Why Ratings are awful

[smyith]

It's math. It exists as much as any other math. There's no LAW that says 1+1 is 2. That's a human invention.

then you truly dont understand the point of math. math just like science is meant to explain the world around us. just cause we assigned arbitrary numbers to help us out doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that our assumptions (laws/theorems) are incorrect. take for example the Fibonacci sequence. the numbers don't matter but the geometric shape exists everywhere. we used math to explain it and begin to understand it.
second, the point behind asking you if there are any laws in calculus was then ask you was makes a law a law. A law is a theory that has yet to be proven wrong in its defined conditions. this takes a long time and is constantly tested, i can't remember what law it was but when i was in college they altered a law that was 100+ years old cause modern tech finally allowed it to be proven wrong. so so if there are no laws in calculus, just theorems, then that can only logically mean that they are constantly proven wrong (and a good teacher will tell you that).

Here is a false proof for you.
e^i=(e^i)^(2π/2π)=(e^2πi)^1/2π=1^1/2π=1

 

[mashnut]

I think you may be confusing physics with calculus. We are changing how we look at the universe constantly (and inventing some new math to describe what we learn) but the basic tenets of calculus haven't changed much since Leibnitz and Newton came up with the ideas. The word "law" is irrelevant to mathematics, that's not a term anyone uses outside the few basic assumptions that the rest of our mathematical system is based on. A theorem is just something that couldn't be proved true without those basic assumptions, so yes if you take away something like the additive identity or the associative property of multiplication other higher math wouldn't work as well but that has nothing to do with the validity of the math you were (apparently poorly) taught.

 

[Agricolae]

Very informative thread; I learned some of what I didn't know that I didn't know.

A question for anyone who knows, or who was around for the start of the current ratings system ... how DID it start. In the beginning, when there were no existing ratings, no propagators, nothing to compare to ... ??? I guess the question is, how were the first players - the ones who would be the future propagators - assigned their original ratings?

A one or two line answer would work for me; or a link to a "history document" if someone knows of one.

 

[mashnut]

Very informative thread; I learned some of what I didn't know that I didn't know.

A question for anyone who knows, or who was around for the start of the current ratings system ... how DID it start. In the beginning, when there were no existing ratings, no propagators, nothing to compare to ... ??? I guess the question is, how were the first players - the ones who would be the future propagators - assigned their original ratings?

A one or two line answer would work for me; or a link to a "history document" if someone knows of one.

I don't remember which tournament it was, but at a large tournament with multiple rounds, 1000 was set to be the last cash in open over the course of that tournament. The rest of the rounds in that event were rated from that, and those players were the propagators at future events to give the next round of folks ratings.

 

[thruhiker99]

Very informative thread; I learned some of what I didn't know that I didn't know.

A question for anyone who knows, or who was around for the start of the current ratings system ... how DID it start. In the beginning, when there were no existing ratings, no propagators, nothing to compare to ... ??? I guess the question is, how were the first players - the ones who would be the future propagators - assigned their original ratings?

A one or two line answer would work for me; or a link to a "history document" if someone knows of one.

It was the oracle that freed the first of us

 

[AceALot]

adding 6th level polynomial interpolation to the ratings algorithm may help...:hfive:

 

[_MTL_]

I don't remember which tournament it was, but at a large tournament with multiple rounds, 1000 was set to be the last cash in open over the course of that tournament. The rest of the rounds in that event were rated from that, and those players were the propagators at future events to give the next round of folks ratings.

1000 was last cash at a worlds. Not sure which one.

 

[JC17393]

1000 was last cash at a worlds. Not sure which one.

1998 Pro Worlds in Cincinnati was where the intial data was collected.

Chuck would be the guy that needs to chime in with any further details.

 

[Dave242]

i can't remember what law it was but when i was in college they altered a law that was 100+ years old cause modern tech finally allowed it to be proven wrong.

They removed they national speed limit of 55mph. Is that the one?

When I was in college they changed the drinking age from 18 to 21 so I was legal for 9 months then illegal for over 2 years. is that the one?

 

[smyith]

I think you may be confusing physics with calculus. We are changing how we look at the universe constantly (and inventing some new math to describe what we learn) but the basic tenets of calculus haven't changed much since Leibnitz and Newton came up with the ideas. The word "law" is irrelevant to mathematics, that's not a term anyone uses outside the few basic assumptions that the rest of our mathematical system is based on. A theorem is just something that couldn't be proved true without those basic assumptions, so yes if you take away something like the additive identity or the associative property of multiplication other higher math wouldn't work as well but that has nothing to do with the validity of the math you were (apparently poorly) taught.

its obvious when someone is incapable of reading someones post entirely before they start to think of what they want to say. a hard skill to learn.
btw there is a difference in being taught to think and regurgitate. you've proven over and over again on this forum which category you fall into.
i also find it amusing that you bring up Newton and then want to remain in the box. imagine if all he did is regurgitate what he has taught....man i bet we would still be in our same position today right? :doh:
in your quest to "prove me wrong" you are missing the entire point i am trying to make, man creates system, system is flawed, man adds to the system to make it closer to perfection, system shows hints of flaws but remains relatively consistent, man gives thumbs up and moves on.

They removed they national speed limit of 55mph. Is that the one?

When I was in college they changed the drinking age from 18 to 21 so I was legal for 9 months then illegal for over 2 years. is that the one?

only a handful of states had a drinking age prior to 100 years ago and plus im not that ancient. also the car was just rolling off the lines in mass production and were not capable of 55 so they wouldnt have had that speed limit.

 

[mashnut]

its obvious when someone is incapable of reading someones post entirely before they start to think of what they want to say. a hard skill to learn.
btw there is a difference in being taught to think and regurgitate. you've proven over and over again on this forum which category you fall into.
i also find it amusing that you bring up Newton and then want to remain in the box. imagine if all he did is regurgitate what he has taught....man i bet we would still be in our same position today right? :doh:
in your quest to "prove me wrong" you are missing the entire point i am trying to make, man creates system, system is flawed, man adds to the system to make it closer to perfection, system shows hints of flaws but remains relatively consistent, man gives thumbs up and moves on.

Oh I read that whole post. Your last sentence is the most wrong of all of it, just because something is labelled a "theory" doesn't mean it's "constantly proved wrong". Look again at my post and read about what it really means that they call them theories. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm having a discussion about your understanding of what calculus is. You haven't named a single basic theory used in modern calculus that has been proved wrong or changed, I'm interested in knowing about them if you have examples. I've taken 4 semesters of college calculus and have a good understanding of it, so I'd be happy to discuss specific cases with you, I'm just not sure you have a good grasp on what is generally meant by "calculus".

 

[Dave242]

only a handful of states had a drinking age prior to 100 years ago and plus im not that ancient.

Hey hey....You want to settle it on the course??!! This old guy could kick your scrawny kiester up and down the course. Name a time and place tough guy!

Oh wait....I need to check your player rating first to be sure I don't embarrass myself. Oh.....but "Ratings are awful"....or 'rediculous' as a certain communications major often calls them.

So.....never mind.

 

[smyith]

Hey hey....You want to settle it on the course??!! This old guy could kick your fat kiester up and down the course. Name a time and place tough guy!

:hfive: lulz
Adler, Tomorrow, ~5:30pm

Oh wait....I need to check your player rating first to be sure I don't embarrass myself. Oh.....but "Ratings are awful"....or 'rediculous' as a certain communications major often calls them.

So.....never mind.

im not even sure what my rating is honestly. lower 900s for sure with the way this year has been going. i know who i can play with and who i cant skill wise. one day what i can do casually (still following all rules) will happen consistently in tournament play.

You haven't named a single basic theory used in modern calculus that has been proved wrong or changed, I'm interested in knowing about them if you have examples.

you're going to have to give me time on that one. next time i'm at my dad's house i'll dig through my school work and see if it's in the notes. i don't remember enough details to be able to have a descent starting point to figure it out without those notes.

 

[DavidSauls]

I always think of every single rating as being accurate at +/- 20 points from the actual rating.

I can also predict my rating after a round fairly well. I am usually within 5-10 points of what I predicted before the PDGA posts them.

It's a decent system. You just have to remember that it is not a solid number. Any player could actually be 20 points higher or lower than what their rating says they are. But if you play enough rounds (40+) in a year, they become more accurate.

I believe I've seen Chuck mention that a single round rating could be 20 points off. If true, after 5 2-day tournaments the error would affect your playing rating by 1 point.....but probably be offset by some single rounds that were off, in the other direction.

I'm also with you on the estimate. My brother and I recently played a tournament in July and guessed our round ratings within 3-4 points of what they turned out to be.

 

[1978]

then you truly dont understand the point of math. math just like science is meant to explain the world around us. just cause we assigned arbitrary numbers to help us out doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that our assumptions (laws/theorems) are incorrect. take for example the Fibonacci sequence. the numbers don't matter but the geometric shape exists everywhere. we used math to explain it and begin to understand it.
second, the point behind asking you if there are any laws in calculus was then ask you was makes a law a law. A law is a theory that has yet to be proven wrong in its defined conditions. this takes a long time and is constantly tested, i can't remember what law it was but when i was in college they altered a law that was 100+ years old cause modern tech finally allowed it to be proven wrong. so so if there are no laws in calculus, just theorems, then that can only logically mean that they are constantly proven wrong (and a good teacher will tell you that).

Here is a false proof for you.
e^i=(e^i)^(2π/2π)=(e^2πi)^1/2π=1^1/2π=1

I have a formula ... ^ = "Look how smart I am!"

Ratings arent that complicated...sure there is some crazy formula but they are super easy to understand most often pretty good predictors of skill level and how you did in a tournament. Nothing is ever perfect. Except me...I am exceptionally perfect.

 

[Norcal]

Hahahaha.

You really have no idea who you are talking to.

Lol. Wait- you serious? LOL.

My degree in Communications extremely disagrees with you.

For fux sake, bro- earning a communications degree is like winning in rec. Not something to brag about.

 

[_MTL_]

Dude bro like for sure

 

[sloppydisc]

HAHAHAAAA!!

For Climo's sake, MTL, why won't you use your illustrious PDGA connections and get you an answer from the horses' mouths instead of trying to lengthen your E-penis on a international forum?

Eligible for post of the century!! But it is early yet. :clap:

 

[sloppydisc]

HAHAHA

I did. Please see post #2. You seem to be one of those people who don't like math.

Look inside yourself, the answers you seek can often be found there. If not, you're just looking for attention.

More funny.

 

[sloppydisc]

Lord, please help our new Apex Course!!!