Obscure statistics

[jdaw1]

Imagine a bulletin board with 4 members, whose number of posts are 1000, 1000, 1000 and 1. How many members does this bulletin board have? Well, really, in an activity-weighted sense, 3.

Mathematically the natural way to capture this is (∑)²/(∑²), that is, the square of the sum divided by the sum of the square: 1000+1000+1000+1 = 3001; 1000²+1000²+1000²+1² = 3000001; so (∑)²/(∑²) = 3001Ã 3001÷3000001 ≈ 3.002.

As of a few moments ago ThePortForum.com’s members had post counts of 1050, 812, 600, 550, 325, 303, 224, 223, 175, 71, 61, 55, 51, 48, 42, 39, 31, 23, 22, 20, 18, 17, 11, 7, 6, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 0, 0, 0. (∑)²/(∑²) = 4804Ã 4804÷2775568 ≈ 8.3148: so TPF has, activity-weighted, slightly more than eight members.

As another example, a different web BB that need not be named here, of more ancient provenance than this one and hence with a longer tail of members, a few moments ago had post counts of 3064, 2290, 1697, 1373, 991, 975, 622, 395, 392, 372, 366, 342, 331, 321, 305, 271, 221, 210, 162, 158, 145, 139, 138, 132, 126, 125, 121, 116, 114, 111, 110, 102, 101, 99, 94, 93, 90, 87, 85, 79Ã 2, 78Ã 2, 75, 72, 67, 64Ã 2, 63, 61, 59, 57, 56, 55Ã 3, 51, 49, 48Ã 2, 47, 46Ã 2, 45Ã 3, 44, 40, 39Ã 3, 38Ã 3, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33Ã 3, 32, 31Ã 2, 29, 28Ã 3, 26Ã 4, 25, 24Ã 4, 23Ã 3, 22Ã 4, 21Ã 8, 19, 18Ã 3, 17Ã 5, 16Ã 3, 15Ã 3, 14Ã 2, 13Ã 2, 12Ã 11, 11Ã 2, 10Ã 9, 9Ã 8, 8Ã 10, 7Ã 8, 6Ã 10, 5Ã 17, 4Ã 24, 3Ã 35, 2Ã 52, 1Ã 69, and a load of zeroes. So (∑)²/(∑²) = 21162Ã 21162÷23331130 ≈ 19.1945.

[Conky]

Jdaw1

What utter mathmatical Piffle!!! Shouldn't you have 'QED' at the bottom of it?

But I agree with the conclusion. Sounds like we're well on the way. Hope we don't find another dozen active members too quick, imagine all that reprinting, 'The Most Popular Port Forum...'

Alan

[uncle tom]

But have you allowed for the fact that this BB's members are all currently active whereas at least two of the other BB's significant members no longer post there?

Perhaps you should analyse all the posting dates, multiplying them by the inverse of the number of days since they were posted, not forgetting to anabatically aggrandize the total, add the age of the Bishop of Norwich and take away the number you first thought of.

- better still, open another bottle instead!

Tom

[Luc]

Jdaw1

What utter mathmatical Piffle!!! Shouldn't you have 'QED' at the bottom of it?

But I agree with the conclusion. Sounds like we're well on the way. Hope we don't find another dozen active members too quick, imagine all that reprinting, 'The Most Popular Port Forum...'

Alan

Alan,
mathematical jibberish , maybe . . . But mathematical piffle !!! Bite your tongue . . .

[KillerB]

My perfectly reasonable objection to statistics was that I couldn't be bothered to mess about with all of those numbers. I like the "(∑)²/(∑²)" bit, it's all those damned numbers and sorting them out that I have a problem with. I would probably have gone for a pint instead.

[jdaw1]

I would probably have gone for a pint instead.

By happy coincidence, shortly after posting I did go for a pint.

[Luc]

Happily , after posting I broke wind .

[jdaw1]

But have you allowed for the fact that this BB's members are all currently active whereas at least two of the other BB's significant members no longer post there?

Yes, I should have, by using a count of posts in the last three months. But I didn’t have that data.

Did you mean “anabatically†?

[Alex Bridgeman]

I thought I'd revive a meaningless statistical thread (hence its place in meaningless drivel) that was once running elsewhere that rather upset KillerB - the average time it takes for your cellar to gain 1 year in collective bottle age.

KillerB maintains that this is a meaningless statistic, but I say it makes me feel nice so therefore it must have a meaning. Philosophy versus science - perception is reality regardless of the laws of science that apply.

(And also it takes me no effort to calculate since there is a little formula on my excel spreadsheet that I use to track the contents of my cellar.)

My port bottles have an average age of 22 years and 225 days. They gain 1 collective year of age every 17 hours and 44 minutes.

Alex

[Conky]

I thought I'd revive a meaningless statistical thread (hence its place in meaningless drivel) that was once running elsewhere that rather upset KillerB - the average time it takes for your cellar to gain 1 year in collective bottle age.

KillerB maintains that this is a meaningless statistic, but I say it makes me feel nice so therefore it must have a meaning. Philosophy versus science - perception is reality regardless of the laws of science that apply.

(And also it takes me no effort to calculate since there is a little formula on my excel spreadsheet that I use to track the contents of my cellar.)

My port bottles have an average age of 22 years and 225 days. They gain 1 collective year of age every 17 hours and 44 minutes.

Alex

Alex,

I must be reading that last sentence wrong? Or is my Maths woeful?
In general terms, you add 400+ years per annum to your cellar, even taking account of the old ones you drink? And your young Vesuvius?

If thats right, could you make the explanation a littler easier than Julian would.

Alan

[Alex Bridgeman]

Alan,

Its quite simple. I have 400 odd bottles in my cellar, between them they collectively increase in age by 400 years between 1 January and 31 December.

Therefore they age 1 collective year every 1/400th of a year or every 17 hours and whateveritwas minutes.

Is this a meaningless statistic? Some might say so, but I could not possibly comment...

Alex

[Conky]

Very good. So I was being dense. You were on about the fact they are aging by themselves, and not to do with fresh additions.

Now I get the meaningless bit.

[jdaw1]

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.† — Albert Einstein.

• Alex is just saying that he has about 400 bottles. Fine, say it thus—as simply as possible.
• Hopefully the “(∑)²/(∑²)† thing was expressed as simply as possible. Certainly, there is no deliberate obfuscation.

[Luc]

Meaningless obfuscation maybe , deliberate , never !!!

[KillerB]

Alex,

How many times do I have to tell you. If you have 400 bottles they will age by one year in twelve months, they do not age by 400 years, they just don't. They are concurrent timelines so you cannot add the durations together. Stop it, stop it now.

Alex

[Alex Bridgeman]

Stop it, stop it now.

Ooh. I've noticed that I've just been made Niepoort LBV with this post. Is that another meaningless statistic?

[KillerB]

Alex,

Being Niepoort LBV is not meaningless.

Consider this - I have just turned 44. Next week you will turn 44. We will both be 44. We will not collectively be 88 as neither of us was around in World War I, we will just both be 44, that's all. Oh, except that the other Al is already 44 and none of us were around in Victorian times.

Alex

[Alex Bridgeman]

But our collective life experience will be 88 years next week. You will have 44 and I will have 44. In six months time, our combined life experience will be 89 years.

So should I talk about my cellar gaining an extra year of collective bottle experience every 17 hours?

Alex

(PS - this is almost as much fun as deliberately putting apostrophe's in the wrong place...)

[KillerB]

Ah - the old experience thing. Still wrong. We do not have 88 years of experience, we have 44 years of concurrent experience. We have 88 man-years. Note that it is a composite unit that I am using not a singular unit. Many of the units that you are used to are composite, some obvious like Miles per Hour, others less so like Watt.

You could make up your own unit but I am not going to tell you what it is, especially as it has no useful value. You will not be getting next year's Nobel wine prize for inventing it.

N.B. You may not call it the Bridgeman

P.S.N.B. Change of plan, yes you can. Your cellar will increase by 1 Bridgeman every bibble hours It's what you will be remembered for.

[jdaw1]

It's what you will be remembered for.

Now I don’t want to seem to be difficult, but ending a sentence in a preposition is very rarely justified. I know that a whole new thread could be started and populated with this rant, but let’s not go there. “You will be remembered for this† has the merit of subject-verb-object shape, and no nasty prepositional ending. Or even “For this you will be remembered†: please?

(And yes, the age totalling is stupid, but there you go.)

[KillerB]

Apologies:

It is for what you will be remembered.

bow legs to prepositions.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Argh! I typed a witty reply, hit the wrong key and lost it all.

I accept what the Fates are telling me and move on to the next topic of irritation. That's what I want Julian to associate me with.

Alex

[Alex Bridgeman]

I worked out a worrying statistic during a boring bot of this evening.

Given that I drink an average of 50 bottles of port a year, that my ancestry would lead me to believe that I will live to about 80, and that I have been drinking port for about 10 years, and taking an average cost per bottle of £15...

...during my lifetime I will drink my way through £35,000!

Still, either I spend it or Elizabeth buys a new kitchen and I know which I would prefer

Alex

[jdaw1]

I’ve been drinking port since I was (just under) twenty; my paternal grandfather died aged 98; my maternal grandfather is still alive at 90; average cost per bottle most of £30 (probably more). Two bottles a week in winter; and occasional grand tasting; occasional refreshments during the warmer months.

“If I had all the money I’d spent on drink, I’d spend it on drink.† — Sir Henry at Rawlinson End. And who needs a new kitchen anyway?

[Luc]

Alex , sounds perfectly logical !!
Could you send this equation to my better half ?
On second thaught , forget It .
She'll find every loop hole in your argument and being a lawyer , she would file a myriad of charges .