Why Ratings are awful

[Norcal]

Dude bro like for sure

Geez, sorry bro- we can't all be communications majors.

 

[smyith]

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

i was asked to present a false proof so i did. nothing smart about it.

 

[jcrab66]

Aww, poor whittle bobby got a post deleted

 

[grodney]

Posted by Chuck, March 30 2000:
"
The average of the best 100 scores by 100 different players on each course at
1998 Cincinnati Worlds is the starting point. This generated WCP values for the
4 courses. Everyone there got their first rating from these WCPs. '

All other course WCP values are derivative. In theory, the WCP at every course
is an estimate of what the average of the 100 best scores would be if the
Worlds was hosted on that course with top players of the skill distribution at
1998 Worlds.

Since our Cincy baseline WCPs were fixed based on the skill level of the top
players in 1998, all future WCP values, in essence, will always be derivative
of the average skill level of the top players in 1998. In other words, WCPs
wouldn't be expected to go down on specific course configurations or change at
all even though more higher rated players are playing them.

However, the average skill (ratings) level of all competitive players can rise.
There's no limit to how many players could have ratings over 1000. AND, it
won't affect the WCP values.
"

Note: WCP was "World Class Par", the pre-cursor to SSA "Scratch Scoring Average". Also note the formulas for SSA and ratings, as well as the methodology, have changed slightly through the years.

 

[Lewis]

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

i was asked to present a false proof so i did. nothing smart about it.

It's been a while since I studied any math, but I don't think your "proof" is sound. You have claimed in your equation that (e^i)^(2π/2π)=(e^2πi)^(π/2), in which you introduce a square root inappropriately. I think the following applies.

This fallacy is a good illustration of the dangers of taking a rule from one context and just assuming it holds in another. When you first learned about square roots you had never encountered complex numbers, so the only objects that had sqare roots were positive numbers. In this case, (a/b)^(1/2)=(a^(1/2))/(b^(1/2)) * is always true, and you were probably taught it as a "rule". But it is only a mathematical truth in that original context, and fails to remain true after you extend the definition of "square root" to allow the square roots of negative and complex numbers.

* I had to rewrite the formula in the citation as text.

 

[garublador]

A law is a theory that has yet to be proven wrong in its defined conditions.

Laws in physics are different than laws in math. In math a law is just a shortcut. It's something that makes doing math much easier without having to prove it every single time. You don't need to prove that 1+2=2+1, the proof has been done already and accepted. Math doesn't represent anything on it's own. It's just a structure we put in place to help understand the world around us.

In physics a law is something that has been proven to be true in nature. We use math to help represent these laws, but it's not the same as a law in math.

Plus, there are laws in calculus:

http://www.math.oregonstate.edu/hom...estStudyGuides/SandS/lHopital/limit_laws.html

Simply asking additional questions and asking for clarifications isn't the same thing as ignoring.

Considering the title of this thread is "Why Ratings are awful" and not "Help Me Learn about Ratings" the fact that you have ignored many informative posts you can see why people would assume you don't care about actually learning anything.

 

[Lewis]

...I think the following applies.

In other words, "a complex number x is not necessarily equal to the square root of x squared."

 

[_MTL_]

Lord, please help our new Apex Course!!!

What in the world does this mean?

 

[TOURNEYPLAYER]

This whole thread stems from wanting to compare McBeth's 39 at the Memorial and his 45 at the Vibram, correct? If, as seems likely, the official rating for his 45 comes in a couple points lower than his 39, all that it will mean is that he played slightly better relative to the field on that course at that tournament on that day/weekend at the Memorial than he did at the Vibram. It does NOT mean that his round at the Memorial was objectively or statistically "better" than his round at the Vibram. In fact, two rounds on separate courses with ratings +/- 4 points are close enough to be considered equal, so if the ratings turn out to be that close, there really is no statistical difference between them. They're equally as good.

Then we can get to the true fun part...arguing which round is better using completely anecdotal and subjective criteria.

:clap: Bravo

 

[disc qualified]

we clearly need a more stable way to determine who throws flying discs the bestest

 

[notapro]

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

I'm confused. Can you show me how you can substitute

(e^2ni)

for

(1)

?

 

[notroman]

I'm confused. Can you show me how you can substitute

(e^2ni)

for

(1)

?

https://www.google.com/search?q=e^2+pi+i&oq=e^2+pi+i

 

[notapro]

Those crazy mathematicians!

 

[smyith]

https://www.google.com/search?q=e^2+pi+i&oq=e^2+pi+i

thanks big guy

Those crazy mathematicians!

yup.

 

[DavidSauls]

Talk about a sport with diversity---3% of tournament players can't add a scorecard full of 2s, 3s, and 4s correctly....meanwhile calculus debates are breaking out.

 

[renoob]

Using imaginary numbers to try to illustrate that math is made up feels like cheating to me.

 

[Basshunter]

we clearly need a more stable way to determine who throws flying discs the bestest

Actually, I need a more understable way to determine who throws flying discs the bestest. You can keep your overstable way to yourself!

 

[DavidSauls]

Actually, I need a more understable way to determine who throws flying discs the bestest. You can keep your overstable way to yourself!

This whole thread's understable.

Or is that, unstable?

 

[smyith]

Actually, I need a more understabler way to determine who throws flying discs the bestest. You can keep your overstabler way to yourself!

fixed that for you

 

[Basshunter]

This whole thread's understable.

Or is that, unstable?

The thread may be understable, but it is not unstable. Some of the posters on the other hand, well that's up for discussion...