 | | Re: Lego Purity
|
| (...) Heh, yep, that's precisely how it's supposed to work :) If you're ok with things like gluing, using stickers, etc, then you're not as big of a purist! If you count everything as blasphemous, though, then you're a pretty definite purist! DaveE (17 years ago, 26-Sep-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Lego Purity
|
| (...) yea, I understand that, but I cannot be a pure non-purist which is what a 0.00 score would indicate if I thought 3 were blasphemous. I mean, by picking three as blasphemous, I have contaiminated the purity of my "non-purity" and therefore I (...) (17 years ago, 26-Sep-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Lego Purity
|
| (...) Ahh, ok, I see what you mean. Yeah, this part is difficult. In my scoring mechanism, I was trying to predict what the most likely deviation from the mean would be, but I didn't have any data at the time. Under the covers, the way it scores you (...) (17 years ago, 26-Sep-07, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Lego Purity
|
| --snip-- (...) Youy could try something like 1/2[1-tanh(k(std-30))] so that it smoothly approaches zero. (...) Tim (17 years ago, 28-Sep-07, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Lego Purity
|
| (...) lol Is there a contest running (which I'm not aware of) that consist in quoting in Lugnet the most complex math. function? :-) Didier "7.83" Enjary (...) (17 years ago, 28-Sep-07, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Lego Purity
|
| (...) That's just the basics ;) Tim (17 years ago, 30-Nov-07, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| |
