Editing Talk:1124: Law of Drama
|
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
::It could be a shallow power function curve . . .--[[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 13:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | ::It could be a shallow power function curve . . .--[[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 13:57, 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 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 | ||
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) | ||
| Line 13: | Line 11: | ||
: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.--[[User:Noni Mausa|Noni Mausa]] ([[User talk:Noni Mausa|talk]]) 13:11, 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.--[[User:Noni Mausa|Noni Mausa]] ([[User talk:Noni Mausa|talk]]) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| − | :: At this point in the discourse, I'm reminded of a real-scientist friend who admonished me once for reading too much into some data, and it seems applicable here, too. To wit: the axes are not labeled with units -- no tick marks to be seen anywhere -- nor is it clear what sort of axes are in use: log, {{w|logit}}, {{w|probit}}? Randall, not being the naïve sort, likely understands this, and merely shows us a graph that suggest a slightly accelerating direct relationship between the two axes. If the axes are linear, the curve has the characteristic upward swing of an exponential, but we don't ''know'' that, and any conjecture beyond observable facts is inappropriate. To leap to application of, say {{w|Levenberg-Marquardt}}, seems folly. (As an aside, I'm reminded of the old Benny Hill skit, where he's a movie director being interviewed on some talking-heads show; says the interviewer: "I particularly enjoyed the poignancy of suddenly switching to black and white film right as..." Benny Hill: "Rubbish, we just ran out of film, and black and white was all we had left.") -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | + | :: At this point in the discourse, I'm reminded of a real-scientist friend who admonished me once for reading too much into some data, and it seems applicable here, too. To wit: the axes are not labeled with units -- no tick marks to be seen anywhere -- nor is it clear what sort of axes are in use: log, {{w|logit}}, {{w||probit}}? Randall, not being the naïve sort, likely understands this, and merely shows us a graph that suggest a slightly accelerating direct relationship between the two axes. If the axes are linear, the curve has the characteristic upward swing of an exponential, but we don't ''know'' that, and any conjecture beyond observable facts is inappropriate. To leap to application of, say {{w|Levenberg-Marquardt}}, seems folly. (As an aside, I'm reminded of the old Benny Hill skit, where he's a movie director being interviewed on some talking-heads show; says the interviewer: "I particularly enjoyed the poignancy of suddenly switching to black and white film right as..." Benny Hill: "Rubbish, we just ran out of film, and black and white was all we had left.") -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
