From: schaffer@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Doug Schaffer)
Subject: Re: F1 - water injection.
Organization: U. of Calgary Computer Science
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 92 18:27:35 GMT

Yes. Yes. Yes.  The english language is always being abused.  But if you
are going to disprove someone else's logic (and do read again EXACTY what
Leo is saying) make sure you, yourself, use logic.  What assumptions are
being made on which the statement is being based??  (Side note: my dad, a 
math prof, had a cut-out ad on his door saying "ALL BRAKE SERVICE IS *NOT*
THE SAME".  Think about it. :-)

In article <1992Apr1.002825.18559@apollo.hp.com> johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis) writes:
>Leo Smith <shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>I can absolutely vouch for the fact that when I drove MG's they
>>always went best in damp misty conditions.
>
>What does this prove?  As I read it, your statement says that
			^^^^^^^^^^^^
Read it again.

> "If an MG is running well, the weather is damp and misty"

What Leo's statement says is that when *he* drove MG's, they always
performed best in d.m.c..  This is a *fact* that Leo can *absolutely 
vouch for*.  (More on this in a minute...)

This proves that *when Leo* used to drive MG's, they performed best...
It says nothing about when Leo wasn't driving.

>not
>
> "If the weather is damp and misty, an MG will run well".

Don't try to generalize too much from his statement if you are then 
going to pick apart your generalization of his statement logically.
Are you actually disproving Leo's statement or your generalization?

>To disprove the first hypothesis would require simultaneous
>occurences of an MG running well and of a non-damp day.  From
			     ^^^^
It would have to not just run well, but run better than the MG's which
Leo drove ran when they (always) ran best in d.m.c..  (Running *well* 
would only be good enough if it is assumed that the MG's Leo drove, when 
running at their best, still did not run well :-)

To disprove...would require proof that
	*Leo* drove an MG on a day that was not damp and yet it performed 
	better than any MG's previous best with Leo driving (which would 
	have been in d.m.c) 
OR proof that 
	an MG, while Leo was driving in d.m.c., performed *less well* than 
	one Leo had been driving in non-d.m.c had performed (watch out for 
	alwayses).

Leo makes no claim about the future or even the present, simply saying
that when he *drove* (in the past) these observations were made.  To
disprove his claim (of fact?) one would need proof, in history, of one 
of the two conditions mentioned above.

Leo claims this to be fact, but it is doubtful that he has hard (scientific?)
evidence to back up this claim.  It is more likely based on his subjective
impression over time rather than performance measurements.  Does he mean 
absolute pushed-to-the-limits performance (always???  bet his passengers 
loved the rides!) or simply it "seemed to be running better"?

>my experience of driving MGs and of British weather, I doubt
>that the sampling period is long enough for the result to be
>of statistical significance . . . . .

This is an important point.  How often did Leo drive?  Did he actually 
*ever* drive when it wasn't damp and misty? :-)  If he didn't do this much, 
then his opinion has little statistical significance.

>(Anyway, how do you get an MG to start on a damp, misty, day?
>I always had problems with condensation on the inside of the
>distributor cap).

I wish I could help you, but it is DRY in southern Alberta, and I've
never had the privilege of driving an MG.  

P.S. I could make the same claim as Leo, and since I have never driven an
MG :-( it would be impossible to disprove.

Don't mean to offend anyone...but sometimes I get picky.  (Just ask my
girlfriend...still!)

Doug Schaffer, University of Calgary, schaffer@cpsc.ucalgary.ca

Newsgroups: rec.autos.sport