The educated statistician will recognise these two numbers as the first two modes of a distribution. But these two modes completely describe a distribution if and only if it is a normal distribution.
(The “only if” is incorrect. For many other families of distributions, knowing mean and variance is also sufficient to pinpoint a unique distribution.)
(The “only if” is incorrect. For many other families of distributions, knowing mean and variance is also sufficient to pinpoint a unique distribution.)
I must have mixed it up with some other statement.
“Yeah, sorry I said something that was incorrect. I meant to say something that wasn’t incorrect.”
I’ve seen more ballsy responses than this, but not many.
I don’t understand. Metus flatly admitted error, end of story.
For clarity, I found what Metus said to be very funny. I commented because I wanted to underscore the humour, not because I wanted to be critical.
FWIW, I also read it as an insult. And though I do believe you that that wasn’t your intent, I don’t see how else to read it even now.
Well, it wasn’t intended as a kind comment either, but it clearly fell a lot flatter than I thought it would.