Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:50:42 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 14:35:00, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On September 06, 2002 at 14:17:59, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On September 06, 2002 at 11:53:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>I have posted the raw data logs, the "cooked data" that I extracted from the >>>logs, and the speedup tables (those for Martin last nite). It might be >>>interesting to take the cb.c program I also posted and change the speedup >>>format to show 3 decimel places (I used 2 as Martin had suggested that would >>>be better.) >>> >>>It would be interesting to run the program with 1, 2 and 3 decimel place >>>accuracy, and let everyone look at the three tables and decide which one >>>_really_ provides the most useful information. I'll bet everyone likes >>>.1 better than .11 because is .01 really significant? Or is it just random >>>noise? >> >>To a numerical scientist (as I'm sure you know) the numbers 1.8 and 1.80 are not >>identical, 1.80 is ten times more accurate, and that is a powerful statement in >>itself. > >Excuse me here. I don't buy this. These numbers are _not_ measured numbers but >calculated "factors". Outsch. I just read that Bob said the speedups wereraw data, so "measured"? Then my argument seems gone. :) It's a bit confusing. I don't want to spread nonsense. Because I'm not dense. :) Rolf Tueschen > Now, since a single factor "result" has a restricted >meaning and since you want to calculate even further the average your question >of accuracy is not that important. Since the average 1.7 is with plus/minus >anyway, it wouldn't help much if we would have 1.71 as the average. Or what >would you think? > >Rolf Tueschen > > >>To produce such a number you need to (a) run a larger experiment and do some >>statistics to get an average or (b) get some better and probably a lot more >>expensive equipment (higher resolution mass-spectrometers, or whatever the >>situation may call for), though in this case (a) seems like the only option. >> >>>I will let someone else run this as I have supplied the raw data and program >>>on my ftp machine. that way I can't be accused of biasing the results in any >>>way. :) >> >>That's all you can do, people should be able to reproduce the results under the >>same circumstances. >> >>-S.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.