represented to the whole country. That's like suddenly saying that "no matter what, you will have 50% chance of having head, 50% having tails by flipping a coin", and yet, there is nothing that prevents you to have a odd result, having 8 heads, and 22 tails after 30 coin flips. We can't apply probabilities and statistics to human beings, let alone when you have peculiar circumstances in a given situation and possible backstory etc. Realistic or not, you really cannot use an observed statistics to be possibly applied as if these 18 persons were in the same situation (or remotely the same) of a whole population.
Nice example you made there but you are totally misinterpreting me.

I am not saying that it is impossible for a coin toss to result in head or tail. I'm saying that if you guess it right you are lucky.

Not you don't need to be very lucky if you guess right that a coin toss will result into a had. that's a 50% probability

However if you guess right something that has a 0.00009% probability to happen, then how is that not supposed to be lucky?

Oh and statistic on humans work. You are going against 50 years of social psychology by disagreeing with this!
__________________

Judoh
Mystery buff

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jan-Poo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder search for japan. In Japan there is only 1 murder over 200.000 persons per year. Since the family meetings happens only once time per year I can agree that the 4 october represents this 1 per year chance of a murder occurring. this basically means that on a randomly selected sample of 100 japanese people you'd have a 0.0005% of probability to get one that committed a murder that year. On 18 people that would become 0.00009% this is how much probable this would be in a realistic case scenario.
I don't think real world statistics are really "rules": that can be applied to Umineko even if your not following the fiction theory. However I think if your going to use statistics you should use statistics from 1986. I mean If your going with Japan's modern day statistics it would be a 90% probability that everyone committed suicide. That is... if you didn't take the red truth into account...

Also even if the chance is low it's not impossible. In Ryukishi's anti fantasy vs Antimystery article he called something that will certainly happen a 99.99% chance and a miracle something that has a .01% chance to happen.

 2010-01-17, 16:36 Link #2268 Jan-Poo 別にいいけど     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: forever lost inside a logic error You are missing my point, read above. __________________
 2010-01-17, 19:19 Link #2269 bereal31 Junior Member     Join Date: Dec 2009 anyways to me...those clues are invalid since they are not revealed till the end of the mystery. all the forshadowing that you mentioned are TOO GENERAL to mean anything. she was late. so? she could've tripped. had another cup of tea. took a leak. if she was late and had a piece of duct tape on her cloth or carrying a duct tape though, for example, that would make it a valid foreshadowing for this clue. she was meddling around. so? all girls her age are like that. ever had an annoying, nosy sister? girls don't just all of suddenly become wives, you know. if she was meddling around and was found crouched down in front of one of those doors, for example, that would be valid. see, battler saying at the end that he was the boy from 19 years ago is valid because the forshadowings were SPECIFIC and pointed toward that direction. for example: his dad wanting to talk about his birth/his origins. __________________ d
 2010-01-17, 20:47 Link #2270 maximilianjenus [E]     Join Date: Mar 2008 the foreshadowing works for me, we had alread ot the paper on kinzo's door back in Ep1, this Ep now gives a more valid reason on why eva did that ( to corner natsuhi into accepting kinzo's already dead), plus we got genji's door sealed with tape, all that happened long before the trial. now, to maek the probability of erika guessing the murder room less ridiculous think of it differently, analyze the way the seals were set up adn where, now make the crime happen in another room. Let's say everybody outside the cousin's room got killed, if natushi survived and her room was hte only one with a broken seal besides the ones in which murders were commited we got a clear culprit too.
 2010-01-17, 23:56 Link #2271 Jan-Poo 別にいいけど     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: forever lost inside a logic error Erika knew better than place a seal on Natsuhi's door. If she did that, she'd give Natsuhi a perfect alibi. No, she never did that. Natsuhi's door wasn't sealed. Also as Erika stated she expected 6 people to die no more than that. It was possible that the murder would happen to anyone that wasn't ins the guesthouse. It was even possible that Battler and Rosa would be murdered there instead than in the Guesthouse... hell it never happened before that someone died in the guesthouse I don't think I'm saying something far-fetched here. __________________
Klashikari

Graphic Designer
Moderator

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Age: 30
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jan-Poo Nice example you made there but you are totally misinterpreting me. I am not saying that it is impossible for a coin toss to result in head or tail. I'm saying that if you guess it right you are lucky. Not you don't need to be very lucky if you guess right that a coin toss will result into a had. that's a 50% probability However if you guess right something that has a 0.00009% probability to happen, then how is that not supposed to be lucky?
You are using stastitics to elaborate a probability. By itself, I really don't get how you can join both concepts, considering the obvious shades of greys and circumstances regarding that kind of deed.
By the way, my example shows that even probability can be totally off tracks (the usual Gambler's fallacy).
Quote:
 Oh and statistic on humans work. You are going against 50 years of social psychology by disagreeing with this!
Although statistics work on humans, what you are doing is totally misplaced completely.
You are comparing statistics of a whole country to a very small sample of individuals. By this point, there is absolutely no way you can claim that these 18 are enough to represent that much of sample of this statistics. Otherwise, are you claiming that the 18 people you are picking randomly will represent all type of classes, age, gender etc? I beg to differ.

Again, my point is that statistics doesn't work on such low sample, especially because of circumstances. Statistics work only on a certain target population about a subject, when they are defined to a certain point, but also if they are numerous enough. The statistics you presented there represent a whole frigging country that has its share of different classes of people, with all circumstances you can imagine.
Now, if I were, for example, to select 20 people from a ghetto, or 20 people from a prison, do you think the probability will remain the same as to the statistic of a whole country? I really doubt so. These do not represent the country at all, but the statistics I would gather in such extreme example would be extremely high. Now, if you merge these individuals with more "normal" people in the lot, the statistics would be affected greatly. Likewise, if you keep your observation on a very specific kind of individuals, you will have a very different result.

Thus, you can't probe that probability with statistic of a unrelated observation that is just reporting a number affecting a country, and not a certain type of population.
We are talking here of a probability of a murder occuring with bunch of people in DIRE need of money, barking at each other for decades, with a very elusive family head, an unhealthy atmosphere of occult, a typhoon trapping everyone, and suddenly, a (un)fortunate youth having all of a sudden 20 billion yens, that everyone would turn berserk over it, in his pocket.

Side note: this note doesn't work on the premise of the scheme of the meta world. In a realistic setup though, the following explanation can apply:
Erika didn't expect 6 murders to begin with (if we don't account the meta world, that is). She knew a murder will occur, and the victim would be Battler. However, AFTER they discovered there were 4 casualties, she then says there might be others, which Kyrie agreed.
None claimed there would be 6 victims, but as soon as they knew there weren't only 1, the conclusion was easy.
__________________

Last edited by Klashikari; 2010-01-18 at 01:39.

 2010-01-18, 09:45 Link #2275 MeoTwister5 Komrades of Kitamura Kou     Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Where I can learn to be lonely. Age: 31 @Jan-Poo What Klash is pointing out is that the reason you can't apply the same inferences and conclusions from a larger population to the discrete number of individuals on the island is because the idea of sampling is randomization such that you are assuming that the samples you chose are randomly taken from the population at large such that they are representaive of the general qualities the population possesses to make your conclusions "valid" for the population from which they from. The problem is that the the Rokkenjima people are not scientifically representative of the population they are culled from. Discrete random sampling compared to whole population studies can only be concretely related insofar as all the variables for them are are the same; randomization assumes that the sample qualities and variables are the same as the population and therefore representative. Heck even then, comparative analyses such as regression, chi square, T tests and the like have to be applied to even validate such conclusions Your logic that a large population's satistical data must always apply to a sample culled within it is flawed because there is ALWAYS something that causes a deviation. A 100% overlap is realistically impossible. Even the most intricate mathematical models for randomization cannot create a 100% coincidence. The fact that the 17/18 people of Rokkenjima have far too many similarities, confounders and the like already puts any population models out the window. They are not representative of the populations they are in, and therefore the data of the general population cannot accurately apply to them. Heck if someone managed to turn "murder qualities" of the Rokkenjima people into statistical data and do a T-Test comparison to a randomized sample of the general Japanese people, I can guarantee you it will be nowhere even near a 95% confidence interval. __________________
 2010-01-18, 09:56 Link #2276 rogerpepitone Senior Member   Join Date: Sep 2008 Except Erika's actions seem to be chosen with the purpose of tying down everyone but Natsuhi, while leaving Natsuhi completely free. (Such as having Genji, who could reasonably be called out at any moment, sealed in, but not having Krauss's or Natsuhi's rooms sealed.) And most of them wouldn't have been any use against a slightly different crime. (If the seal on one of the guestroom windows had been broken, it would have just opened up everything.) And when they're trying to get into Kinzo's room the next day through the window, she doesn't mention any ladder or offer to show off her freeclimbing skills.
maximilianjenus
[E]

Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jan-Poo Erika knew better than place a seal on Natsuhi's door. If she did that, she'd give Natsuhi a perfect alibi. No, she never did that. Natsuhi's door wasn't sealed.
I might need to read it again, but I think natsuhi's seal was "broken" just like a few other seals which is why erika was setting up guard.

Jan-Poo

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MeoTwister5 @Jan-Poo What Klash is pointing out is that the reason you can't apply the same inferences and conclusions from a larger population to the discrete number of individuals on the island is because the idea of sampling is randomization such that you are assuming that the samples you chose are randomly taken from the population at large such that they are representaive of the general qualities the population possesses to make your conclusions "valid" for the population from which they from. The problem is that the the Rokkenjima people are not scientifically representative of the population they are culled from. Discrete random sampling compared to whole population studies can only be concretely related insofar as all the variables for them are are the same; randomization assumes that the sample qualities and variables are the same as the population and therefore representative. Heck even then, comparative analyses such as regression, chi square, T tests and the like have to be applied to even validate such conclusions Your logic that a large population's satistical data must always apply to a sample culled within it is flawed because there is ALWAYS something that causes a deviation. A 100% overlap is realistically impossible. Even the most intricate mathematical models for randomization cannot create a 100% coincidence. The fact that the 17/18 people of Rokkenjima have far too many similarities, confounders and the like already puts any population models out the window. They are not representative of the populations they are in, and therefore the data of the general population cannot accurately apply to them. Heck if someone managed to turn "murder qualities" of the Rokkenjima people into statistical data and do a T-Test comparison to a randomized sample of the general Japanese people, I can guarantee you it will be nowhere even near a 95% confidence interval.
However what I am pointing out that the statement "it is obvious that people would kill for 20 tons of gold" is false. And that is per se a general statement that doesn't include in the picture any of the peculiar factors you are mentioning.

It is also perfectly correct to apply general statistic on people you know nothing about, of course if you add other elements to the pciture the probability changes accordingly. However I again repeat that my use of statistic was finalized to debunk that general statement, and therefore I ask you to explain where in that regard you can find any wrong in my logic.
__________________

blitz1/2

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fighting against those who oppress the system
Quote:
U know, this makes a great bonus TIP. (maybe Ryukishi should have written Erika's letter/diary or something.
__________________

hai, hai. Onii-chan has his work cut out for him.

MeoTwister5

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Where I can learn to be lonely.
Age: 31
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jan-Poo However what I am pointing out that the statement "it is obvious that people would kill for 20 tons of gold" is false. And that is per se a general statement that doesn't include in the picture any of the peculiar factors you are mentioning. It is also perfectly correct to apply general statistic on people you know nothing about, of course if you add other elements to the pciture the probability changes accordingly. However I again repeat that my use of statistic was finalized to debunk that general statement, and therefore I ask you to explain where in that regard you can find any wrong in my logic.
What I I find wrong in your logic is that you tried to use generalized statistics to debunk a claim that cannot entirely apply to a compromised sample set, no matter how ludicrous the claim may be. The statement "anyone would obviously kill for 20 billion yen" is a completely ludicrous a priori assumption by almost anyone's standards, but again no matter how ludicrous the statement is the evidence presented does not jive with rebuttal. What if to say that the people on Rokkenjima are so deviated from the norm that "anyone" (referring to everyone on the island) would kill for 20 billion yen? This obviously would not coincide with everyone else.

The thing is we don't know enough about the Rokkenjima people to make a connection from them to them to the rest of Japane, and the inverse the same. Even if the statement is absurd, we can't EXACTLY say that it's a statement that cannot describe them, because until we know such things completely is fairly possible that such a statement can apply to the Rokkenjima people.

Ugh. It's the damn CatBox all over again.

Edit - And I honestly don't want to discuss all this statistics any further than it has to. There's a reason I got a friend to do the statistics on my undergrad thesis.
__________________