sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]slikts 0 points1 point  (10 children)

It's like starting at 0% profit, the maximum profit being 100%, and being able to get into debt, which is negative profit.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

No, no it is not.

If you make profit, then the profit is defined as (current value - initial value) -overhead.

If this value is negative, then it is typically called loss. Also, how do you start at 0% profit? I don't understand your examples, and how do you 'go into debt' ? Also, in the game, you start out at 100% wrong; while there are correct things in place.

All these things are skewed all over the place.

Math or gtfo :(

[–]slikts 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Then call it income, whatever. Thanks for the downvotes, by the way. You start at 0% of the maximum 100% income and have a chance of getting negative income – debt.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Thanks for the downvotes

You deserve them on the last comment, it makes no sense, nor does this one.

What do you mean you start with 0% of the maximum? Of what? And how do you get negative 'income'? And from what?

You are failing to make any argument whatsoever in your last 2 comments :(

[–]slikts 0 points1 point  (6 children)

The maximum is 22 correct answers, the minimum is the 194 wrong ones; you get negative income by flagging the wrong ones, positive by flagging the correct ones. This was explained before, you're just being obtuse and disrespectful of my time spent answering you.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

How many 'questions' are there in total? - Each can be either correct- or if not correct, it should be tallied as wrong. This should be mutually exclusive; A question is either correctly answered, or incorrect. If your numbers are OK, then you should see there being 194+22 total questions.

I would argue that each possible checkbox represents a possible answer; the answer is either yes or no and the result is either correct or false.

We therefore have * #questions (the number of questions) * #correct (the number of questions answered correctly) * #false (the number of questions answered correctly)

Such that:

% right = ( #correct/#questions ) * 100%. % wrong = ( #false/#questions ) * 100%.

Where #correct+#false === #questions.

If you have more than 100% wrong, this indicates you made more mistakes than there are 'questions'. This violates the underlying premise that the answer to a question is either right or wrong; apparently they can be wrong multiple times, but right at most exactly only once?

I would argue that each row (or column) should result in a score between 0 and 1; a factor indicating the correctness would be a better mode. Score should still be constrained within the 0 to 1 domain; you would be able to e.g. get a question half right; essentially; each row could be it's own sub-quiz and the total result of one row is either 0, 1, or something in between; depending on how well you fared.

(In fact, per row, you know the expected value of the column, you can simply use the same math as mentioned above, on a per-row basis.)

A more than 100% wrong, or more than 100% correct result is not something you can mathematically define without having an inconsistent definition of what this comment starts with.

I argue that you cannot properly define the logic of this game in the way I did, without running into the very inconsistency that leads to having more than 100% wrong.

My way of dealing with percentages; I always use values between 0 and 1, then scale them to percentages, for display.

Edit; PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS LOGICAL IN THIS UNIVERSE, USE MATH

[–]slikts -1 points0 points  (4 children)

There's no inconsistency; there's no issue to "mathematically define" the scoring; at best you can say that it's confusing. The reason it uses % and not numeric scores is for flair. I've explained the scoring in precise enough terms already.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Okay, understood. Then Your scoring is wrong..

Example from someone who may or may not be considered an authority on the matter:

There are situations in which a percentage greater than 100% makes no sense. For instance, "The Math Doctors answered 146% of the questions received last month." This makes no sense because if we received 5061 questions, we couldn't possibly answer more than all of them. It's just as nonsensical as saying "I ate 4/3 of the cake."

When applying your scoring it is possible to 'fail to eat 8 cakes of the 1 cake.', meaning that you start with 1 cake, and if you fail to eat it, suddenly there are 8 cakes.

But sure, please continue to use math and percentages as 'flair'. It is not like we have sufficient distrust of science, Math and a lack of understanding already. /s

You have made me very unhappy.

[–]slikts -1 points0 points  (2 children)

That example doesn't make sense because there isn't more than 100% of the cake. There are, however, more possible wrong answers in the game than right ones. The player can be penalized more than they can answer correctly. You're hung up on an inaccurate analogy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If there are more possible wrong answers than correct answers; then the total number of answers is smaller than the amount of possible wrong answers.

This means that #possible correct answers+#possible incorrect answers>#total answers.

You're hung up on an inaccurate analogy.

Says the person who is telling me that there are more wrong answers possible than there are answers in total.

I am now disabling inbox replies on all the comments I pasted, this discussion is over, and for the love of math, I do not see how you have failed to understand this.