1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
No mode

1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Mode = 2

1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6
Mode = 2, 3

1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4
Mode = ?
1, 2, 3, and 4? Or no mode?

Same thing with 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2
Mode = ?

Thanks.

8/9/2007 6:17:57 PM

wtf

did you not pass 5th grade

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/sets/select/dm_mean_median.html

8/9/2007 6:41:09 PM

if it were that straightforward a question, there wouldn't be other people asking, as in that link above.

ok you tell us oh learned one:

1, 2, 3, 4
No mode

1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4
Mode = 1, 2, 3, 4

WHY?

Personally, I think both should have the same answer.


[Edited on August 9, 2007 at 6:53 PM. Reason : ]

8/9/2007 6:52:42 PM

because that's the definition of a mode

Quote :

"Definition: The value which occurs most often. If no value is repeated, there is no mode. If more than one value occurs with the same greatest frequency, each value is a mode."

pretty intense stuff

8/9/2007 6:56:10 PM

Yeah but obviously you don't see the contradiction in the definition you quoted.

Quote :

"The value which occurs most often."

There is/are no "most often" in 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4. They all occur with the same frequency, just as in 1,2,3,4.

Yes, there is/are "most often" in 1,2,2,3,3,4,4, but not in 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4.

I know that definition, I just don't like the contradiction in it.

8/9/2007 7:04:23 PM

there is no contradiction, those are the rules for finding a mode

Quote :

" If no value is repeated, there is no mode."

is the rule

8/9/2007 7:25:37 PM

Again, I see that.

I am talking from the point of view the English language, specifically, the definition of "most", as in "most often."

There is/are no "most often" in 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4.

And now you are going to point me to the 3rd sentence of the definition which says that "If more than one value occurs with the same greatest frequency, each value is a mode."

And again, I will tell you, that that's the exact sentence that contradicts with sentence 1, and even with sentence 2.

Because if you look at 1,2,3,4 and apply sentence 2, there is no mode, but if you apply sentence 3, they are all modes (greatest frequency is 1, and all values occur with that frequency). OK, contradiction of sentence 3 with 2 can easily be fixed, but not so for contradiction of 3 with 1.

OK, you don't have to respond if you are going to be mean.

8/9/2007 7:31:55 PM

i'm not being mean

you can't just pick and choose which part of a definition you want to apply to a problem though

you have to consider all rules and conditions as outlined in the definition

if you do that here, you can quite simply see the answer to your problem

8/9/2007 7:39:09 PM

BTW, my beef is with that definition, and hence, this thread. Had I read a semantically correct definition, there would be no question.

This is what that definition should be changed to:

Quote :

"Definition: If no value is repeated, there is no mode. If more than one value is repeated with the same frequency, each value is a mode."

**********************************

Quote :

"you can't just pick and choose which part of a definition you want to apply to a problem though"

A definition should not have sentences within it contradicting each other, esp the MAIN DEFINITIONAL sentence (sentence 1), contradicting with the various cases (sentences 2 and 3).

In my definition, there are no contradictions, and it covers all cases.


[Edited on August 9, 2007 at 7:42 PM. Reason : ]

8/9/2007 7:39:57 PM

well since this thread has devolved into an argument of semantics

your proposed definition makes even less sense than the one i provided

the most basic understanding of a mode is the first sentence of the first definition:

Quote :

"Definition: The value which occurs most often."

from there there are additional conditions you must apply:

Quote :

"If no value is repeated, there is no mode. If more than one value occurs with the same greatest frequency, each value is a mode."

conversely, your definition is ass backwards

Quote :

"Definition: If no value is repeated, there is no mode."

followed by

Quote :

" If more than one value is repeated with the same frequency, each value is a mode."

= wtf

just stop picking apart the original -- and correct -- definition and take it as a whole

i really don't understand why this is such a big problem

----

it's not a contradiction! it's a condition!

[Edited on August 9, 2007 at 7:46 PM. Reason : ]

8/9/2007 7:45:14 PM

Whether you apply the first sentence (main definition) to a problem, or either of sentences 2 or 3 (algorithms for special cases), you should get the same answer.

Applying sentence 1 to 1,1,2,2,3,3 gives no mode.

Applying sentence 3 to 1,1,2,2,3,3 gives 1,2,3 as modes.


Hopefully the last thing I am gonna say here.

8/9/2007 7:50:35 PM

well this is the last thing i'm going to say because you aren't paying attention at all

you can't apply sentence one or sentence two or sentence whatever

you have to apply the definition, regardless of where the periods are

8/9/2007 7:52:55 PM

lol damn...this is pretty simple

8/9/2007 7:57:47 PM

Maybe this wording would be better if you don't like the other one given,

Quote :

"Definition: Given a countable set of values we say that a mode is the value or values which are repeated at least once AND occur most often. If no value is repeated then we say there is no mode. "

(Some would say "If no value is repeated then we say there is no mode." is implicit within the first sentence, but I'd rather add the sentence to remove doubt for those readers who don't see it that way)

8/10/2007 12:01:07 AM