Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal mercedo's Journal: Slashdot Statistics 8

Journal by mercedo

(The number of fans minus the number of freaks) divided by (the number of friends plus the number of foes) equals the rate of support in Slashdot.

This merely reflects my particular opinion tonight.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slashdot Statistics More

Slashdot Statistics

Comments Filter:
  • This is a very deep and interesting statistic. I like it.

    Mine is +1/12 ~= 0.0833
    • I tried calculating other noticiable Slashdotters' indices given that the indices must be showing some meaning.

      (13 minus 9) divided by 48 is 0.0833, which was your case.

      In the case of my best friend MH42, (196 minus 97) divided by 400 is 0.2475.
      And me myself 60 divided by 172 is 0.3488.
      Sammy(SamTheButcher)'s case, (247 minus 4 ) divided by 247 is 0.9838.
      How about Morosoph? 77 divided by 127 is 0.6062.

      The more the index is small, the more unique they are. The more the index is big, the more their view is

      • no one so far has a negative score.

        but there are a few slashdotters who have more freaks than fans, for example former editor 'michael' [slashdot.org].

        if you didn't make any friends or foes, your statistic is invalid (division by zero!) and you are excluded from the study.
        • I've been trying to post carefully not to make a freak. I have been posting a comment with a view to making a new friendship with other Slashdotters. But this behaviour somehow restricts my freedom to speak out freely as I want. I wish I were able to post a comment without worrying about being someone's foe.

          By the way since I was a kid, I've been repeatedly told that the division by zero is impossible. What is the mathematical basis on this?

          • Since division is defined so a/b = c is the same as a = c*b
            then if b=0 it translates to a = c*0 wich would make a=0.
            If you begin with a=1 and b=0 then also a=1, contradictory to the other result.
            The make it easy by saying that if you have a/b = c and b=0
            you can't take the b from the bottom of one side and put it at the top of the other. That means there is no way to figure it out unless a/0 is defined some other way.
            It isn't needed so they don't do that.
            'i', the imagionary number wasn't defined until it is
            • My basic position as to the use of acronym is we'd better not use it as much as we can. The reason is clear -because of its ambiguity. The speaker only understands what that acronym really means, but oftentimes readers are subject to taking them for something completely different.

              'i', the imagionary number wasn't defined until it is needed so 1/0 isn't either.

              I didn't try calculating it even experimentally. As long as mathematic basis concerns, I understand.

              then it diverges, i.e. goes to infinity.

              In my i

  • Mine is about 0.10989 or 1/9.
    I just cleared up a bunch of foes though.
    • I'm in my mid forties. I came to be much more moderate than my twenties. My supposed index those days -in my twenties would have been (62-738)divided by(400+400).

      (F+F) means someone's scope of interest -matrix, wheras (F-F) means the number of support from this matrix.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer

Close