Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Day Two - New leader **

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Tue, 31 Jul 12 4:17 AM | 51 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 09088 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 09086 by DigSpace)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

hi dig,

my australia elevation is actually based on two previous olympics, both of which, if memory serves, australia won on a per capita basis not just against china but against all comers above a certain size (jamaica's specialist sprinters and kenya's long distance runners can screw things up in a general discussion of performance). i do understand that at the beginning, the sample size is small. but they outperform over the entire olympics.

okay - the pattern gets confirmed as the sample size increases. but a whole olympics makes a more-or-less adequate sample for larger countries.

i also left out india. the thing is that australia outperforms. it always does. i left it out in the first example to show that china can win with something less than 32 golds. you contended it cannot. it can, but not relative to countries 32 times smaller that have won gold. maybe you just meant china cannot win relative to australia if australia has a medal. okay. i know that also. which is why i re-pointed out the 59 ratio thingie myself.

why stop at bronze medals in your model? for me, winners is a more coherent system than stopping randomly at third place. you would assign the same value to bronze as to a gold medal?

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Day Two - New leader **
By: DigSpace in ALEA
Tue, 31 Jul 12 2:09 AM 		Msg. 09086 of 54959

the sample size doesn't support the conclusion in a significant way, it is mathematically true, but lacks significance.

Australia goes from infinitely awful with no medals to demi-gods with one medal. That's binary.

In your "huh?" example you dropped Australia (necessarily) because had they been kept in, what I said would be true ... 20% of the population would have to win 100% the medals to win.

Most small countries get nuttin (underperform). Most large countries outperform their relative populations.

And yes, China should get a 59:1 ratio with Australia, but whether that is occurring cannot be determined with significance on the basis of 32 medals. With the 32 extant medals, China needs 100%, and that is your math.

There needs to be some 600 golds awarded or Australia needs to get a second one before Australia can be at all measured.

Yes, Australia shouldn't have one any, but several of the various Australia's should have won some. The situation is where none of 10 should individually win any, but the ten together should win 2 ... which of the 10 that happen to win the 2 not being signfiicant.

Now, were one to use all medals instead of just gold, that would start to help things a bit.


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next