Chat with our AI personalities
so that they can have a clear an valid point to the argument, with proof.
No, but the can be adjacent angles. It is mathematically valid even though it serves no point.
You probably mean the confidence interval. When you construct a confidence interval it has a percentage coverage that is based on assumptions about the population distribution. If the population distribution is skewed there is reason to believe that (a) the statistics upon which the interval are based (namely the mean and standard deviation) might well be biased, and (b) the confidence interval will not accurately cover the population value as accurately or symmetrically as expected.
When you plot a function with asymptotes, you know that the graph cannot cross the asymptotes, because the function cannot be valid at the asymptote. (Since that is the point of having an asymptotes - it is a "disconnect" where the function is not valid - e.g when dividing by zero or something equally strange would occur). So if you graph is crossing an asymptote at any point, something's gone wrong.
The validity or invalidity of a function are not abstract but depend on its domain and codomain or range. If for any point, A, in the domain there is a unique point, B, in the range such that f(A) = B then the function is valid at A. The validity of a function can change from point to point. For example, f(x) = sqrt(x) is not a function from the set of Real Numbers to the set of Real Numbers because any negative number in the domain is not mapped to any value in the range. This can be corrected either by changing the domain to the set of non-negative Real Numbers or (if you are a more advanced mathematician) change the range to the set of Complex Numbers. Similarly the reciprocal function, f(x) = 1/x is valid everywhere except for x = 0. Or f(x) = tan(x) is valid except for x = 90+k*180 degrees for all integer values of k - so it is not valid at an infinite number of points.