„If you stand far enough back to see the big picture, everything is numbers“ She got it backwards, numbers are detail oriented, NOT big picture. If you break down everything to just a few numbers, how could you ever hope to be able to have the big picture with that? It‘s impossible. That‘s also why machine learning algorithms need high performance, as they look at a LOT of details in a short amount of time to get to the truth. What Jane does is the opposite, he actually looks at the big picture and how everything‘s connected, to get to the truth.
I wish she'd been in more episodes. She's intelligent but very awkward. Beautiful and socially inept. Her dynamic with Jane is hilarious. 😂😂 Also she'd have been a cute love interest for Rigsby while Van Pelt was busy with O'Laughlin.
Good on Jane for retrieving the report on RJ from the bin after dismissing it so quickly. He wants to catch RJ so badly that anything about RJ has to be useful to him
I love how Jane completely disparages Montagues theory ever so politely by saying "at least you're wrong with conviction, these 2 women knew each other".
@@samueldeandrade8535 Statisticians do not show that things are the same. Instead, what they show (or not) is that it is very unlikely that two things are unrelated. The baseline assumption ("the null hypothesis") is that there is no relation. Then they show (or not) that it's very unlikely that this is true given the data, and they can do that up to some confidence interval. So they would be more likely to say something like "the data show that it's highly unlikely these were committed by different individuals". Though I'd still want to understand in what sense they mean that, bc statistical statements are generally made about populations, not specific individuals.
@@cv990a4 hi. First, thank you very much for a reply. I asked someone else that didn't reply, something that may happen for several reasons. So I see that you tried to help me understand something. BUT you can't answer my question. Because my question actually is "Why, nickeldan, do you think like that?" OP, nickeldan, said "No real mathematician would ever use the phrase 'statistically identical'", It seems OP feels some problem with the expression "statistically identical". I don't see why. And you comment does NOT explain. The fact "Statisticians do not show that things are the same", (is a fact considering the more precise variation "Statisticians usually do not show that things are the same") does NOT invalidates the expression "statistically identical". On contrary, it serves as argument to justify it. Right? So, it seems you agree with me that OP's statement is very wrong. Because a real mathematician, let's suppose a statistician, comparing things X and Y, X≠Y, still can say "X is statistically identical to Y", denoted by X~Y, in my opinion. In some sense, OP's comment implies that statisticians are not real mathematicians. I can't accept this.
Wow.. that's so cool.. I'm a graduate student working on prediction model to identify whether the loan disburse will be default or not. The goal is to reduce non profiting assets.
Lisbon always distrusts those whom Jane distrusts giving him a short glance as to get approval whether to trust or not to trust. Patrick's web is too strong.
Fairly average build women with most popular hair colour, dumped in easy access areas and killed with a typical weapon.....it must be the same guy! No wonder so many people are wrongly convicted.
The last scene is ridiculous; if he has observed a statistically significant correlation between lizards and cold bloodedness, she shouldnt have dismissed him. Also, the facial expressions of shame as opposed to sadness should be taken in as a factor. neither is conclusive but they raise red flags and warrant a closer. These are indeed hard numbers.
I didn't expect Jane to disregard her analysis so willy-nilly, after all the science he professes he does is basically number crunching but instinctively, choosing what parameters to consider instinctively, which isn't very different (but much more advanced) to machine learning.
He didn't, in the end, though. He tossed it out initially but then changed his mind. He disregarded her analysis, mostly because it was wrong. And safe bet that he has studied other serial killers just in case they might have become Red John, so his personal assessment that it was not the Caveman was, indeed, based on fact.
Yet another HollyWeird covert admission of the true role of gematria behind the mainstream reporting of events. I’m intrigued to discover how many of my fellow Mentalist fans spotted this.
You can tell when they speed up reruns in syndication. The voices sound a little higher and the laughter of the studio audience sounds off. They make the show run a little faster and sometimes edit little parts out so they can have more time for commercials.
Then she became a supercop in Castle
Empress Soto 😍🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
he did check out the red John study 😅😅😅😅
I thought Jane would have poured yhe tea into the trashbin to destroy the report, but...
well at least I know I got something from grad school, seeing this again after taking Stats scares the hell out of me about people like that
Hey, its Koshi...
„If you stand far enough back to see the big picture, everything is numbers“ She got it backwards, numbers are detail oriented, NOT big picture. If you break down everything to just a few numbers, how could you ever hope to be able to have the big picture with that? It‘s impossible. That‘s also why machine learning algorithms need high performance, as they look at a LOT of details in a short amount of time to get to the truth. What Jane does is the opposite, he actually looks at the big picture and how everything‘s connected, to get to the truth.
hoshi!!!!
What a great attraction
Jane probably went " but again, we never know 🤷"
1:31 - It expands the modeling paradigm - ...Merely expands the modeling paradigm
hey shes in castle too
Why did he trash it in the first place?😂😂😂😂😂Jane????😅😂😅😂😅😅😅😅
I wish she'd been in more episodes. She's intelligent but very awkward. Beautiful and socially inept. Her dynamic with Jane is hilarious. 😂😂 Also she'd have been a cute love interest for Rigsby while Van Pelt was busy with O'Laughlin.
i think they were thinking about that, but didn't go that way for some reason
4:20 Do you know what I just realize? Owning a electric cattle and drinking tea in US is almost non-existent.
An electric cattle? Yeah, I hate those wind-up cows too..
Did anybody else lookup 'Chicanery'?
LOVE the ending 😂
Good on Jane for retrieving the report on RJ from the bin after dismissing it so quickly. He wants to catch RJ so badly that anything about RJ has to be useful to him
I love how Jane completely disparages Montagues theory ever so politely by saying "at least you're wrong with conviction, these 2 women knew each other".
After this Dr Montague went on to be a top climate modeller and is as equally successful
"Seriously, you start trouble and I will..." "You'll burst my bubble?"
No real mathematician would ever use the phrase "statistically identical".
Why not?
@@samueldeandrade8535 They will just said the number
@@samueldeandrade8535 Statisticians do not show that things are the same. Instead, what they show (or not) is that it is very unlikely that two things are unrelated. The baseline assumption ("the null hypothesis") is that there is no relation. Then they show (or not) that it's very unlikely that this is true given the data, and they can do that up to some confidence interval. So they would be more likely to say something like "the data show that it's highly unlikely these were committed by different individuals". Though I'd still want to understand in what sense they mean that, bc statistical statements are generally made about populations, not specific individuals.
@@cv990a4 hi. First, thank you very much for a reply. I asked someone else that didn't reply, something that may happen for several reasons. So I see that you tried to help me understand something. BUT you can't answer my question. Because my question actually is "Why, nickeldan, do you think like that?" OP, nickeldan, said "No real mathematician would ever use the phrase 'statistically identical'", It seems OP feels some problem with the expression "statistically identical". I don't see why. And you comment does NOT explain. The fact "Statisticians do not show that things are the same", (is a fact considering the more precise variation "Statisticians usually do not show that things are the same") does NOT invalidates the expression "statistically identical". On contrary, it serves as argument to justify it. Right? So, it seems you agree with me that OP's statement is very wrong. Because a real mathematician, let's suppose a statistician, comparing things X and Y, X≠Y, still can say "X is statistically identical to Y", denoted by X~Y, in my opinion. In some sense, OP's comment implies that statisticians are not real mathematicians. I can't accept this.
@@cv990a4 Rather than populations consider sample data
BS. My brother figure Carlos Rocha loves lizards and other reptiles. And he's a very warm caring and " by the book " person.
Her mouth says yes but jane says no
But his mind says "Oh screw it"
The lady dr is the brainchild of minority report
A 100% Asian female doctor with last name Montague? That's suspicious.
Wow.. that's so cool.. I'm a graduate student working on prediction model to identify whether the loan disburse will be default or not. The goal is to reduce non profiting assets.
I have a lizard, I'm not cold-blooded person:D Jane Jane, u were wrong there
all lizards who pretend to be human say that
Mentalist rap!
Your choppy quality is costing you views.
Mmmm, Linda Park.
Ugh, I get changing these slightly to defeat TH-cam's copyright algorithm, but making Jane sound like Kermit.... nu uh.
Empress Sato
when it comes to red john, jane has no principles. lol. he went into the trash
Why did he throw it into the trash in the first place?
@@neuronNotFound No idea either.
So this dude is just gay, right? Gay as fuck?
it's math. not maths.
Where's the "ematic"? as in MathEMATICs?
Asians are good at math. We all know that.
Lisbon always distrusts those whom Jane distrusts giving him a short glance as to get approval whether to trust or not to trust. Patrick's web is too strong.
Her trusting him that much really is something. Then again, he's proven to be very dependable.
Fairly average build women with most popular hair colour, dumped in easy access areas and killed with a typical weapon.....it must be the same guy! No wonder so many people are wrongly convicted.
Ventura Grapics, Ken Yu production
The last scene is ridiculous; if he has observed a statistically significant correlation between lizards and cold bloodedness, she shouldnt have dismissed him. Also, the facial expressions of shame as opposed to sadness should be taken in as a factor. neither is conclusive but they raise red flags and warrant a closer. These are indeed hard numbers.
If she worked for FEDS, then it would have been a great story to add her in season 7 and 8 in FBI team. Great chemistry.
Damn, that would have been fucking brilliant.
I bet Patrick's tea budget does put a hole in producer's pockets. :-D
Maybe they bought a tea plant to make up for that fact haha.
Only if it's actually tea, and not dyed water
I didn't expect Jane to disregard her analysis so willy-nilly, after all the science he professes he does is basically number crunching but instinctively, choosing what parameters to consider instinctively, which isn't very different (but much more advanced) to machine learning.
Backfire Effect. Not even Jane is safe.
He sees it as cheating on his higher goal... Red John is not just a case for him, it's everything he lives for...
He didn't, in the end, though. He tossed it out initially but then changed his mind. He disregarded her analysis, mostly because it was wrong. And safe bet that he has studied other serial killers just in case they might have become Red John, so his personal assessment that it was not the Caveman was, indeed, based on fact.
I love the fact he goes back for the case files it shows how much he wants to catch red john
usha kiran umm, on second thought...
He doesn't believe it actually works, but he's so desperate he'll read it on the "off chance" that it helps.
whatever it takes
Nothing gets past you!
@@sevach More data is good data.
Asian
Who like lizards? Cold blooded people. Like me!
Yet another HollyWeird covert admission of the true role of gematria behind the mainstream reporting of events. I’m intrigued to discover how many of my fellow Mentalist fans spotted this.
You can tell when they speed up reruns in syndication. The voices sound a little higher and the laughter of the studio audience sounds off. They make the show run a little faster and sometimes edit little parts out so they can have more time for commercials.
Lots of TH-camrs do it to avoid the copyright bots. Not sure if it works, but it's annoying.