tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post6914246573070585549..comments2024-02-27T04:34:15.078-06:00Comments on Computational Complexity: Baseball violates the rules of mathematics!!Lance Fortnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-3714023232831831902010-04-09T14:33:32.997-05:002010-04-09T14:33:32.997-05:00Another one that may violate common mathematical d...Another one that may violate common mathematical definitions: Slugging Percentage. A perfect Slugging Percentage is 4.000, if it were a *true* percentage, then wouldn't it be normalized to [0,1]?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-27898767850186882812010-04-09T02:09:05.169-05:002010-04-09T02:09:05.169-05:00Now that LANCE is back, is there a way to discoura...Now that LANCE is back, is there a way to discourage GASARCH from posting so often?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-15933947533093018452010-04-09T01:46:01.924-05:002010-04-09T01:46:01.924-05:00You don't need to go to 1000 to get a .299 ave...You don't need to go to 1000 to get a .299 average. 29 out of 97 will work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-16734878830017969112010-04-08T23:42:13.242-05:002010-04-08T23:42:13.242-05:00How bad is the 12-12-17 triangle? (Note that 12²+1...How bad is the 12-12-17 triangle? (Note that 12²+12²=288, and 289=17².)<br /><br />Well, one right triangle is 12-12-16.97 (where 16.97 stands for the exact value 12√2). Another right triangle is 12.02-12.02-17 (where 12.02 stands for 17/√2). And the angle in the 12-12-17 triangle is <br />cos⁻¹(-1/288), which is 90.2°.<br /><br />All considered, not too bad, I think. (In fact 17/12 is one of the continued-fraction convergents of √2, which are 3/2, 7/5, 17/12, 41/29, 99/70, 239/169, 577/408…)displaynamehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09068351772472305473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-2406058178071983962010-04-08T19:12:12.412-05:002010-04-08T19:12:12.412-05:00Could the phenomenon about batting averages have a...Could the phenomenon about batting averages have anything in common with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law" rel="nofollow">Benford's law</a>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-7487737703319782142010-04-08T15:46:03.513-05:002010-04-08T15:46:03.513-05:00Maybe the rules of baseball take into account the ...Maybe the rules of baseball take into account the curvature of the earth-- it it's curved enough there could be such a triangleUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04015348124952450068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-51046628373928677282010-04-08T15:42:36.504-05:002010-04-08T15:42:36.504-05:00Caveat: I don't have the same solid mathematic...Caveat: I don't have the same solid mathematical evidence as Bill James, but eyeballing my data this appears to be the case. I still don't know of a robust way to model it however.harrisonhttp://harrisonbrown.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-11405299492933088282010-04-08T15:39:11.942-05:002010-04-08T15:39:11.942-05:00Another place this phenomenon occurs: U.S. congres...Another place this phenomenon occurs: U.S. congressional (and maybe Presidential) elections. If, say, there is a Republican incumbent who won with (say) 58% of the vote in the last election, and the "national swing" looks to be around 4-5% in the Democrats' favor, you're far more likely to see a swing of close to 8% in that particular district, since it's a vulnerable seat and the national party will put extra resources into trying to win it.harrisonhttp://harrisonbrown.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-32824539727320712012010-04-08T15:19:08.804-05:002010-04-08T15:19:08.804-05:001) Its yearly averages.
2) I think the article di...1) Its yearly averages.<br /><br />2) I think the article did mention<br />that 300 might be a more common average<br />than 299, but that the difference is<br />SO huge that this would not account for it.<br /><br />3) GLAD you found it on Google Books.<br />(I assumed it wasn't online since it wasn't at Bill James Site which does have other things online.)GASARCHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06134382469361359081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-88944653480368117222010-04-08T12:54:52.140-05:002010-04-08T12:54:52.140-05:00within a reasonable realm of numbers, 12, 12, 17 i...within a reasonable realm of numbers, 12, 12, 17 is an integral triangle closest to a half square. you know \sqrt(2) is not integral. so there would be some approximation in describing it in the common language, unless you require a math exam to understand the rules of baseball.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-20289371127307626632010-04-08T11:25:12.927-05:002010-04-08T11:25:12.927-05:00Paul, Bill James claims that he doesn't see th...Paul, Bill James claims that he doesn't see the same effect at .286, which would be 2/7. (You can read the article in <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=NA8cR_TOo-gC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=Bill+James+%22The+Targeting+Phenomenon%22&source=bl&ots=KQyOZfjyGL&sig=wFx8F7T6OqkYWMJgfkjxduXxLjo&hl=en&ei=dwK-S7j_I8L58AaMrYjMCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAQ" rel="nofollow">Google Books</a>.) I'm not sure I buy it, though, because I don't have the actual data.Michael Lugohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01950197848369071260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-40273567138881360562010-04-08T10:58:02.067-05:002010-04-08T10:58:02.067-05:00Is this in lifetime average or yearly average? Par...Is this in lifetime average or yearly average? Particularly in the latter case (and even anyways, given bench players/short careers) I'd expect this to be partially explainable by the fact that if you take two small random numbers, the ratio is more likely to be .3 then .299. You can get a .300 average in 10 at bats, you need 1000 (ignoring rounding for now) to get a .299.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679234404220837033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-55250661317976036552010-04-08T10:37:16.163-05:002010-04-08T10:37:16.163-05:00If not STOC then at least on Arxiv or ECCC. It wo...If not STOC then at least on Arxiv or ECCC. It would probably be widely read and discussed.The Anonymous Onenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-13949708810298575102010-04-08T09:47:44.388-05:002010-04-08T09:47:44.388-05:00I doubt such a paper would get accepted at STOC.
...I doubt such a paper would get accepted at STOC. <br /><br />Maybe at "Innovations in Computer science" ;-)<br /><br />[Just making a cheap joke, I actually like the idea of ICS]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com