iSixSigma

Control Charts (Non-normal Distribution)

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums General Forums Tools & Templates Control Charts (Non-normal Distribution)

Viewing 98 posts - 1 through 98 (of 98 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #244326

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    I would like to get solution to the cases shown in the file.

    THANKS in advance

    Fausto Galetto

    Attachments:
    1. You must be signed in to download files.
    2. ISIXSIGMA-INSIGHTS_Two-cases-for-Master-Black-Belts-dec-2019.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #244328

    Robert Butler
    Participant

    1. A quick look at the file you have attached strongly suggests you are trying to market your consulting services – this is a violation of the TOS of this site.

    2. If you want to challenge the authors of the books/papers you have cited, the proper approach would be for you to submit your efforts to a peer reviewed journal specializing in process/quality control.

    0
    #244329

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    Dear Robert Butler,

    NO CONSULTING SERVICES TO BE SOLD!

    I am looking for solutions provided by the Master Black Belts (professionals of SIX SIGMA).

    I do not want to challenge the authors!!!

    THEY did not provide the solution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I repeat:

    I am looking for solutions provided by the Master Black Belts (professionals of SIX SIGMA).

     

     

    0
    #244330

    Darth
    Participant

    @rbutler, @fausto.galetto

    Fausto,

    The Montgomery example appears to be from one of his books published in 1996.  He uses the I/MR chart with transformed data to create a control chart of MTBF which is obviously going to not be a normal distribution.  Since that time, Minitab has brought out the G and T charts for time between rare events.  Possibly you can rerun the data using one or the other and see what it says about the process being in or out of control.

    1
    #244331

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    Dear Darth,

    I do not have MINITAB.

    So I cannot do what you suggest!

    Can somebody do it ?

    0
    #244932

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    Dear all,

    I downlodaded Minitab 19 BECAUSE NOBODY tird to solve the cases.

    Here you find sometyhing new about the Darth suggestion

     

    0
    #244938

    Robert Butler
    Participant

    I agree nobody, including yourself, tried to solve the cases.  As I’m sure others will tell you, the usual procedure on this site is for you to try to solve the problem, post a reasonable summary of your efforts on a thread and then ask for help/suggestions.

    @Darth pointed you in a direction and gave you a reference.  Given what he offered your approach should have been to get a copy of the book referenced, learn about G and T charts, and do the work manually. Agreed it would have taken more time than if you had a program handy but by doing things manually (at least once) you would have learned a great deal and also solved your problem.

    0
    #244956

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler 

    I try again to upload the frist part of my Open Letter To MBB.

    MInitab does not provide the Theory for T Chart….

    BETTER I DID NOT FIND in Minitab the THEORY!!!

    IF someone knows it PLEASE provide INFORMATION

    Attachments:
    1. Open-Letter-for-Master-Black-Belts-Part-1A.pdf
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #244958

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ …

    This is the SECOND part of my Open Letter To MBB.

    MInitab does not provide the Theory for T Chart….

    BETTER I DID NOT FIND in Minitab the THEORY!!!

    IF someone knows it PLEASE provide INFORMATION

    Attachments:
    1. Open-Letter-for-Master-Black-Belts-Part-2A.pdf
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #244362

    Darth
    Participant

    Process appears to be in control.  Both Weibull and Exponential seem to be good fits for the data.

    T Chart of C1

     

     

    2
    #244986

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @Darth

    DID YOU read the two documents I uploaded yesterday?

    THERE, there is the same figure you uploaded.

    MINITAB makes a WRONG analysis: the Process is OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I asked to Minitab the THEORY of T Charts!!!!!

    Let’s wait to see IF they provide it….

    0
    #244988

    Jay Arthur
    Participant

    A T Chart (time between) transforms the exponential data to a Weibull distribution.

    Then it uses the transformed data to calculate limits.

     

    Attachments:
    1. Hours-Between-Failures.xlsx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245462

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler

    DID YOU realise that your statements are NONSENSE?

    “”””I agree nobody, including yourself, tried to solve the cases.  As I’m sure others will tell you, the usual procedure on this site is for you to try to solve the problem, post a reasonable summary of your efforts on a thread and then ask for help/suggestions.””””

    In the Fausto Galetto’s two documents there is the solution, based on THEORY!!!

    0
    #245463

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @Knowwareman 

    THANK you for your file.

    Unfortunately the THEORY behind is not sound…

    See my uploaded documents………

    In any case you are better than other who do not know how to deal with the twwo cases!

    Fausto Galetto

    0
    #245473

    Robert Butler
    Participant

    What an IMPRESSIVE retort!!!  @fausto.galetto DO YOU appreciate the INEFFABLE TWADDLE of this entire thread (see, I can yell, insult, and boldface type too) ?

    Let’s do a recap:

    1. OP initial post says he wants a solution for two items in an attached document.

    2. I do a quick skim and offer the comment that I think the correct venue for the OP would be a peer reviewed paper since it certainly looked like a challenge to the authors/papers cited.

    3. The OP responds and assures me this is not the case – all he wants is for some generic six sigma master black belts to provide a solution. Given what follows later it is obvious he doesn’t want a solution – just confirmation of his views.

    4. @Darth offers a suggestion and a recommendation to try running Minitab – and in the following OP post @Darth gets slapped down for his suggestions.

    5. Reluctantly, the OP announces he has downloaded Minitab “BECAUSE NOBODY tird to solve the cases”

    6. The OP then lays into Minitab on this forum because “MInitab does not provide the Theory for T Chart….

    BETTER I DID NOT FIND in Minitab the THEORY!!! IF someone knows it PLEASE provide INFORMATION”

    7. @Darth tries again with a Minitab analysis and provides a graph of the results – the OP slaps him down again.

    8. The OP shifts gears – suddenly, somehow, the OP knows “MINITAB makes a WRONG analysis: the Process is OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I asked to Minitab the THEORY of T Charts!!!!!

    9. The OP then slams me for stating he hasn’t tried to solve the cases. OK, fine, I’ll assume he did try. I probably should have said the OP hadn’t tried to do any research with respect to finding the theory of T control charts or really understanding anything about them other than insist Minitab drop everything and get back to him with the demanded information pronto! – but this really doesn’t matter because, as one can see in the other posts, the OP KNOWS Minitab is wrong because he has a proof based on THEORY!  What theory he doesn’t say but apparently it doesn’t matter since this THEORY is better than the THEORY of T Charts – even though, by his own admission, he doesn’t know what that theory is.

    Given the bombast I decided to see what I could find.  I couldn’t find a single peer reviewed paper by the OP listed in either Pubmed or Jstor.  Granted there are other venues but these two happen to be open to the public and are reasonably extensive.

    I did find a list of papers the OP has presented/published at various times and I found some vanity press (SPS) – publish on demand books by the OP – of the group I found the title of his book  “The Six Sigma HOAX versus the Golden Integral Quality Approach LEGACY”  interesting because the title, as it appears on the illustrated book cover on Amazon, is written in exactly the same manner as the OP’s postings.  Given the book title I find it odd that the OP would ask anyone on a Six Sigma site for help. After all, with a title like that one would assume the OP views practitioners of Six Sigma as little more than frauds and con artists.

    In summary – the OP believes he has found Minitab to be in error and he wants some generic master black belts to confirm his belief.  I do know the folks at Minitab really know statistics and process control. I also know many of the statisticians at Minitab have numerous papers in the peer-reviewed press on statistics and process control and have made presentations at more technical meetings than I could list.  Under those circumstances, if the OP really thinks he is right and Minitab is wrong then the OP first needs to take the time to find, and thoroughly understand, the theory behind the T chart – this would require actually researching the topic – books, peer reviewed papers, etc.

    In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and the burden of the proof is on the challenger, not on those being challenged.  If, after doing some extensive research,  the OP is still convinced he is right then the proper venue for a challenge of this kind is publication in a peer reviewed journal that addresses issues of this sort.

    2
    #245518

    Sharmin Saylor
    Participant

    @rbutler 👏🏆

    0
    #245479

    Jay Arthur
    Participant

    In his initial post, Fausto asked: “I would like to get solution to the cases shown in the file.”

    In my position, I often find that people often want me to do their schoolwork for them.

    I agree with Robert Butler, ranting about THEORY without offering a competing, well-documented theory is non-productive.

    1
    #245531

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @Robert Butler

    FANTASTIC

    THOUSANDS of MASTER Black Belts are unable to solve the cases.

    See the file

    Attachments:
    1. IGNORANCE-vs-PRESUMPTUOUSNESS.pdf
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245533

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @Knowwareman

    SINCE 1982 my students had the THEORY to solve the two Cases.

    SINCE 1982….

    Since then THOUSANDS of MASTER Black Belts have been unable to solve the cases.

    Deming : “It is a hazard to copy”. “It is necessary to understand the theory of what one wishes to do or to make”. “Without theory, experience has no meaning”. “A figure without a theory tells nothing”. «The result is that hundreds of people are learning what is wrong. I make this statement on the basis of experience, seeing every day the devastating effects of incompetent teaching and faulty applications» and Galetto  (Quality of methods for quality is important, EOQC Conference, Vienna, 1989) have been very clear about the need of being scientific in Quality Management and decisions. J. Juran praised F. Galetto’s paper during his presentation at Vienna Conference.

     

    0
    #245537

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ Robert Butler

    You wrote at point 9

    9.    The OP then slams me for stating he hasn’t tried to solve the cases. OK, fine, I’ll assume he did try. I probably should have said the OP hadn’t tried to do any research with respect to finding the theory of T control charts or really understanding anything about them other than insist Minitab drop everything and get back to him with the demanded information pronto! – but this really doesn’t matter because, as one can see in the other posts, the OP KNOWS Minitab is wrong because he has a proof based on THEORY! What theory he doesn’t say but apparently it doesn’t matter since this THEORY is better than the THEORY of T Charts – even though, by his own admission, he doesn’t know what that theory is.

    As I told you before you did not read carefully my documents.

    There it is said where to find the THEORY that proves Minitab being wrong!

    I am still waiting for Minitab reply

    0
    #245538

    Robert Butler
    Participant

    Oh well, in for a penny in for a pound.

    @fausto.galetto – great – so now you have completely contradicted your denial of the comments I made in my first post.

    I said the following:

    /////

    1. A quick look at the file you have attached strongly suggests you are trying to market your consulting services – this is a violation of the TOS of this site.

    2. If you want to challenge the authors of the books/papers you have cited, the proper approach would be for you to submit your efforts to a peer reviewed journal specializing in process/quality control.

    /////

    To which you responded:

    /////

    Dear Robert Butler,

    NO CONSULTING SERVICES TO BE SOLD!

    I am looking for solutions provided by the Master Black Belts (professionals of SIX SIGMA).

    I do not want to challenge the authors!!!

    THEY did not provide the solution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I repeat:

    I am looking for solutions provided by the Master Black Belts (professionals of SIX SIGMA).

    /////

    …and what followed was a series of posts that demonstrated you were indeed challenging authors and you were not looking for solutions since, by your own admission, you had already solved them and you thought they were wrong and you were right.

    So today you post what amounts to an advertisement for your services/training. True, you don’t specifically encourage the reader to purchase anything but the only reference is to you and your publication and the supposed correctness of your approach.

    A couple of asides:

    1. You say “Since then THOUSANDS of MASTER Black Belts have been unable to solve the cases.”

    a. And you determined this count of “Thousands” how?

    b. Why would the fact that “Thousands” of MBB’s have been unable to solve the cases in the way you think they should solve it matter?

    c. Given you are challenging the the approach of various authors of books and papers what makes you think your version is correct?

    d. I only ask “c” because one can find out on the web your proof of the “so-called Riemann Hypothesis” – your words – submitted to some general non-peer reviewed archive on 5 October 2018 which was incorrect (in a follow up article to the same archive you said it was “a very stupid error”). It would appear, even with this correction the proof was still wrong because, according to Science News for 24 May 2019, the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis (or conjecture) is still in doubt.  The article states “Ken Ono and colleagues” are working on an approach and a summary of their most recent efforts can be found in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    2. It’s nice that Juran praised one of your papers at a symposium – the big question is this – which peer reviewed journal published the work?

    0
    #245552

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ Robert Butler

    You wrote:
    <p style=”text-align: center;”>And you determined this count of “Thousands” how?</p>
    It is easily assessed by thinking to the following points

    a)    How many people read the Montgomery, with BIG errors, book “Introduction to quality Control”?

    b)    How many PROFESSORS suggested their students the Montgomery, with BIG errors, book “Introduction to quality Control”?

    c)    How many people are MASTER Black Belts?

    d)    How many MASTER Black Belts use Minitab?

    e)    How many MASTER Black Belts use JMP?

    f)     How many MASTER Black Belts use Sixpack?

    g)    How many PROFESSORS use Minitab …, …?

    h)    How many STATISTICIANS use Minitab …, …?

     

    You wrote:
    <p style=”text-align: center;”>one can find out on the web your proof of the “so-called Riemann Hypothesis” – your words – submitted to some general non-peer reviewed archive on 5 October 2018 which was incorrect (in a follow up article to the same archive you said it was “a very stupid error”). It would appear, even with this correction the proof was still wrong because, one can find out on the web your proof of the “so-called Riemann Hypothesis” – your words – submitted to some general non-peer reviewed archive on 5 October 2018 which was incorrect (in a follow up article to the same archive you said it was “a very stupid error”). It would appear, even with this correction the proof was still wrong because, according to Science News for 24 May 2019, the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis (or conjecture) is still in doubt.</p>
     

    The fact that according to Science News for 24 May 2019, the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis (or conjecture) is still in doubt does not mean that it was not proved.

    It means that the “experts” on the matter did not acknowledge it.

    BTW. How many people do you know that publically wrote that they made a stupid error?

     

    You wrote lastly:
    <p style=”text-align: center;”>It’s nice that Juran praised one of your papers at a symposium – the big question is this – which peer reviewed journal published the work?</p>
     

    Before being asked to enter Politecnico of Turin, I worked for more than 20 years as Quality Director in Corporations AND I had to prevent problems NOT to think to write for Peer Reviewed Journals; my papers were presented to International Conferences.

    Since you insist on Peer Review, please find a paper of mine, presented in 2006…

     

    I am looking for SOLUTIONS by MBB who are used to use extensively Minitab, JMP, SixPack, SPSS, … AND I am sure about my method: it follows Probability Laws, Statistics, Mathematics and LOGIC!

    Attachments:
    1. for-R_Butler_Quality-education-versus-Peer-Review_2006.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245555

    Robert Butler
    Participant

    The original focus of this exchange was the issue of the validity of the underpinnings of the T-chart.  Your conjecture is that you have developed a theory and this theory is correct and the, apparently to you, unknown theory behind the T-chart is wrong.  Your approach to “proving” this is to

    1. Ask for a bunch of MBB’s to provide a solution to problem(s) you have posed with the understood assumption that if they don’t exactly reproduce your results then they are wrong.

    2. Demand that the folks at Minitab provide the underlying theory of the T chart and along the way prove you are wrong.

    As I said in an earlier post to this exchange – extraordinary  claims require extraordinary proof and the burden of the proof is on the individual making the claims not on the people against whom the claims are made. I sincerely doubt you will hear anything from Minitab for the simple reason that, to the best of their knowledge, (as well as to the best of the knowledge of anyone who might be using their T-chart program for process control) what they have is just fine.

    It really doesn’t matter what you think about whatever theory you have built nor does it matter that you think you have done whatever it is that you have done correctly.  The issue is this – do you have a “reasonable” amount of actual data where you can conclusively show the following:

    1. Specific instances where the Minitab T-chart control declared a process to be in control only to find that it really wasn’t in control and when your approach was applied to the same data, your approach identified the out-of-control situation.

    2. Specific instances where the Minitab T-chart control declared a process in control, it was found to be in control, and when the data was analyzed with your approach you too found it to be in control.

    3. Instances where your approach declared a process to be out-of-control only to find later it was not out-of-control and, when the data was re-analyzed with the Minitab T-chart, their methods identified the process as in control.

    4. Instances where your approach declared the process to be in control only to find it was out-of-control and when checked with the Minitab approach the out-of-control situation was correctly identified.

    5. …and, once everything is tallied – what kind of results do you have – a meaningful improvement in correct identification of out-of-control situations when dealing with processes needing a T-chart (while simultaneously guarding against increases in false positives) or just some kind of change that, in the long run, is at best, no better than what is currently in use.

    You have made a big point about citing some of Deming’s statements concerning theory.  Although I can’t recall a specific quote, one big point he made was the need for real data before you did anything else.  His book Quality, Productivity, and the Competitive Position is essentially a monument to that point.  What you have presented on this forum is a theory bereft of evidence – just claiming everyone else is wrong because it violates your personal theory is not evidence.  The kind of evidence you need is as listed in the four points above.  If you have that kind of evidence and if what you have appears to be a genuine improvement,  then, as I’ve said before, the proper venue for presentation is to a peer reviewed journal that deals in such matters.

    In this light, your rebuttal concerning “thousands” is without merit.  The point of this thread was that the Minitab T-chart method was wrong and nothing more and it was in this context that you made the claim that “thousands” of MBB’s were wrong.  The “proof” you provided in your most recent thread is based on a claim that the entire Minitab analysis package is wrong. In addition, in an attempt to inflate the “thousands” estimate, you dragged in poor old Montgomery and declared his book has BIG errors.  Statements such as these are not proof – they are just simple gainsaying.

    Now, what to do about the rest of your last post?

    1.  Your rejoinder concerning the Riemann Hypothesis is standard misdirection boilerplate – the fact remains that if your proof had had any merit it would have made the pages of at least one of the journals on mathematics.

    2. How many people have I seen who have admitted a mistake in a publication?  Quite a few – you can find corrections and outright retractions with respect to papers in peer reviewed journals if you take the time to go looking for them.  One good aspect of the peer review process is that the vast majority of mistakes are found, and corrected, before the paper sees publication.

    I happen to know this is true because I do peer reviewing for the statistics sections of papers submitted to one of the scientific journals. I can’t tell you the number of mistakes in statistical analysis I have found in submitted papers.  As part of the review process what I do is point out the mistake(s), provide sufficient citations/instructions concerning the correct method to be used, and request the authors re-run the analysis in the manner indicated.  The length of the written recommendations varies.  The longest I think I’ve ever written ran to almost two full pages of text which were accompanied by attachments in the form of scans of specific pages in some statistical texts.  In that instance the authors re-ran the analysis as requested, were able to adjust the reported findings (most of the significant findings did not need to be changed, a couple needed to be dropped, and, most importantly, they found a few things they didn’t know they had which made the paper even better), addressed the concerns of the other reviewers and their paper was accepted for publication.

    3.  In my career as a statistician, more than 20 of those years were spent as an engineering statistician in industry supporting industrial research, quality improvement, process control, exploratory research, and much more.  I too did not have time to send articles in for peer review and I too made presentations at conferences.  Some of those presentations were picked up by various peer reviewed journals and, after some re-writing for purposes of condensation/clarification saw the light of day as a published paper. It was because of my experience that I asked about yours.  I thought the question was particularly relevant in light of your position concerning your certainty about the correctness of your efforts.

    4. As for reading you archived paper on peer review – no thanks.  I seem to recall when I checked you had uploaded more than one paper on the subject of peer review to that site and, if memory serves me correctly, all of them had titles suggesting the text was going to be nothing more than a running complaint about the process.

    The peer review process is not perfect and can be very stressful and frustrating – I know this from personal experience.  Sometimes the intransigence of the reviewer is enough to drive a person to thoughts of giving up their profession and becoming an itinerant  beachcomber.  However, based on everything I’ve experienced, the process has far more pluses than minuses and, given the inherent restrictions of time/money/effort of the process, I have yet to see anything that would be a marked improvement.

     

     

    0
    #245557

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ Robert Butler

    I beg your pardon IF I am not as good as you at writing and talking. So I will not reply to all your statements.

    I am very impressed of your experience (your writing):

    In my career as a statistician, more than 20 of those years were spent as an engineering statistician in industry supporting industrial research, quality improvement, process control, exploratory research, and much more.

    You have the right experience to decide IF the case dealt in the D.C. Montgomery book [WRONG book] “Introduction to quality control” about the control chart of exponentially distributed data is analysed rightly or wrongly AND IF the T Chart [by MINITAB] on those data is right or wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!

    0
    #245558

    Chris Seider
    Participant

    Is this twitter? :)

    Happy new year to my buds such as @mike-carnell and @rubtler and @darth

    1
    #245559

    Robert Butler
    Participant

    @cseider – …could be… Happy New Year to you too.   :-)

    0
    #245581

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @fausto.galetto please leave me off your post. I have zero interest in your self-aggrandized esoteric ramblings.

    1
    #245590

    Chris Seider
    Participant

    MTBF with a control chart seems like a stretch to me–what kind of control plan would you have?  I’d look at pareto of lost time and drill down to the component(s) and fix the issue(s) and see if the pareto of lost time showed a difference.

    1
    #245576

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @cseider, @mike-carnell, @rubtler, @darth, @Sharmin

    Is this twitter? :)

    NO it is not!

    It is the place where anyone can see IF people solve the Montgomery case of EXPONENTIALLY distributed data!!!

     

    @ Robert Butler I expected that you would not reply to the two simple questions!

    Waffling could not help you, in this case!

    My January 2020 has been very fruitful:

    1.    I confirmed again the “Galetto’s Law”

    2.    The set of Master Black Belts is unable to solve the Montgomery case, both through Theory and Minitab

    3.    The set of professors suggesting the Montgomery WRONG book are unable to solve the Montgomery case, both through Theory and Minitab

    4.    The “discussion” in this thread made me to REALISE that also statisticians, with more than 20 spent as engineering statisticians in industry supporting industrial research, quality improvement, process control, exploratory research, and much more are unable to solve the Montgomery case, both through Theory and Minitab

    5.    T charts in MINITAB are WRONG!!!!

    I thank all the people who participated to my knowledge increase….Questions to Statisticians

     

    0
    #245613

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @mike-carnell

    Oh Mr President,

    YOU wrote “””Is this twitter? :)”””

    I only replied to you “””NO it is not! ”””

    SINCE YOUR background in Six Sigma and Lean dates back to the original deployment at Motorola in 1986, YOU should be able to SOLVE “the Montgomery case”!!!

     

    0
    #245635

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @cseider, @mike-carnell, @rubtler, @darth, @Sharmin

    Statisticians and Master Black Belts

    As expected, MINITAB did not provide the THEORY of T Charts.

    They wrote to me: “”””Through our free tech support, we would not be able to have a discussion regarding the theory of T charts. We can show you how to use Minitab. If you’d like to research the theory on your own …””””

    Notice the T Chart by Minitab of the Montgomery data:

     

    In a conference in Milan ( 2019), an INCOMPETENT “”””Certified”””” Master Black Belt told the audience “””” Minitab uses HIGH MATHEMATICS! You do not have to bother about it! Minitab do it for you!¢¢¢¢

    FANTASTIC…….

    NOTICE the High Maths in the T Charts…

    The “”””Secret (of Sahara)”””” is unveiled:

    LCL and UCL are the values providing 1-exp(-4692/710.05) AND 1-exp(-Nuova immagine1/710.05)….

    Those values ARE NOT LCL and UCL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THIS proves the INCOMPETENCE of MINITAB

     

    Attachments:
    1. You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245641

    Darth
    Participant

    WOW!!!!!!  This thread is soooo coooool.  Reminds me of the good ole days when the argument was about the 1.5 sigma shift.  Only thing missing from this thread is Stan challenging Fausto to a duel and debate.  @rbutler  This is the most I have seen you write and argue in the many many years I have followed your posts.  Its been a blast.  I know that some of the Mini folks troll this site so maybe one would jump in and put Fausto out of his misery.  Maybe he could be invited to the next Mini Conference in Sept. to present his case.  I would support that since he would be able to spew his theory in front of the best of the best of Minitab.  @mike-carnell @cseider Hope all is well with ya’ll.

    1
    #245651

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @darth

    “”””WOW!!!!!!  This thread is soooo coooool.“”””

    What IRONY!!!!!

    “”””Maybe he could be invited to the next Mini Conference in Sept. to present his case.  I would support that since he would be able to spew his theory in front of the best of the best of Minitab.””””

    Questions to Statisticians I will come to show the Reliability Integral Theory that solves Scientifically the Montgomery case… and some more things…

    Fausto Galetto

    0
    #245671

    Chris Seider
    Participant

    @fausto.galetto   :)  “Right” is spelled the way I typed….not the way in your cute survey.

    Yea, I’m “poking the bear” but I think you broke some china in the shop beforehand.   FYI, I’ll restate….doing a control chart on MTBF would seem to be a silly tool for practical use.  If the valve is truly causing a plurality of downtime–break it down to the component level and fix the problem and move on.  What control plan would one do if it’s found to be out of control….I can’t imagine one that is credible.

    0
    #245673

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @cseider

     

    You write “””doing a control chart on MTBF would seem to be a silly tool for practical use.”””

    I completely AGREE with you!

    But the question was not an engineering one!

    It referred to the incompetent analysis of the data by Montgomery, by Certified Master Black Belts, by Statisticians, by Minitab FANS….

    NOTICE the Montgomery’s (Engineering) IGNORANCE; he writes:

    “””Note that the control charts indicate a state of control, implying that the failure mechanism for this valve is constant. If a process change is made that improves the failure rate (such as a different type of maintenance action), then we would expect to see the mean time between failures get longer.”””

    NO maintenance ACTION can improve the failure rate of EXPONENTIALLY distributed Random Variables!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THAT says the THEORY!!!!!!!!!!!

    Thank you for the correction of my misspelling….

    0
    #245724

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ ALL

    The mail exchanges with Minitab show clearly that they do not know that the “hidden theory” behind their Control Chart for exponentially distributed data is WRONG!!!

    0
    #245779

    David007
    Participant

    New account, old timer chiming in.

    I’m just going to add some general big picture comments here.

    With n=20, distribution fitting and parameter estimation isn’t going to be very accurate, but it can still be useful.

    In my experience using automated distribution fitting you need thousands of data points to consistently select the theoretically correct distribution.

    Also for t charts in Minitab you can choose Weibull or Exponential.  Personally I think one should always use distribution fitting for control charting but t charts got their popularity boost on health care as a simple approximate way to deal with their non normal data.

    There is no “hidden theory”.  Joel Smith has a good paper on t charts in JQT.  Control charts for Nonnormal data are well documented.

    Finally, if you have a known distribution then obviously use that.  However that is rare.

     

     

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by David007.
    1
    #245783

    David007
    Participant

    * correction: distribution ID not distribution fitting

    And “always use distribution fitting for control charts” should be for control charts with nonnormal data.

     

    1
    #245787

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

    You wrote:

    1.    There is no “hidden theory”.

    2.    Joel Smith has a good paper on t charts in JQT. Control charts for Nonnormal data are well documented.

    3.    Finally, if you have a known distribution then obviously use that. However that is rare.

    IF, in MINITAB, “”””””There is no “hidden theory”.””””””, as you say…. WHAT is the THEORY (not hidden!!!)???

    Do you know it?

     

    I beg you pardon for my ignorance: I do not know what is JQT… SO I CANNOT find the good paper on T Charts of Joel Smith.

     

    I think that you do not want to acknowledge that the “”””””MINITAB T Charts on EXPONENTIALLY distributed data”””””” are WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    0
    #245789

    David007
    Participant

    Sorry my mistake, I said JQT (Journal of Quality Technology) but it’s in Quality Engineering

    “Control Charts Based on the Exponential Distribution: Adapting Runs Rules for the t Chart”

    Quality Engineering, Volume 25, 2013 – Issue 2

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08982112.2012.740646

    All models are wrong. Some are useful. With n=20, yes it’s going to be wrong, but can still be useful.

    The Minitab t chart default is Weibull.  This is identical to running a Weibull chart. If you select Exponential, that identical to running an Exponential chart.

    Is your issue that the data is neither exponential nor Weibull, but something else?  How can you tell with n=20?

    1
    #245790

    David007
    Participant

    It’s least squares, not Maximum Likelihood for the T charts, if  there is a 0:

    https://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab/19/help-and-how-to/quality-and-process-improvement/control-charts/how-to/rare-event-charts/t-chart/methods-and-formulas/methods-and-formulas/

     

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by David007.
    0
    #245797

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

     

    You WANT to CHANGE the terms of the problem:

     

    ·         All models are wrong. Some are useful. With n=20, yes it’s going to be wrong, but can still be useful.

     

    The discussion is:

    ·         With “”””””””””””EXPONENTIALLY distributed data”””””””””””” MINITAB T Charts are WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ·         IT IS NOT A MODEL PROBLEM. IT is wrong THEORY from Minitab!!!!

    Thank you for the link

    ·         https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08982112.2012.740646

    BUT I DO NOT WANT to spend 45 $ to read a paper………………. [written by MINITAB experts!!!]

     

    I will tell you what I would do IF….

    ·         Is your issue that the data is neither exponential nor Weibull, but something else? How can you tell with n=20?

    after the EXPONENTIAL T Charts are settled

    0
    #245798

    David007
    Participant

    The exponential T charts use an exponential distribution and use maximum likelihood to solve the parameter.  This is exactly equivalent to the control chart obtained when doing a Nonnormal capability six pack with an exponential distribution.

    Minitab didn’t invent the T charts. They became popular in health care so they added the tool.

    If you are saying the chart fails to detect assignable causes, try simulating some exponential data.

    1
    #245799

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

    ·         The exponential T charts use an exponential distribution and use maximum likelihood to solve the parameter.

    YES. BUT this is not the way to find the UPPER and LOWER Control Limits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    ·         If you are saying the chart fails to detect assignable causes, try simulating some exponential data.

    I DO NOT HAVE TO SIMULATE….

    Here are the data (exponentially distributed):

    286
    948
    536
    124
    816
    729
    4
    143
    431
    8
    2837
    596
    81
    227
    603
    492
    1199
    1214
    2831
    96
    THE PROCESS is OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!

    What tells you the Minitab T Chart?????

    Are UCL and LCL right or WRONG????

    0
    #245800

    David007
    Participant

    The T chart (Exponential) doesn’t show OOC but MR does if you use Non Normal Capability Six Pack (Exponential)

    PS In order to determine if a method is correct or not correct you need to do thousands of simulations, and look at alpha. Add power study then even more.

     

    1
    #245801

    David007
    Participant

    According to the Distribution ID method, we should be using a 2 parameter exponential or 3 parameter Weibull anyway.  But as I’ve repeatedly said with n=20 the model is going to be wrong anyway.

    1
    #245802

    David007
    Participant

    You really should play with some simulated exponential data. You’ll be surprised by what you see as “inherent variation”.

    1
    #245832

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    I used to say in my courses (Academic, Companies, Quality Associations, Masters)

    “”””several EXPERTES (are they????), who are UNABLE to DEAL with THEORY, use SIMULATIONS!!!!””””

     

    I do not have SiX Pack…………

     

    0
    #245841

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

     

    The attached file give some hints of the INCOMPETENCE of EXPERTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    How can Minitab users find that their decisions based on T Charts were, are and will be WRONG ????

    • VERY; VERY GOOD paper!?!?!?!? [as you said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
    Attachments:
    1. Incompetence-at-Minitab.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245845

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ all STATISTICIANS

    Another case of WRONG T Chart and WRONG decisions ….

    • in the VERY; VERY GOOD paper!?!?!?!? [as someone said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
    Attachments:
    1. 2nd_Incompetence-at-Minitab.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245847

    David007
    Participant

    Fyi, we always tell people that if a process is non-normal due to outliers then deal with those, don’t use transformations or a Nonnormal distribution.

    However the processes being discussed here are inherently non normal with an exponential distribution.

    Effectively by defining a process like this as “out-of-control” you are sending your clients on a wild goose chase looking for assignable causes when there are none to be found.

     

    1
    #245866

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

    You are very good in “quality methods”!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    You continue not understanding the problem: THEORY!!!!!!!

     

    0
    #245868

    David007
    Participant

    If any theory coming from process expertise is available then, of course, use it.  In the examples discussed we were given that it was an exponential distribution, so control limits based on an exponential distribution should be used.

    Generally however, with n=20, any distribution identification is going to be an approximation.  So the model is wrong, but can still be useful.

    And by the way simulations are sometimes the only way to determine optimal methodology. Take for example, computing the threshold parameter of a Weibull distribution.  Given a particular shape, should you use maximum likelihood, iterative bias reduction or maximum product spacing?  Try solving that with theory. Good luck.

    2
    #245869

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ All STATISTICIANS

     

    Incompetent “””experts””” DO NOT believe in THEORY

    Incompetent “””experts””” BELIEVE in SIMULATIONS

     

    With millions of simulations one can find that the MINITAB T CHARTS are WRONG 93.3% of “applications”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    0
    #245870

    David007
    Participant

    > With millions of simulations one can find that the MINITAB T CHARTS are WRONG 93.3% of “applications”

    Sure if the underlying distribution is something other than an exponential (or Weibull) distribution, say an application with a lognormal or loglogistic distribution. That’s why we do distribution identification with probability plots.

    Strange that Six Sigma is 34 years old and yet continues to be used with success. I guess we’ve been duped all this time /s.

     

     

    1
    #245871

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ All STATISTICIANS who use

    <<<< Six Sigma is 34 years old and yet continues to be used with success.>>>

     

    With EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION AND millions of simulations one can find that the MINITAB T CHARTS are WRONG 93.3% of “applications”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    DAVID007 (BOND, David Bond?)

    NOW do you not believe in SIMULATION????????????????

    “””””””””””””With EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION AND millions of simulations one can find that the MINITAB T CHARTS are WRONG 93.3% of “applications”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!””””””””””””””

     

    0
    #245873

    David007
    Participant

    Post a white paper to prove your point.

    2
    #245894

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ All STATISTICIANS

    I will write a Green&White&Red paper and I send it to a Statistics Journal HOPING that ti will be analysed by INTELLIGENT Peer Reviewers……….

    The Correct THEORY is in my books.

    I am not allowed by iSixSigma to provide links to my documents!!!

     

    For the time being let you be informed that I informed MINITAB of their T Charts WRONG!!!!

    0
    #245895

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    AFTER several e-mails exchanged with MINITAB, here are the conclusions:

    From MINITAB:

    1.    Discussing the topic of the theory behind the T charts are not covered by our free technical support,

    2.    and I would refer you to consult with your favorite statistician

    3.    or you can pay us for tutoring through our Statistical Consulting service.

     

    SHOULD I have to PAY for their WRONG T CHARTS?????????????’

     

    Fausto Galetto reply to MINITAB:

    1.      KEEP YOUR WRONG METHODS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2.    AND SELL TO YOUR CUSTOMERS WITH ERRORS…..

    3.    AND MAKE THEM “”””TAKE WRONG DECISIONS”“””

    0
    #245901

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    Another case of WRONG T Chart and WRONG decisions ….

    • in the VERY; VERY GOOD paper!?!?!?!? [as someone said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
    Attachments:
    1. THIRD-INCOMPETENCE-at-Minitab_2020-02-02.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245904

    David007
    Participant

    Minitab tech support is not needed. Calculate the scale (Exponential) or scale and shape (Weibull) using maximum likelihood. Compute .135 and 99.865 percentiles.

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by David007.
    1
    #245932

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

    As I said in a previous post (I do not remember “when”) THAT’S WRONG!!!!

    THEORY is needed!!!!

    0
    #245933

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler

    The paper suggestedd by David007 proves that Peer Review Process does not assure “quality (????)” of the papers………………

    See the file

    Attachments:
    1. for-R_Butler-Minitab-INCOMPETENCE-Referees-INCOMPETENCE.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245935

    David007
    Participant

    As others have said, I anxiously await to see your rebuttal paper in any of Quality Engineering, Journal of Quality Technology, Technometrics, Journal of Applied Statistics, etc.

    2
    #245938

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    VERY VERY INTERESTING

    Quality Engineering

    Control Charts Based on the Exponential Distribution: Adapting Runs Rules for the t Chart

    Eduardo Santiago a & Joel Smith,  Minitab Inc., State College, Pennsylvania

    VERY VERY GOOD paper… PEER REVIEWED by … INCOMPETENT …

    • I will send my “rebuttal paper” to Quality Engineering.
    • Will they find COMPETENT Peer Revewers?????????????????
    0
    #245939

    David007
    Participant

    I look forward to seeing your paper in QE.

    2
    #245963

    Darth
    Participant

    Hey Katie,

    Maybe time to close this thread.  This Fausto guy is really a whack job.  He will not be convinced so maybe Chris, Robert and David can stop humoring him and he will go away.  Hope all is well with you and Fake Mike.

    4
    #246006

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    In these days, I read several papers about “””Charts with exponential distributed data”””: full IGNORANCE!!!

    IF YOU WANT….

    you can find some hints in my paper

    [EDITED BY MODERATOR]

    0
    #246008

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    “This Fausto guy…”

    thinks that Darth is very democratic!!! ???

    Deming’s ideas are in order [Deming (1986)]

    ·         “It is a hazard to copy”,

    ·         “It is necessary to understand the theory of what one wishes to do or to make.”

    ·         “The result is that hundreds of people are learning what is wrong. I make this statement on the basis of experience, seeing every day the devastating effects of incompetent teaching and faulty applications.”

     

    Signature: the “…whack job”

    0
    #246026

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    I am very sorry for you.

    Good learning is forbidden to you: when I cite some of my papers they are cancelled …

    On the contrary, wrong papers are allowed:

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08982112.2012.740646

    Did you find the errors in that PEER REVIEWED paper?

     

    Signature: “This Fausto guy …… whack job”

    0
    #246035

    Katie Barry
    Keymaster

    @fausto.galetto As I previously explained, self-promotion (which includes listing your published articles/linking to your content) is not permitted in the forum. You’re welcome to include as much of this information as you’d like in your User Profile.

    3
    #246048

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @KatieBarry

    I was challenged to write a paper and to have it PEER REVIEWED, BECAUSE the “discussants in the post” did not have enough knowledge of any method for dealing “correctly” with T Charts.

    THEY did not believe that I am right…

    THEY think that only PEER REVIEWED papers are good!

    It false!

    I suggested my documents in order to GIVE THEM HINTS TO UNDERSTAND (IF they wanted to accept…)…

    I am writing the paper to be PEER REVIEWED…

    IF it will be published (IF PEER REVIEWERS will understand ….) HOW can I inform the discussants where to find my paper, IF “self-references are not permitted in the forum”?

     

    0
    #246049

    Katie Barry
    Keymaster

    @fausto.galetto “Pease refer to my User Profile for details on my previously published works.”

    3
    #246211

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ STATISTICIANS

    “This Fausto guy…” read several papers in the References of the VERY VERY INTERESTING paper

    Control Charts Based on the Exponential Distribution: Adapting Runs Rules for the t Chart

    Eduardo Santiago a & Joel Smith,  Minitab Inc., State College, Pennsylvania

    In Quality Engineering     http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lqen20

    VERY VERY GOOD paper… PEER REVIEWED by … INCOMPETENT …

     

    THEY ALL have (in spite of being PEER REVIEWED) WRONG Control Limits!!!!!!!!!!!

    Ignorance is flooding and overflowing (due to incompetent professionals)…, like Covid 19…

    0
    #246396

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @KatieBarry

    @Mike-Carnel

    @Darth

    @David007

    @cseider

    @Sharmin

    @BayanKamal

    @paulchen

    @jazzchuck

    @Hajo

    @Yeoh

    Very good news for you………………………..

    Quality Engineering decided to REJECT my submitted paper on T CHARTS.

    Therefore you will not know the RIGHT Control Limits of T Charts (unless you read my books…)

     

    IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUNESS can stay WELL ALIVE

     

    In my life in Industries and in Universities I MET THOUSANDS of IGNORANTS and INCOMPETENTS and PRESUMPTUOUS running in the DISquality Vicious Circle…

     

     

    Attachments:
    1. You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #246400

    David007
    Participant

    Well you can always publish in the prestigious journal Nuclear Science, along with your spam practice of citing every paper that you have ever published.

    /s

    1
    #246412

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

     

    You are an “expert”

    IGNORANT, INCOMPETENTS and PRESUMPTUOUS running in the DISquality Vicious Circle…

    YOU DO NOT realise that good ideas DO NOT depend on WHERE they are PUBLISHED!!!!

    YOU DO NOT know the THEORY.

    • ·         DID YOU read the paper you are referring to?
    • ·         DID YOU understand the paper you are referring to?
    • ·         DID YOU find any error in the paper you are referring to?
    • ·         CAN YOU SHOW any error in the paper you are referring to?

    YOU SUGGESTED the wrong paper of J. Smith PUBLISHED in a PRESTIGIOUS Journal and PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    YOU write HIDDEN by the nickname David007….

    Tell me your publications SO THAT I CAN READ them…. and I will come back to you and to your “””LIKERS”””!

     

    WILL YOU do it?

    Let’s wait and see….

    0
    #246413

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @KatieBarry

     

    MANY “discussants” in ISixSIGMA write HIDDEN by their nicknames ….

    Could you please tell them to give information about their publications SO THAT I CAN READ them …. and I will come back to you and them?

    WILL THEY do it?

    Let’s wait and see….

    0
    #246416

    Robert Butler
    Participant

    @fausto.galetto – In your post to @David007 on February 29 at 4:39 AM you spewed out a lot of hate and you concluded with the statement “Tell me your publications SO THAT I CAN READ them…. and I will come back to you and to your “””LIKERS”””!”

    @David007 has been courteous and polite in every response he has made to your postings.  Your responses to his posts are nothing but shouting and invective. They are, by turns, irrational, ugly, viscous, denigrating, and hateful.  They have no place on a forum of this type.

    1
    #246421

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler

    VERY NICE @rbutler …..

    • ·         I LOVE QUALITY (AND people!)
    • ·         I HATE DISquality (NOT people!)

    David007 (nickname) can read my documents in the WEB !!!

    I CANNOT read the documents of David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) in the WEB !!!

    Let’s recap the story (IF you want to read it) and see the increasing grade of goad….:

    1. 1.    January 27, 2020 at 6:41 am  #245779REPLY New account, old timer chiming in. (omissis) With n=20, distribution fitting and parameter estimation isn’t going to be very accurate, but it can still be useful. In my experience using automated …. Also for t charts in Minitab you can choose Weibull or Exponential. Personally I think … t charts got their popularity boost on health care as a simple approximate way to deal with their non normal data. There is no “hidden theory”. Joel Smith has a good paper on t charts …Control charts for Nonnormal data are well documented. (omissis)
    2. 2.    January 27, 2020 at 10:00 am #245789REPLY ….it’s in Quality Engineering “Control Charts Based on the Exponential Distribution…” Quality Engineering, Volume 25, 2013 – Issue 2 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08982112.2012.740646 (omissis) Is your issue that the data is neither exponential nor Weibull, but something else? How can you tell with n=20?
    3. 3.    January 27, 2020 at 12:24 pm #245798REPLY The exponential T charts use an exponential distribution and use maximum likelihood to solve the parameter.  This is exactly equivalent to the control chart obtained when doing a Nonnormal capability six pack with an exponential distribution. Minitab didn’t invent the T charts. They became popular in health care so they added the tool. If you are saying the chart fails to detect assignable causes, try simulating some exponential data.
    4. 4.    January 27, 2020 at 2:25 pm #245800REPLY The T chart (Exponential) doesn’t show OOC but MR does if you use Non Normal Capability Six Pack (Exponential) PS In order to determine if a method is correct or not correct you need to do thousands of simulations, and look at alpha. Add power study then even more.
    5. 5.    January 27, 2020 at 2:53 pm#245801REPLY  According to the Distribution ID method, we should be using a 2 parameter exponential or 3 parameter Weibull anyway.  But as I’ve repeatedly said with n=20 the model is going to be wrong anyway.
    6. 6.    January 27, 2020 at 2:57 pm#245802REPLY You really should play with some simulated exponential data. You’ll be surprised by what you see as “inherent variation”
    7. 7.    January 30, 2020 at 11:19 am #245873REPLY Post a white paper to prove your point.
    8. 8.    February 2, 2020 at 4:27 pm #245904REPLY Minitab tech support is not needed. Calculate the scale (Exponential) or scale and shape (Weibull) using maximum likelihood. Compute .135 and 99.865 percentiles.
    9. 9.    February 3, 2020 at 6:08 am #245935REPLY  As others have said, I anxiously await to see your rebuttal paper in any of Quality Engineering, Journal of Quality Technology, Technometrics, Journal of Applied Statistics, etc.
    10. 10.  February 28, 2020 at 2:03 pm #246400REPLY  Well you can always publish in the prestigious journal Nuclear Science, along with your spam practice of citing every paper that you have ever published. /s

    NOW see the implications….

    1 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) INCOMPETENCE (DISquality Vicious Circle…)

    2 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE (DVC…)

    3 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS (DVC…)

    4 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS (DVC…)

    5 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS (DVC…)

    6 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS (DVC…)

    7 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) INCOMPETENCE (DVC…)

    8 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS (DVC…)

    9 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS (DVC…)

    10 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS running in the DISquality Vicious Circle…

     

    HE SUGGESTED the wrong paper of J. Smith PUBLISHED in a PRESTIGIOUS Journal and PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    IF he is so competent HE SHOULD be able to SHOW any error in the paper he is referring to!!!!

     

    IF he is so competent HE SHOULD tell me his publications SO THAT I CAN READ them….!!!

    HE can goad with

    • February 28, 2020 at 2:03 pm #246400REPLY Well you can always publish in the prestigious journal Nuclear Science, along with your spam practice of citing every paper that you have ever published. /s
    • ….
      AND I CANNOT read HIS David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) documents……….!!!???!!!
    0
    #246422

    Robert Butler
    Participant

     

    The following statements – (I won’t bother to bold them since you have already)

    1. “There is no “hidden theory”. Joel Smith has a good paper on t charts …Control charts for Nonnormal data are well documented”

    2. “is your issue that the data is neither exponential nor Weibull, but something else?”

    3. “If you are saying the chart fails to detect assignable causes, try simulating some exponential data.”

    4. “But as I’ve repeatedly said with n=20 the model is going to be wrong anyway.”

    5. “You really should play with some simulated exponential data. You’ll be surprised by what you see as “inherent variation””

    6. “Minitab tech support is not needed. Calculate the scale (Exponential) or scale and shape (Weibull) using maximum likelihood. Compute .135 and 99.865 percentiles.”

    7. “I anxiously await to see your rebuttal paper in any of Quality Engineering, Journal of Quality Technology, Technometrics, Journal of Applied Statistics, etc.”

    8. “along with your spam practice”

    are not goads, are not impolite, and they most certainly are not “IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS” as those words are generally understood.

    To goad is to provoke someone to stimulate some action or reaction – there is nothing provocative in any of the cited quotes. A rational assessment of the 8 quotes cited above is as follows: 1-6 are just plain statements of fact and/or polite questions concerning your take on the issue – nothing more.  #7 is a very polite and logical response to all of your posts that preceded it.  And #8 is an objective observation concerning your posting practice.

    In your numerous posts to this thread you have made it very clear you interpret anything that goes against your personal views as arising from “IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS”. What you choose to ignore is the obvious fact that your personal views are not shared by the people you are addressing on this forum, by the body of practitioners of science/engineering/process control in general, nor by the body of reviewed and published scientific/engineering literature.

     

    1
    #246423

    David007
    Participant

    The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I was being satirical because your Six Sigma Hoax article was published in Nuclear Science by Science Publishing Group, exposed by Beal as predatory publishers.  Your citing everything you have ever published is obvious spamming.  It’s also pretty obvious that you’re just trying to sell your book.

    Anyway those things aren’t important.  You have not made any effort to explain in detail why the T charts are wrong, given that the data are exponentially distributed.  (Obviously if the data is distributed differently then one should use a different distribution).

    1
    #246431

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler

    FANTASTIC, FANTASTIC, REALLY FANTASTIC @rbutler …..

    YOU say…. (and “IGNORANT, INCOMPETENT and PRESUMPTUOUS LIKERS” share your views):

    • ·         In your numerous posts to this thread you have made it very clear you interpret anything that goes against your personal views as arising from “IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS”. What you choose to ignore is the obvious fact that your personal views are not shared by the people you are addressing on this forum, by the body of practitioners of science/engineering/process control in general, nor by the body of reviewed and published scientific/engineering literature.

     

    • MANY WRONGS do not make anything RIGTH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    I classify as “IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS” any action that does not take into account THEORY!!!!!!!!!!!

    • ·         The paper of J. Smith PUBLISHED in a PRESTIGIOUS Journal
    • ·         and PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • ·         SUGGESTED by David007
    • ·         IS WRONG, wrong !!!!!!!
    • ·         THEORY PROVES THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    1. 1.    ALL the LIKERS, AND YOU @rbutler, do not know THEORY
    2. 2.    Otherwise they SHOULD see the NONSENSE of the statement
    3. 3.    February 2, 2020 at 4:27 pm #245904REPLY Minitab tech support is not needed. Calculate the scale (Exponential) or scale and shape (Weibull) using maximum likelihood. Compute .135 and 99.865 percentiles.
    4. 4.    “IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS” support the previous NONSENSE statement……….
    0
    #246433

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

    FANTASTIC, FANTASTIC, REALLY FANTASTIC @David007 …..

    YOU say…. (and “IGNORANT, INCOMPETENT and PRESUMPTUOUS LIKERS” share your views):

    • ·         The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. (omissis)
    • ·         You have not made any effort to explain in detail why the T charts are wrong, given that the data are exponentially distributed.
    • ·         (Obviously if the data is distributed differently then one should use a different distribution).

    1.    I made various attempts to show….

    2.    … citing some of my papers

    3.    THAT ALREADY 20 years ago showed the problems of the Montgomery case;

    4.    … citing some of my books

    5.    THAT ALREADY 20 years ago had the THEORY to …;

    6.    They have been cancelled by KB

     

    The BURDEN to UNDERSTAND is the duty of the readers: THEY MUST know THEORY

     

    • ·         The paper of J. Smith PUBLISHED in a PRESTIGIOUS Journal
    • ·         and PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • ·         SUGGESTED by YOU
    • ·         IS wrong !!!!!!!
    • ·         THEORY PROVES THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    1. 1.    ALL the LIKERS, AND YOU @David007, do not know THEORY
    2. 2.    Otherwise they SHOULD see the NONSENSE of the statement
    3. 3.    February 2, 2020 at 4:27 pm #245904REPLY Minitab tech support is not needed. Calculate the scale (Exponential) or scale and shape (Weibull) using maximum likelihood. Compute .135 and 99.865 percentiles.
    4. 4.    “IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS” support the previous NONSENSE statement……….
    • ·         YOU AND ALL the discussants MUST LEARN THEORY
    • ·         IF you want to see why the T Charts in MINITAB are WRONG
    0
    #246435

    David007
    Participant

    Look, if you said something like parameter estimation issues due to small sample size, or the issues with transformation (debated extensively in the past – Wheeler versus Breyfogle), we could have a civil conversation/debate. But you are just trying to sell your book.

    1
    #246437

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

    FANTASTIC, FANTASTIC, REALLY FANTASTIC @David007 …..

     

    You do not want to understand….

    THEORY IS NEEDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

    SEE the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS in the paper of J. Smith PUBLISHED in a PRESTIGIOUS Journal

    1. 1.    The authors thank Dr. William H. Woodall, whose comments and careful examination of our article greatly improved our presentation.
    2. 2.    We also thank two anonymous referees whose comments helped to improve our presentation.

    The paper IS WRONG, WRONG WRONG and YOU did not KNOW  and YOU do not WANT to see that it IS WRONG, WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!

     

    WHY do you want that my post HAD TO BE (as you say)

    • ·       “if you (I Fausto Galetto) said something like parameter estimation issues due to small sample size”

    ???

    The plain fact is that

    • ·         The paper of J. Smith PUBLISHED in a PRESTIGIOUS Journal
    • ·         and PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • ·         SUGGESTED by YOU
    • ·         IS wrong !!!!!!!
    • ·         THEORY PROVES THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1.    ALL the LIKERS, AND YOU @David007, do not know THEORY

    2.    Otherwise they SHOULD see the NONSENSE of the statement

    3.    February 2, 2020 at 4:27 pm #245904REPLY Minitab tech support is not needed. Calculate the scale (Exponential) or scale and shape (Weibull) using maximum likelihood. Compute .135 and 99.865 percentiles.

    4.    “IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS” support the previous NONSENSE statement……….

     

    • ·         YOU AND ALL the discussants MUST LEARN THEORY
    • ·         IF you want to see why the T Charts in MINITAB are WRONG
    0
    #246438

    Robert Butler
    Participant

    @fausto.galetto – sorry, I’m with @David007 on this one.  Your latest response(s) to me (and to him) are true to form – invective and shouting.  I know this is just poking the Tar Baby and prolonging a very sad string of posts at the top of the masthead of a very good site, but you really should re-read what you wrote and contrast that with my last post. There is nothing in any of the 8 statements you cited that have anything to do with THEORY – as you are so fond of putting it.

    Given your violent reaction to anything you perceive as contrary to your views, I actually took some time to look over some of the numerous things you have uploaded to that storage site ResearchGate.  I also took some time to check out the reputation of that site. Three things are immediately evident:

    1. The noble concept of “open access” is DOA and you are taking the life of your grant and the status of your professional reputation/career in your hands if you try to use anything on those sites as a basis/starting point for your work.

    2. If the “paper” you sent to  Quality Engineering looked anything like the stuff you have uploaded to that storage site (open access with no apparent oversight) it is not surprising it was rejected.

    3. Based on what you have posted here and on ResearchGate it appears you strongly favor the PBV method of scientific discourse (Proof By Volume).  That method works well in the world of politics and extreme religious movements but does not advance your cause (and hopefully it never will) in the world of engineering and science.

    1
    #246443

    David007
    Participant

    Robert, it’s funny you should mention extreme religious movements because that’s exactly what I thought he was doing.

    1
    #246468

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler

    Your last reply with the statement about “”””the PBV method of scientific discourse (Proof By Volume)””” made me think that we have different ideas about THEORY and SCIENTIFICNESS.

    For me THEORY is

    • ·         The set of all LOGIC Deductions
    • ·         Drawn
    • ·         From Axioms and Postulates
    • ·         Which allow to go LOGICALLY from Hypotheses to Theses
    • ·         Such that ALL Intelligent and Sensible people CAN DRAW the SAME RESUL

     People who do not know Theory have to be considered IGNORANT
         People who are IGNORANT and waffle about subject they do not know have to be considered PRESUMPTUOUS

    • ·         ALL my papers and books are BASED on THEORY!!!!!!!!!

     

    Let’s see

    1.    IF YOU applied THEORY

    2.    In your replies

    3.    Some times…

    The subject of the post was and is CONTROL CHARTS (with NON-Normal data)

    • ·         CERTIFIED MASTER Black Belts should know it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • ·         STATISTICIANS, “””expert””” of Six Sigma should know it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Your first reply on December 7, 2019

    • ·         was NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on your ideas (shared by many others) that one has “””submit … to a peer reviewed journal”””
    • ·         because you did not have the faintest idea how to deal with the Montgomery case….

    Your second reply on January 10, 2020 (one month later!)

    • ·         was AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on your ideas
    • ·         “”””I agree nobody, including yourself, tried to solve the cases. As I’m sure others will tell you, the usual procedure on this site is for you to try to solve the problem, post a reasonable summary of your efforts on a thread and then ask for help/suggestions.”””
    • ·         and ASKING me to “”””learn about G and T charts, and do the work manually”””
    • ·         because you did not have the faintest idea how to deal with the Montgomery case….

    The suggestion of @Darth was the hint for my document “””Open-Letter-for-Master-Black-Belts”””

    @Darth uploaded the T Chart made by MINITAB Software

    That was a great advance, BECAUSE it showed that MINITAB T Chart WERE and ARE WRONG.

    Your third reply on January 14, 2020

    • ·         was AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on your Super_Long_WAFFLING
    • ·         and on your ideas (shared by many others) about AGAIN “””peer reviewed”””
    • ·         by saying “”””””Given the bombast I decided to see what I could find.  I couldn’t find a single peer reviewed paper by the OP listed in either Pubmed or Jstor.””””””
    • ·         and after “”””””I also know many of the statisticians at Minitab have numerous papers in the peer-reviewed press on statistics and process control and have made presentations at more technical meetings than I could list.  Under those circumstances, if the OP really thinks he is right and Minitab is wrong then the OP first needs to take the time to find, and thoroughly understand, the theory behind the T chart – this would require actually researching the topic – books, peer reviewed papers, etc.””””””
    • ·         because you did not have the faintest idea how to deal with the Montgomery case….

     

    AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN………..PEER REVIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    Your fourth reply on January 15, 2020

    • ·         was AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on your Super_Long_WAFFLING
    • ·         because you did not have the faintest idea how to deal with the Montgomery case….

     

    AFTER my document “”””for-R_Butler_Quality-education-versus-Peer-Review_2006.docx””””….

    Your fifth reply on January 16, 2020

    • ·         was AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on your Super_Long_WAFFLING
    • ·         because you did not have the faintest idea how to deal with the Montgomery case….
    • ·         In spite of your “””””I do peer reviewing for the statistics sections of papers submitted to one of the scientific journals.””””

    AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN………..PEER REVIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    For 10 days there was a lot of WAFFLING in the thread………………

    THIS have been really the best advance in the discussion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    IT proved CLEARLY that “”””PEER Review”””” DOES NOT ASSURE Quality of papers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    As a matter of fact

    • ·         The paper of J. Smith “””Control Charts Based on the Exponential Distribution“””
    • ·         Written by MINITAB “””Experts (???)”””
    • ·         PUBLISHED in the PRESTIGIOUS Journal Quality Engineering
    • ·         and PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • ·         In a way that made the authors to write
    • ·         “”””The authors thank Dr. William H. Woodall, whose comments and careful examination of our article greatly improved our presentation.”””” AND “””””We also thank two anonymous referees whose comments helped to improve our presentation”””””
    • ·         IS wrong !!!!!!!

    David007 replies from January 27, 2020 to January 30

    • ·         were AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         BECAUSE he did not and does not know THEORY
    • ·         by writing “””””The T chart (Exponential) doesn’t show OOC but MR does if you use Non Normal Capability Six Pack (Exponential)”””””·
    •           again NO THEORY, only BLIND use of Minitab [Six Pack is another drawback of MINITAB
    • ·         and many other NONSENSE
    • ·         thinking ALSO that SIMULATIONS …. can do well!!!!!

    THEN there have been the mail exchanged with MINITAB and my document to you “””for-R_Butler-Minitab-INCOMPETENCE-Referees-INCOMPETENCE.docx””””

    Several authors cited in J. Smith paper published papers PEER REVIEWED with the same type of ERRORS as J. Smith paper!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • ·         THEORY PROVES THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    On February 28, 2020 I informed all the discussants of the REJECTION, by Quality Engineering, of my submitted paper on T Charts……….

     

    Your sixth reply came on February 29, 2020 (after 40 days!!!)

    • ·         was AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on your writing
    • ·         @fausto.galetto – In your post to @David007 on February 29 at 4:39 AM you spewed out a lot of hate and you concluded with the statement “Tell me your publications SO THAT I CAN READ them…. and I will come back to you and to your “””LIKERS”””!”
    • ·         AND %%%@David007 has been courteous and polite in every response he has made to your postings.  Your responses to his posts are nothing but shouting and invective. They are, by turns, irrational, ugly, viscous, denigrating, and hateful.  They have no place on a forum of this type.%%%
    • ·         BUT NO THEORY
    • ·         because NOBODY did have the faintest idea how to deal with the Montgomery case….

     

    Your seventh reply on March 1, 2020

    • ·         was AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on this scientific statement
    • ·         “””””In your numerous posts to this thread you have made it very clear you interpret anything that goes against your personal views as arising from “IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS”. What you choose to ignore is the obvious fact that your personal views are not shared by the people you are addressing on this forum, by the body of practitioners of science/engineering/process control in general, nor by the body of reviewed and published scientific/engineering literature.””””
    • ·         because you did not have the faintest idea how to deal with the Montgomery case and T CHARTS….

    Your eigth reply on March 2, 2020

    • ·         was AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on these scientific statements
    • ·         “””””If the “paper” you sent to  Quality Engineering looked anything like the stuff you have uploaded to that storage site (open access with no apparent oversight) it is not surprising it was rejected””””
    • ·         AND “””””Based on what you have posted here and on ResearchGate it appears you strongly favor the PBV method of scientific discourse (Proof By Volume).  That method works well in the world of politics and extreme religious movements but does not advance your cause (and hopefully it never will) in the world of engineering and science.””””

    I wonder if you (and several other people)

    • ·         know what THEORY means and entails…
    • ·         are BIASED BY LACK of THEORY …

     

    WHERE can I find YOUR PEER REVIEWED Scientific papers, @rbutler, ???????????

    0
    #246473

    Robert Butler
    Participant

    In all the time I’ve been a participant on the Isixsigma Forums, this has to be the saddest thread I’ve seen or been a part of.

    Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not @fausto.galetto, this is your situation:

    From: The Conduct of Inquiry – Abraham Kaplan pp. 34-35

    “It is in the empirical component that science is differentiated from fantasy. An inner coherence, even strict self-consistency, may mark a delusional system as well as a scientific one. Paraphrasing Archimedes we may each of us declare, “Give me a premise to stand on and I will deduce a world!” But it will be a fantasy world except in so far as the premise gives it a measure of reality. And it is experience alone that gives us realistic premises.”

    You have a premise – your theory – and you deduced a world. And, based on your scornful rejection of @David007 recommendation for simulations as well as the lack of actual data from processes you personally have run and controlled, that is all you have – a theory bereft of empirical evidence.

    You wrote a paper describing the world resulting from your theory and you sent your description of that world to Quality Engineering. They gave your world some careful thought, compared it to the empirical evidence they had (as well as the current world view based on that evidence), found your world description wanting, and rejected it.

    Based on your posts it appears you did the same thing with MINITAB. They too, examined your world, found it did not agree with, nor adequately describe, the empirical evidence they had on hand, and chose to ignore it.

    All through the exchange of posts to this thread you have made it very clear that Fausto Galetto’s world based on pure theory is the only correct one and anyone who does not agree is ignorant, incompetent and presumptuous.  You, of course, have a right to believe these things but everyone else has a right to believe otherwise.

    What makes this exchange of posts particularly depressing is the idea you believe a company like MINITAB would know about a serious flaw in their T Chart routine and do nothing about it. You seem to forget that hospitals and medical facilities routinely use the MINITAB T Chart.  If there was something seriously wrong with that part of the program there would be ample empirical evidence in the form of lots of dead patients attesting to the fact: There aren’t.   If there had ever been anything seriously wrong with the T Chart program the statisticians at MINITAB would have made proper corrections to the program before it was ever offered in their statistics package.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Robert Butler. Reason: typo
    0
    #246488

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @KatieBarry

    I am having a lot of problems in uploading my reply

    0
    #246491

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    04 March 2020, ore 15.48

    @rbutler

    • ·         I got 3 times the following (form iSixSigma)
    • ·         ERROR: Your reply cannot be created at this time.
      So I made a document……….

    ………………………………………………………………………………………..

    IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF

    1. 1.    The Certified Master Black Belts
    2. 2.    The Statisticians fond of Six Sigma (also biostatisticians!)
    3. 3.    The users of MINITAB
    4. 4.    The authors of MINITAB

    KNEW THEORY

    • ·         They should find the TRUE Control Limits
    Attachments:
    1. Reply-to-RButler_04-March-2020.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #246500

    Robert Butler
    Participant

    As I noted in my post to your thread yesterday your situation is exactly that described by Abraham Kaplan and you have confirmed this to be the case in your post where you specifically stated:

    “For me THEORY is

    ·              ·         The set of all LOGIC Deductions

    ·              ·         Drawn

    ·              ·         From Axioms and Postulates

    ·              ·         Which allow to go LOGICALLY from Hypotheses to Theses

    ·              ·         Such that ALL Intelligent and Sensible people CAN DRAW the SAME RESUL”

     

    So, to reiterate – what you have is a pure theory which has no basis in empirical fact and which is, as you are so fond of saying – wrong.  What is particularly interesting about your situation is that you have conclusively proved you are wrong and you have demonstrated that fact time and again.

    In the scientific world when one constructs what they believe to be a new theory the very first thing they do is make sure their theory is capable of accounting for all of the prior known facts in whatever area it is they are working.  Montgomery’s work, the methods and results of T Charts, etc. have been around for a long time and have withstood the close scrutiny and testing by myriads of scientists, engineers, statisticians, health practitioner, etc.  No one has found anything wrong with them.

    If a real scientist constructs a theory and finds it at odds with prior known facts the first thing that individual will do is choose to believe there is something wrong with the theory and spend time either trying to adjust the theory to match the known facts or, if that proves to be impossible, scrap the theory and start over.  In your case, you tested your theory and found it at odds with Montgomery et.al. and came to the instant conclusion your theory, based on a set of axioms and postulates of your choosing, was correct and everyone else was wrong.

    As Kaplan noted – the world your theory has deduced will only mirror reality to the extent that the premise mirrors reality. The empirical evidence you have compiled in your uploaded rants about MINITAB and Montgomery’s text repeatedly confirm the fact that your theory (and most certainly the postulates and axioms upon which it is based) does not mirror reality and is therefore wrong.

    Instead of recognizing this very obvious fact you have chosen to spin the failures of your theory as successes, indulge in self-glorification, and shout down and denigrate anyone and anything that challenges your personal view of yourself and your theory. This isn’t science. It is raw, naked, ugly, disgusting, hateful, ad hominem attacks of the lowest order – in other words – Proof By Volume. Mussolini would be so proud.

    As for your demands for my peer reviewed papers all I can say is let’s stay focused on the topic of this thread.  This thread was started by you. It is not about me nor anyone else who has participated. It is about a guy named Fausto Galetto and his pure theory based on axioms and postulates which do not incorporate empirical evidence. Let’s keep it that way.

    0
    #246507

    David007
    Participant

    Thanks Robert. Good assessment.

    0
    #246522

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler

    @David007

     

    WAFFLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The attached figure is TWICE WRONG and YOU do not ACCEPT, due to your ….

    Stop writing BMWs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Attachments:
    1. You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #246525

    Robert Butler
    Participant

    For the casual reader who is late to this spectacle and who does not wish to plow through all 94 posts allow me to provide a summary.

    The OP has a pure theory, based on axioms and postulates of his choosing with no demonstrable connection to empirical evidence, which he has used to evaluate various and sundry aspects of MINITAB analysis and works by Montgomery.  His theory generates results that are wildly at odds with tried and tested methods of analysis as delineated by MINITAB and Montgomery.

    Through a series of polite and courteous posts it has been pointed out to the OP that extraordinary claims, such as his, require extraordinary proof and that the burden of providing this proof is on his shoulders and not on the shoulders of those whom he has insisted are incorrect.

    The OP’s response to this well understood tenet of scientific inquiry has been one continuous run of Proof-By-Volume consisting of raw, naked, ugly, disgusting, hateful, ad hominem attacks on anyone questioning his theory and the conclusions he has drawn from it. The OP has made it very clear he not only has no intention of providing such proof but he also does not think proof is necessary.

    His intransigence with respect to the idea of the need to provide extraordinary proof is mirrored in his choice of words. An assessment of his 51 posts (as of 5 March 2020) indicates his favorite words and word assemblies are (in no particular order)

    Wrong – 47 times – applied to everyone but himself

    Theory – 52 times – by far the favorite

    Ignorance, Incompetence and Presumptuousness – all together or at least one occurrence of any of the three words – 41 times  – again – as applied to everyone else

    As the most prolific responder to his posts I’ve tried to politely point out the shortcomings of his theory and why it isn’t viable.  It has been, as I thought it probably would be, a vain effort. The only thing I’ve received in return is a barrage of ad hominem attacks and multiple accusation of waffling (6 times) (to waffle – to be unable to make a decision, to talk a lot without giving any useful information or answers). Waffling – back at you OP.

    There really isn’t anything else to say – the OP has constructed a theory based on postulates and axioms of his choosing. He has reported the results of his theory as though they were correct while the empirical evidence he himself has compiled in this regard says otherwise, he has provided no proof of the correctness of his theory, and he reacts violently to any suggestion that his theory is wrong.  I’m sure the OP will want to have the last word, as well as the one following that – go for it Fausto  – QED (Quite Enough Discussion)

    1
    #246540

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    For the casual reader who is late to this spectacle and who does not wish to plow through all 94 posts …. as done by “@rbutler Senior Biotatistician” (@rbutlerSB, for short!)

     

    @rbutlerSB was the first to reply ; perhaps he wants to be

    • ·         The last straw that breaks the camel back………..

     

    AS SAID by @rbutlerSB

    • ·         Ignorance, Incompetence and Presumptuousness is very present in this thread
    • ·         Because from his Universe of KNOWLEDGE @rbutlerSB is UNCAPABLE to
    • ·         REALISE that Minitab T Charts are WRONG
    • ·         Being T Charts based on the “WRONG theory” of the paper “E. Santiago, J. Smith, Control charts based on the Exponential Distribution, Quality Engineering, 25:2, 85-96, at the link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08982112.2012.740646”
    • ·         which has wrong formulae for the Control Limits of T Charts
    • ·         in spite that is was “Peer Reviewed” and “Published in a GOOD Journal” (so having the dignity to be considered “scientific”)

    @rbutlerSB DOES NOT accept to STUDY and to SEE IF I AM right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    He prefers waffling as follows:

    • ·         “””””””””As the most prolific responder to his posts I’ve tried to politely point out the shortcomings of his theory and why it isn’t viable.  It has been, as I thought it probably would be, a vain effort. The only thing I’ve received in return is a barrage of ad hominem attacks and multiple accusation of waffling (6 times) (to waffle – to be unable to make a decision, to talk a lot without giving any useful information or answers). Waffling – back at you OP.””””””
    • ·         “””””””””There really isn’t anything else to say – the OP has constructed a theory based on postulates and axioms of his choosing. He has reported the results of his theory as though they were correct while the empirical evidence he himself has compiled in this regard says otherwise, he has provided no proof of the correctness of his theory, and he reacts violently to any suggestion that his theory is wrong.  I’m sure the OP will want to have the last word, as well as the one following that – go for it Fausto  – QED (Quite Enough Discussion) “””””””””
    1. 1.    I ASKED @rbutlerSB and others to PROVIDE where I CAN FIND their PEER REVIEWED papers!!!
    2. 2.    They DID NOT let me read their PEER REVIEWED papers!!!
    3. 3.    THEY realise that I will find THEIR errors (IF there are any….) USING THEORY
    4. 4.    Certified MBB and (Bio)Statisticians SHOULD know THEORY (Probability, Statistics, Logic, ….)

    Deming’s ideas are in order [Deming (1986)]

    • ·         “It is a hazard to copy”,
    • ·         “It is necessary to understand the theory of what one wishes to do or to make.”
    • ·         “The result is that hundreds of people are learning what is wrong. I make this statement on the basis of experience, seeing every day the devastating effects of incompetent teaching and faulty applications.”

    The WAFFLERS are UNABLE to understand that the attached figure (to my Previous reply) is TWICE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Ignorance, Incompetence and Presumptuousness

    Attachments:
    1. You must be signed in to download files.
    2. You must be signed in to download files.
    3. You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #246578

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler, @Mike-Carnel, @Darth, @David007, @cseider

    @Sharmin, @BayanKamal, @paulchen, @jazzchuck, @Hajo, @Yeoh

     

    Yesterday 8 March 2020 a graduate of mine phoned me. We were remembering the time when several of my students were able to read PEER REVIEWED papers PUBLSHED in REPUTED Journals and to find the BMWs of the REPUTED Authors!!!!

    She remembered the MONTGOMERY Case and the graduates who dealt it CORRECTLY in their THESES.

    You find two of them who were BETTER than Statisticians and Certified Master Black Belts…

    FROM two THESES of my STUDENTS

    Attachments:
    1. From-two-Theses-of-MY-Students.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
Viewing 98 posts - 1 through 98 (of 98 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.