I see this as a bit of a mathematical curiosity...

petrw1 · 2015-07-17, 15:55

Our Team Standings....
We are 8th or 9th in every work category yet 10th overall.
I'm not saying the data is wrong and I do accept it is possible; I just wouldn't expect it to be very likely to happen.

Code:

Type	Rank	of	GHz days	Count
TF	9	160	176,585.83	29,370
P-1	9	103	4,380.66	6,654
LL	8	164	73,702.07	486
LL-D	9	165	29,962.90	793
ECM	8	59	2,031.85	2,266
ECMF	8	31	2,320.67	50
Overall	10	246	288,983.99	39,619

rajula · 2015-07-17, 16:06

Without looking at the stats of high-level teams I would to the contrary find this likely to happen. I would expect some teams with GPU-power to concentrate on TF and some others to do lot of LL-D/LL. For the standings of your team all it would take is one team beating you in TF and total, but losing on other types and one team beating you on LL/LL-D and total, but losing on other types.

fivemack · 2015-07-17, 16:31

If there are N kinds of work, and N teams each of which do only one kind of work, and you do a tiny bit of all kinds of work, you can easily be second-best in every field and last overall

Brian-E · 2015-07-18, 12:13

Your table helpfully includes the number of teams from which your ranking is taken in each category and overall. From that measure you can calculate that overall, 10th out of 246, you are just outside the 4 percentile. On that reckoning you do significantly better overall than you do in any of the individual categories.

Jayder · 2015-07-19, 02:33

This reminds me of Simpson's paradox.

2015-07-17, 15:55	#1
petrw1 1976 Toyota Corona years forever! "Wayne" Nov 2006 Saskatchewan, Canada 5,197 Posts	I see this as a bit of a mathematical curiosity... Our Team Standings.... We are 8th or 9th in every work category yet 10th overall. I'm not saying the data is wrong and I do accept it is possible; I just wouldn't expect it to be very likely to happen. Code: Type Rank of GHz days Count TF 9 160 176,585.83 29,370 P-1 9 103 4,380.66 6,654 LL 8 164 73,702.07 486 LL-D 9 165 29,962.90 793 ECM 8 59 2,031.85 2,266 ECMF 8 31 2,320.67 50 Overall 10 246 288,983.99 39,619

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A meaningless curiosity	fivemack	Aliquot Sequences	2	2016-01-17 07:44
Results Curiosity	Gordon	PrimeNet	1	2015-07-30 06:49
A Curiosity	R.D. Silverman	GMP-ECM	4	2012-05-10 20:00
P-1 question of curiosity	JuanTutors	Math	3	2004-10-20 04:37
Curiosity	ET_	Math	7	2004-02-13 17:36

2015-07-17, 16:06	#2
rajula "Tapio Rajala" Feb 2010 Finland 3²×5×7 Posts	Without looking at the stats of high-level teams I would to the contrary find this likely to happen. I would expect some teams with GPU-power to concentrate on TF and some others to do lot of LL-D/LL. For the standings of your team all it would take is one team beating you in TF and total, but losing on other types and one team beating you on LL/LL-D and total, but losing on other types.

2015-07-17, 16:31	#3
fivemack (loop (#_fork)) Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 3³·239 Posts	If there are N kinds of work, and N teams each of which do only one kind of work, and you do a tiny bit of all kinds of work, you can easily be second-best in every field and last overall

2015-07-18, 12:13	#4
Brian-E "Brian" Jul 2007 The Netherlands 6306₈ Posts	Your table helpfully includes the number of teams from which your ranking is taken in each category and overall. From that measure you can calculate that overall, 10th out of 246, you are just outside the 4 percentile. On that reckoning you do significantly better overall than you do in any of the individual categories.

2015-07-19, 02:33	#5
Jayder Dec 2012 117₁₆ Posts	This reminds me of Simpson's paradox.