Attribute and discrete data

Not quite…
Attribute and Discrete are equivalent.   “Attribute/discrete” refers to what is being measured, as in: hot/cold; go/no-go; too thick/too thin;
Continuous/variable refers to an increment of measure that can be broken down into finer and finer increments ad inf.
The two types of data have been referred to as:
Continuous vs. Discrete
Variable vs. Attribute
Nominal vs. Ordinal

Sophos,
Seems like youve given the definition for Variable data in place of Attribute Data.
Attribute Data is supposed to be simple classification like Good / Bad, Pass/ Fail, and is a part of Discrete data which is finite.
 

Sorry, but not quite either …
There is a difference in the underlying measurement theory between the Euclidean model (discrete vs. continuous) on the one hand, and the Steven’s/Bridgman model (nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio scale levels). The Euclidean model distinguishes a ‘true’ quantitative measurement, i.e. continuous, from a purely qualitative observation ‘attribute’ (The old philosophical distinction between essence and existence still looms large behind this distinction). The Steven’s/Bidgman model essentially implodes this distinction and defines measurements in terms of the “mathematical operations” that can be performed with the measurement that have been obtained through measurement operations (The definition attempts to bridge the gap between physical operations and their representations in numbers) .
The two models are not only incompatible but contradict each other. Nevertheless modern textbooks simply ignore this fact and force us to translate them into each other. So here we are stuck with two incompatible measurement models and we can continue to discuss ad infinitum how they translate into each other …

OH JEEBUS, THEORY-MONGER!
The given types within the context of 6S methodology are discrete vs. continuous.  
The orig poster tried to say that attribute data is continuous in nature.
Sorry, but a “go/no-go” measurement is not subject to finer increments of measure, unless it is transformed into count.
 

i would luv to audit one of your training classes and see you stumble, fumble and dance around the explanation of these measurement terms. one mbb, whose class i had the hilarious pleasure of auditing overcompensated for her total lack of understanding of the meaning of the p-value by having the candidates  sing a song: along the lines of “> 0.05 bad, < 0.05 bad" …so given your lack of intellectual depth, what's your song?. :-).

wow…pushed that button…big-time.
;-)

;-)

“Art of Consultancy”, your the one with lots to learn, putting others down to try to raise your own self-importance is a classic self-centered tactic. Grow up kid.
Note: I’m not afraid to use my real name – while I do not know everything, I kno enough to recognise a theoritical fake. Do some homework, bubba, the attribute types I referred to have been long standing statistical terms for decades. While the original post asked for a simple explanation vs. your deep dive.
As for your consultancy – I just closed another multi-million deal today, obviously my clients trust who to call – how are you doing!
Best Regards,
Steven Bonacorsi

Truly successful business people leave the communication of their revenues to side conversations at a golf game (if at all). So, now you have not only publicly discredited yourself as a subject-matter expert, but you have also lost your credibility as a “business man” :-).
As for your knowledge of “attribute types”  … when did you come up with that term?

Perhaps those previous posts on communication and ettiquete you’ve read influenced your last response?
Note: I never disputed your post – your response was spot on, just a little deeper than what was called for. You brought the Toyota luxury sports car while a GM was needed.
Agreed, bragging never got anyone anywhere makes for an easy target, same goes with insulting others – its usually not helpful in the end.
I’m going to go rest my neck for a while now – peace
Steve Bonacorsi

Lebowski,
Nice try and cute job on the joke. But you’re obviously not even understanding the nature of the topic: it’s called “measurement theory”, i.e. a cross-functional discipline that only partly overlaps with statistics. You’ll get a C for CUTE … :-).

Good joke.A statistician is also a person that doesn’t heave enough common
sense to be a Black Belt.

Gary,
They are like the old CQE’s lots of training, been around for years, no business impact. Black Belts show up and move the business forward and create value and the statisticians and CQE’s sit on the sidelines making their little caustic comments but they still won’t move their butts and get in the game. I guess they would rather be academically smug (and in this guys case arrogant) and uninvolved at no risk than to actually have to put it all on the line and see if they can actually be an impact player.
Have you ever been to an ASQ meeting and watched some guy present something. The whole room only knows one response. They wait for a capability analysis and scream that they don’t think it is normally distributed and how the whole analysis is invalid. Nobody wants to discuss the fact that the capability study doesn’t solve anything and it didn’t affect the outcome, not to mention that they don’t have a normality test that says it isn’t normal either.
Heebeegeebee contributes to much to take any crap from this person.
Lebowski

Gary,
Someone just told me, assuming that they know which Gary out of all the Garys in the world you are, that you were a CQE and past President of an ASQ Chapter. Sorry, that wasn’t meant to be personal.
They also told me that they could count the number a competant CQE’s they had ever worked with on one hand and you were one of them, same assumption anbout your identity.
Lebowski

Then just imagine the statisticians wives then!

sophos9,
Wives? That by itself is amazing. The generosity of women never ceases to amaze me.
Lebowski

You are a CQE and a CRE! Pretty impressive. You don’t find that many of those around.
Lebowski

Was being multi-national…
You should know all about that, you spend too much time talking about it when you are bowling ‘dude’ you Cali slacker you :-)

Gary,
I am told you have passed each section of the CQE in less than one hour and you have coached about 200 people through the test with only one person failing. Pretty impressive.
Lebowski

267 with one not passing on the first try.
The trick is to identify those who would not pass early and discourage them. ;-)
Funny thing was is that your friend was not one of them. Too damn stubborn to let me help.

You’ve gotta know the guy we are talking about – you would not be surprized at all.

It rains to much in Seattle.
I was in Frankfurt last year but I have never worked there. I liked Frankfurt. It was very clean.
Lebowski

Gary,
I have only met him a couple times. He repeats everything several times. No wonder they all pass they get the class three or four times in the time everyone else gets it once.
Lebowski

Gary,
He gave me his phone number three times. Not even a break in between and it was slower each time. You just want to say “I got it” but I was afraid he was going to make me repeat it three more times. Now I say hello and work on something else.
The physicist, is that Papa Smurf?
I think you guys have a mutual admiration society going on. What is the story about the pouring gas on each other and you kept them from lighting each other on fire.
Lebowski