# Difference between revisions of "Talk:1124: Law of Drama"

Noni Mausa (talk | contribs) |
|||

Line 1: | Line 1: | ||

Regarding the transcript: I don't think you have enough data to characterize this short curve as exponential. What does "slightly exponential" mean, anyway? In any case, it looks like it becomes linear as the x values increase. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 11:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | Regarding the transcript: I don't think you have enough data to characterize this short curve as exponential. What does "slightly exponential" mean, anyway? In any case, it looks like it becomes linear as the x values increase. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 11:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | ||

+ | |||

+ | :I took 26 data points, assumed the axes defined a (0-1,0-1) window, and tried an extrapolation (using Microsoft Excel; someone with a different tool can surely do better). An exponential model fits fairly well: y = 0.0782 * e^(2.7035*x) with R^2 = 0.9928. However, I agree about the linear end section -- the exponential trendline clealy starts to pull high. --BigMal27 // [[Special:Contributions/192.136.15.149|192.136.15.149]] 13:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | ||

I think Randall thought about the shape of this curve. You see how it becomes linear as both drama and anti-drama declaration increase? At low values, there is a residual amount of drama even when there is little anti-drama declaration, but the marginal increase eventually becomes constant. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 11:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | I think Randall thought about the shape of this curve. You see how it becomes linear as both drama and anti-drama declaration increase? At low values, there is a residual amount of drama even when there is little anti-drama declaration, but the marginal increase eventually becomes constant. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 11:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |

## Revision as of 13:57, 22 October 2012

Regarding the transcript: I don't think you have enough data to characterize this short curve as exponential. What does "slightly exponential" mean, anyway? In any case, it looks like it becomes linear as the x values increase. --Prooffreader (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

- I took 26 data points, assumed the axes defined a (0-1,0-1) window, and tried an extrapolation (using Microsoft Excel; someone with a different tool can surely do better). An exponential model fits fairly well: y = 0.0782 * e^(2.7035*x) with R^2 = 0.9928. However, I agree about the linear end section -- the exponential trendline clealy starts to pull high. --BigMal27 // 192.136.15.149 13:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Randall thought about the shape of this curve. You see how it becomes linear as both drama and anti-drama declaration increase? At low values, there is a residual amount of drama even when there is little anti-drama declaration, but the marginal increase eventually becomes constant. --Prooffreader (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

- I think that the upper limit for drama statements does indeed have an end-point, beyond which those declarations can't increase. At that point, I suppose, the drama-ridden person experiences a split state-change, either dropping to the original non-drama state by disavowing all the causers-of-drama in their lives, or by becoming a causer-of-drama.--Noni Mausa (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)