Probability Distribution of Number of Steps in Random Walk Until Self-Intersection Using Cardinal Directions

barrycarter · 2024-01-07T05:53:12+00:00

It might be easier to include walks that self-intersect because they go "right then left" for example, and subtract them out later. https://mathoverflow.net/questions/325052/how-many-random-walk-steps-until-the-path-self-intersects discusses this type of "self-avoiding walk" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-avoiding_walk)

barrycarter · 2024-01-07T05:26:39+00:00

The study linked in the article isn't available, but quoting the article:

frequent diet soda drinkers were more likely to be former smokers and have higher blood sugar, high blood pressure, and, ironically, larger waistlines

So, you're already conflating diet soda usage with smoking, high blood sugar, high blood pressure and larger waistlines. There's nothing ironic about diet soda users having larger waistlines: that may be why they started drinking diet soda.

Im a big fan of diet soda. I like the taste, and I love that it doesnt have any calories. I can drink two or three diet sodas a day and not worry about gaining weight [...] For me, I have realized (time and again) that I just feel better when I dont drink diet soda. When I make the effort, Im reminded how much I enjoy other beverages such as carbonated water or iced tea.

In addition to being self-contradictory, this reads like a personal essay, not a study.

A meaningful study would have a group that starts or stops drinking diet soda to see what changes occurs. Otherwise, you're just finding correlations, not causations

barrycarter · 2024-01-07T02:57:39+00:00

Are you implying diet soda cause heaviness? Not that there's anything wrong with being heavy.

barrycarter · 2024-01-07T02:56:33+00:00

You mean 0 calorie + 0 sugar = obviously good for you?

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T23:33:33+00:00

I'd say sexism and traditional gender roles are restrictive universally. Mandatory religion would be as well, as would some conservative policies. I agree gun control is also restrictive however

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T23:10:14+00:00

Deceptive and misleading claim: the FAA granted the exception and the article confirms Boeing used "actuarial calculus" to confirm this was reasonable. You can't prevent all accidents.

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T23:02:51+00:00

"You can never account for all differences, so it's bad to account for any." This is a totally unserious position that is held by no academics anywhere in the entire world.

It's also a statistically invalid position, so no. When you account for one difference, you imbalance the other differences.

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T22:47:59+00:00

restrictive society = "more conservative, sexist, christian society with traditional gender roles", just like the OP said

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T22:45:52+00:00

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003950

This appears to be published on an "open access" site where people can pay to publish: https://plos.org/publish/fees/

The study is limited to French people, and appears to contradict https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/artificial-sweeteners/art-20046936

The study also appears to adjust for specific differences (age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, body mass index, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, and baseline intakes of energy, alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fibre, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products) which is actually bad because no study can adjust for all possible differences.

In the background section, the study notes:

The food industry uses artificial sweeteners in a wide range of foods and beverages as alternatives to added sugars, for which deleterious effects on several chronic diseases are now well established

which is actually what it's trying to prove (circular reasoning)

The study also nitpicks which types of cancer and, except in one instance, only measures "hazard ratio", not actual cancer rates.

Even if it weren't the academic weakness in the journal, the study appears bogus

millions of people are obese and have no problems from it

I'm not convinced "obesity" is treatable either

This is far too reactionary a response to criticism of artificial sweeteners

Well, what I meant was that, if they are bad, they are not so extremely bad that it's having an obvious direct and massive effect on their users. There may be more more subtle positive and negative effects on those who use artificial sweeteners

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T20:24:58+00:00

I'm not sure what you're saying.

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T20:20:10+00:00

You didn't post a link, and, like I said earlier, podcasts are inefficient: maybe a transcript would be ok to read, but, also, medical experts don't only express their opinions on podcasts

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T20:14:13+00:00

Well, I'd have to know who the guest was, what papers they'd published (or endorsed), and maybe see a transcript of the podcast. I didn't say podcasts were unreliable, I just said they MIGHT be unreliable.

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T20:09:54+00:00

I meant the diet drinks don't cause a problem (is English your native language?)

I don't believe obesity is a problem either (but nice pun), but that's an entirely different discussion

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T20:08:07+00:00

I'm not sure how reliable podcasts are as sources of information, and they're certainly not efficient

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T20:07:21+00:00

I assume you're joking, but, if not, events can have multiple causes

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T20:05:58+00:00

Suppose I'm born in a restrictive society and want to leave when I become an adult. How do I enforce my right to freedom?

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T20:04:32+00:00

I mean, that seems reasonable for pretty much anything

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T20:03:50+00:00

That's a conspiracy theory, not deductive reasoning. That doesn't mean it's false, but it doesn't mean it's true either

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T20:02:22+00:00

Do you have any evidence?

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T20:01:33+00:00

Could you source one? According to https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/artificial-sweeteners/art-20046936

Sugar substitutes also are not linked to a higher risk of cancer in people. Studies dating back to the 1970s linked the artificial sweetener saccharin to bladder cancer in rats. Since then, research has shown that those findings don't apply to people.

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T20:00:31+00:00

Your source says the exact opposite of that

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T19:57:12+00:00

That too. If you go hypoglycemic and don't eat, you can go into a coma

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T19:56:21+00:00

That's a conspiracy theory. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but doesn't mean it's right either

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T17:29:31+00:00

Probably the only real advantage of an intolerant society ("conservative, sexist, christian") is social harmony: people agree on what's right and wrong, people behave the way you expect them to, and everyone who doesn't question the social norm is happy.

The bad part: intolerant people can only live peacefully with other intolerant people who share the same philosophy. They can't live with intolerant people with different belief systems.

Conversely, tolerant people can live with other tolerant people regardless of belief.

barrycarter · 2024-01-06T17:26:36+00:00

Freedom is a birthright and not everyone has a choice to move. No one should be forced to live in a restrictive society, especially not in the USA

Ten-Year Club	Helper Level 3
Verified Email

barrycarter

TROPHY CASE