View Full Version : Posting Math
BroTrevor
02-22-2006, 12:58 PM
Ok, so I was looking at "average posts per day" and I thought it would make an interesting math topic.
I make an average of 14.86 posts per day. I currently have 551 posts
JoeC makes an average of 3.14 posts per day, and has 1,076 posts.
How many days will it be before I overtake him in post amount, given the averages. What is the post number that we will most likely "tie" at?
I leave this question for the math whizzes in our midst, as well as open up this thread to more "forum math". Requirements are that new questions must be mathmatical and pertain to the forum directly or indirectly.
If both of your alls posting averages remain constant then you will over take Josiah in 45 days. But, the answer will flucuate as the averages change. If the averages remain constant then you and Josiah will tie on your alls number of posts in apporximately 44.97 days. :)
JoeC makes an average of 3.14 posts per day, and has 1,076 posts.
Ahhh, but you see this is not my current average. This is my total average, taking into account my entire tenure here at the forums.
I joined at 3-16-05.
We opened the forums on the tenth month of the year (10-??-05).
During the time of silence, we were debugging and testing, etc. Very very few posts. So really, you should be just about doubling my post average to even begin to get a fair guess at it.
Then you have to take into account that my activity has increased dramatically since the member influx at the beginning of '06. <sighs wistfully>
How many days will it be before I overtake him in post amount, given the averages. What is the post number that we will most likely "tie" at?
I just recalculated my average, set from the date that BroTrevor joined (1-16-06). This wasn't easy to do as I had to use the advanced search's date/user and it goes from 1 month - 3 months. Not only this, but when I did the "all posts by JoeC in past month," it cut off at 500 posts, ending on 1-28-06. In the end there were five whole days (23 - 27) that I couldn't get results on (we won't consider the potential part on 1-28-06 that was missed).
So, from 1-16-06 to 2-22-06 is 36 days. Subtract 5 days which we couldn't get results on and you have 31 days. The results show us that there were 545 posts made in the days given. Dividing 545 by 31 gives us a realistic average of my posts in comparision to Trevor's - although slight error is present because of the missing five days, but we accounted for that as best we could.
AND THE AVERAGE IS!
17.58
So given that BroTrevor's average is 14.86, I think the answer is "not very soon." Next question?
BroTrevor
02-22-2006, 04:42 PM
I did think that 3.14 seemed quite low for you. You have to admit, it's a pretty neat thread idea if anyone can come up with anything else.
So, people I will never overtake.
JoeC
Hotshot
Namwacha
Blessed
so pretty much it seems to me...that I will never overtake anyone else. (given current averages remain constant)
I would've liked to see the logic behind JMG's post. Even though based on faulty knowledge, it was an interesting calculation. I would also like to know at what point, given his data, that we would have met up (# of posts.)
I could propbably figure out that last question easily enough - but I know how he loves to do math.
Ok right quick...
The logic behind my calculations is the following.
I idealized the situation to make the problem simpeler, therefore I assumed that the post averages were directly comparable, not giving weight to either average.
I took the difference in averages, this gave me how many more post Bro. Trevor was posting than JoeC. Then I took the diffrence of the number of post of Bro. Trevor and of JoeC. After which I divided the difference of the number of posts by the difference of the averages, which yield how many days it would take Bro. Trevor to over take JoeC.
However, the real situation is this.
Since JoeC has been a member much longer than Bro. Trevor, the true average and take over rate must be computed from the day Bro. Trevor joined. In other words, JoeC's average must be computed from the day Bro. Trevor joined. Or another method is to equalize the number of days that Bro. Trevor and JoeC have been memebers. Find the scale factor that equalizes both numbers. The reason this must be done is that since JoeC has been a member much longer than Bro. Trevor, JoeC's 3.49 (or waht ever it is) has more weight than Bro. Trevor's 14.38 (or what ever it is) post average.
By using a very rough scale factor Bro. Trevor's average as compared to JoeC'S is approximately 1.22 post per day.
Or very roughly JoeC'S average as compared to Bro. Trevor's is 47.4 post per day.
...and we'd both be just above 1,220 posts. Ah well, it's not a perfect world Brother Trevor.
BroTrevor
02-22-2006, 06:21 PM
To be honest, I haven't figured up any of these calculations either.
I thought it would make a riveting thread, but haven't had enough time since lunch break today to tell what direction I'm headed. Think I'm facing North right now...but not positive.
Anyhow... I've soooo not followed any of this hardly.
But what I think he's said is that you (JoeC) technically post 49 times for every 1.2 of mine.
But I don't understand the "we'd both be just about 1220 posts"
Truly however...this is riveting. I'd like to see JMG be a good pupil (teacher I guess in this case) and show his work here on the forum.
By using a very rough scale factor Bro. Trevor's average as compared to JoeC'S is approximately 1.22 post per day.
Or very roughly JoeC'S average as compared to Bro. Trevor's is 47.4 post per day.
I think you're wrong there. I already said that my average posts in comparision to Bro. Trevor's is 17.58 to 14.86. I also explained how I got to that average.
Figuring in percentages, I post about 15% more than Trevor does, on average.
...and we'd both be just above 1,220 posts. Ah well, it's not a perfect world Brother Trevor.
Based on JMG's initial calculations, that is the post count we would meet at on the 45th day.
I think you're wrong there. I already said that my average posts in comparision to Bro. Trevor's is 17.58 to 14.86. I also explained how I got to that average.
Figuring in percentages, I post about 15% more than Trevor does, on average.
No no I did not explain myself clearly.
The 1.22 and 47.4 are scaled averages, with the scale being used is a rough estimate of the number of days that you and Bro. Trevor have been members.
For you JoeC I chose 365 days, for Bro. Trevor I chose 30 days.
Now I used two comparisons, first I made your average JoeC dependent upon the number of days that Bro. Trevor has been a member. Approximately 30 days, and about 14.86 posts, so therfore by multiplying your average JoeC of 3.14 by the factor 365/30, your average as directly compared to Bro. Trevor's average of 14.86 post per day is 38.2 post per day. Please note that in my orginal calculation I had your average JoeC around 3.86 post per day.
Now in reversing the calculation I made Bro. Trevor's average dependent upon JoeC's average. I multiplied Bro. Trevor's average by a factor of 30/365, which scaled his post average to 1.22 post per day. Thus directly comparing Bro. Trevor's average to JoeC's average is 1.22 post per day versuses 3.14 post per day.
Again the numbers are 38.2 post per day vs. 14.86 post per day, and
3.14 post per day vs. 1.22 post per day.
:)
The difference of the averages are within a scalar distance of 12.16 which is approximately equal to 365/30 .
:)
I like mine better. I can understand it. :crazy2:
I do think my average ended up being more accurate.
Anyhow, Joseph, how do you like my new sig?
NoahL
02-22-2006, 10:42 PM
So Bro. Trevor, my average is a low, low 0.38 posts per day. How many days is it going to take for you to overtake me in total # of posts. Er... um. wait. Nevermind.
Well, if you really got bookin'.....
I like mine better. I can understand it. :crazy2:
I do think my average ended up being more accurate.
Anyhow, Joseph, how do you like my new sig?
The problem with your calculation is that you are only taking into account a fractional part of your total number of posts. My calculation scaled yours and Bro. Trevor's post averages so that they could be directly compared. :)
Hmmmmm, now about that signature of yours...
"Scientist discover what is, and engineers create what never was."
Well, it would depend on what kind of scientist you are talking about.
Such as a theoretical physicist discovers what is, but a materials scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_science)
creates what never was. I think it depends on the field you are talking about.
Here is a question, is mathematics discoverd or invented?
BroTrevor
02-23-2006, 12:53 AM
Ok, I got the "weighted" thing now.
Brilliant!
"Truly you have a dizzying intellect"
-Trevor
No brother no, it is the hand of God. :)
The problem with your calculation is that you are only taking into account a fractional part of your total number of posts. My calculation scaled yours and Bro. Trevor's post averages so that they could be directly compared. :)
Yes, but what you did was essentially compact my posts so they could be directly compared. I took both mine and Trevor's actual activity since he became a member and compared them that way. I'll leave it up to Bro. Trevor to determine which is more fair. ;)
Here is a question, is mathematics discovered or invented?
To my way of seeing it, mathematics is part of the invisible grid-work that holds the universe together. The study of mathematics is simply bringing pieces of that grid-work to light. :)
BroTrevor
02-23-2006, 10:05 AM
I guess the purpose of this thread wasn't really to figure out when I'd really over take you in posts, nor figure out which calculation was more fair, but just to start a thread on mathematics and this forum.
Any and all mathematics questions relating in some way to this forum (or not) can be put in this thread!
Oh ok... Anyone up to solving a one million dollar mathematics (http://www.musicoftheprimes.com/02intro.htm) problem?
:)
HotShot53
02-26-2006, 07:22 PM
Joe's way of doing it seems to make more sense...
Lol, I'd love to be able to solve the $1,000,000 math problem... but I'd probably make a million dollars faster by working than by trying to figure it out ;)
Christian-Samurai
02-26-2006, 08:24 PM
Its sad, cause I never checked to see my average before I went on my trip so I dont get to know what it was :( now I know it has to be somewhat lower than It was before
I think you were somewhere around 22.somethin-somethin at one point.
Christian-Samurai
02-26-2006, 09:02 PM
hmm not bad I guess, lol not bad for an amature I guess, but now that I am a pro I get to have a lower one... hmm how does that work lol
BroTrevor
05-05-2006, 11:45 PM
If both of your alls posting averages remain constant then you will over take Josiah in 45 days. But, the answer will flucuate as the averages change. If the averages remain constant then you and Josiah will tie on your alls number of posts in apporximately 44.97 days. :)
In this thread JMG also stated that I would over take him at approx 1220 post count.
It actualy was 1560 where i overtook Joe in post count.
The total number of days predicted was 45 days....
from the date of this post (2-22-06) it is now... 75 days!!
Not bad overall with such varying numbers to work from!!
HotShot53
05-05-2006, 11:48 PM
Joe's post count was unnaturally low, due to the months where the board was almost dead, and he hardly posted... which is why it took longer and more posts to catch up.
jtucker
05-06-2006, 03:42 PM
never been good at math so i'll leave it all up to you guys!
joris
05-06-2006, 03:55 PM
in a month time my post count increased by about 100% :eek:
how am I ever going to keep it up like that? :confused::surrender:-p
HotShot53
05-06-2006, 04:10 PM
in a month time my post count increased by about 100% :eek:
how am I ever going to keep it up like that? :confused::surrender:-p
Lol, that would be pretty hard to keep up 100% increase in post count every month ;) If you only started with 10 posts the first month, you'd have to make like 20,480 posts the last month of the year....
joris
05-06-2006, 04:19 PM
see, maths can be horrible to keep them working ;)
jtucker
05-06-2006, 07:18 PM
well just think of ti as a future goal i guess LOL
In this thread JMG also stated that I would over take him at approx 1220 post count.
It actualy was 1560 where i overtook Joe in post count.
The total number of days predicted was 45 days....
from the date of this post (2-22-06) it is now... 75 days!!
Not bad overall with such varying numbers to work from!!
The reason for the difference in what actually happend and the predictions are due to the aproximation and simiplifying asumption that the post rates on the date they were computed would remain constant. Which in real life such an aproximation is very rough for things of this nature rarely remain constant for a protracted period of time.
HotShot53
05-07-2006, 12:58 AM
The reason for the difference in what actually happend and the predictions are due to the aproximation and simiplifying asumption that the post rates on the date they were computed would remain constant. Which in real life such an aproximation is very rough for things of this nature rarely remain constant for a protracted period of time.
Lol, my explination was simpler ;) "Joe's post count was unnaturally low, due to the months where the board was almost dead, and he hardly posted... which is why it took longer and more posts to catch up."
joris
05-07-2006, 12:43 PM
Which in real life such an aproximation is very rough for things of this nature rarely remain constant for a protracted period of time.
who ever told you maths have anything to do with Real Life?? ;)
jtucker
05-13-2006, 04:22 AM
math is something i'm not very good at.:chris:
who ever told you maths have anything to do with Real Life?? ;)
Well Joris, mathematics has a lot to do with real life. :yay:
In fact, if it were not for mathematics the internet would
not be possible, mass communications would not be possible,
computers would not be possible. A cool thing about computers,
is that they are physical realizations of the mathematical entities
known as Turing machines. Also, mathematics is a vital tool
in the research and development of quantum computers and
quantum information science. A weird thing, out many, about
quantum computers is that all quantum logic operations are
in principle, reversible. The reason this is possible has to do
with the mathematical description of quantum logic gates.
Now certain types of Engineers have to use a lot of mathematics.
It is either the Engineer using the mathematics directly, or
the computer program the Engineer is using that is
doing the mathematics.
Computer graphics would not be a reality if it were not for mathematics.
Animated movies such as Toy Story would not have been possible to make if it were not for mathematics. In fact the movie Toy Story is directly responsible for about 20 research papers in mathematics related to graphics.
The list could go on for a very long time..
:chef :)
JMC_785
02-13-2007, 05:01 PM
Hey hey, 3 cheers for what mathmatical discovery has done for humankind! Hip Hip, Hooray! Now, here's a mathmatical challenge, create for me a mathmatical function that will generate prime numbers through the infinite series without error. (That should keep ya busy for a while.)
joris
02-13-2007, 05:40 PM
Hey hey, 3 cheers for what mathmatical discovery has done for humankind! Hip Hip, Hooray! Now, here's a mathmatical challenge, create for me a mathmatical function that will generate prime numbers through the infinite series without error. (That should keep ya busy for a while.)not sure about a purely mathematical formula, but the task is relatively simple if you allow a computer program that does that, and doesn't have to stop in finite time (which is impossible with an infinite series, so that should be alright); only needs some extra work to get extremely large integers to work -- but as only "comparing" and "adding 1" are required (for the most stupid way of doing this ;)) that shouldn't be too hard
TommyLewis
02-14-2007, 12:06 AM
The reason for the difference in what actually happend and the predictions are due to the aproximation and simiplifying asumption that the post rates on the date they were computed would remain constant. Which in real life such an aproximation is very rough for things of this nature rarely remain constant for a protracted period of time.
In other words, mathematics really doesnt get you any closer to the actual answer than guessing...
In other words, mathematics really doesnt get you any closer to the actual answer than guessing...
Yes, statistics and probability is is basically educated guess work. Though when done properly the results found are more accurate than a mere guess.
joris
02-14-2007, 08:33 AM
Yes, statistics and probability is is basically educated guess work. Though when done properly the results found are more accurate than a mere guess.on may add statistics and probability aren't the most prettiest parts of "mathematics", in terms of them only being appropiate to use for far-too-large information sets (+ most statistics are performed in such a way that mathematicians would just disregard them as invalid - and we should too ;))
on may add statistics and probability aren't the most prettiest parts of "mathematics", in terms of them only being appropiate to use for far-too-large information sets (+ most statistics are performed in such a way that mathematicians would just disregard them as invalid - and we should too ;))
Actually the fields of statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics) and probability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability) are very valid fields of mathematics that mathematicians do not consider invalid. As to statistics and probability being "pretty", they are very beautiful fields! You do not have to go to far in either field to find "beautiful" mathematics. A very profound and beautiful theorem that crosses probability and statistics is the central limit theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Limit_Theorem). However, beauty is subjective.
joris
02-14-2007, 10:36 AM
Actually the fields of statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics) and probability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability) are very valid fields of mathematics that mathematicians do not consider invalid.what I was trying to say is that, the way it is used, is often just invalid (using questions on a few thousant people, such non-research); it is possible to do research, but anyway; the way statistics is used brought up the well-known saying of "there's lies, lies, and statistics" (which has to do with how "research" is done, more than with the mathematical background, which requires quite unlikely settings for a researcher to follow them)
BroTrevor
02-14-2007, 11:31 AM
However, beauty is subjective.
Truer words.....
what I was trying to say is that, the way it is used, is often just invalid (using questions on a few thousant people, such non-research); it is possible to do research, but anyway; the way statistics is used brought up the well-known saying of "there's lies, lies, and statistics" (which has to do with how "research" is done, more than with the mathematical background, which requires quite unlikely settings for a researcher to follow them)
But mathematically it is not invalid that researchers only look at a segement of the population. When researchers take a large enough segement of the population, which is significantly smaller than the population, the distribution of the responses is aproximately the responses of the population.
This is backed up by the central limit theorem of the normal distribution curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution#The_central_limit_theorem).
joris
02-14-2007, 12:10 PM
But mathematically it is not invalid that researchers only look at a segement of the population. When researchers take a large enough segement of the population, which is significantly smaller than the population, the distribution of the responses is aproximately the responses of the population.
This is backed up by the central limit theorem of the normal distribution curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution#The_central_limit_theorem).it' s just completely unknown how far the approximation is off, and... oh well
this could be a discussion, but I'm not enough interested in one, and let's say, assuming that interpretation is correct, in theory, those researchers could do things the right way - but only in theory there is no difference between theory and practice ;)
it's just completely unknown how far the approximation is off, and... oh well
this could be a discussion, but I'm not enough interested in one, and let's say, assuming that interpretation is correct, in theory, those researchers could do things the right way - but only in theory there is no difference between theory and practice ;)
Actually there are mathematical tools to determine the "goodness" of the approximation.
Benoni
02-26-2007, 09:36 AM
:( I wish iwas a mathematician, cant be
But i know i will know all things when i reach heaven
Benoni
joris
02-26-2007, 10:34 AM
Actually there are mathematical tools to determine the "goodness" of the approximation.right - so in theory people could actually do things "the right way"... oh but by that, they wouldn't get the results they require the "research" to produce, so... don't expect anything trustworthy of a company, or political party, or non-profit organisations (especially bad, as people more easily respect them and take them as if they are trustworthy)
HotShot53
02-26-2007, 02:29 PM
Yeah, unfortunately research can be skewed by how you phrase the questions you ask, and other methods... so take them all with a grain of salt ;)
right - so in theory people could actually do things "the right way"... oh but by that, they wouldn't get the results they require the "research" to produce, so... don't expect anything trustworthy of a company, or political party, or non-profit organisations (especially bad, as people more easily respect them and take them as if they are trustworthy)
Actually in theory people would only approximately do things "the right way."
Whatever the right way is. The problem with the political parties, non-profit organizations, and whatever else, is the sometimes dirty underhanded way they misinterpret the statistics.
vBulletin v3.5.3, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.