I just accidentally invented a riddle when programming. :D First correct answer gets this post's reward. :P
(Edited)
Given the numbers 1 to 10 and the randomly chosen number R and two prediction values P1 and P2:
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | R | P2 |
Which guess was better? P1 or P2?
Actually pretty simple. I just had to think about it for a moment when implementing it. ;)
0
0
0.000
Not looking for your post rewards, but I think it would depend on your situation. In some scenarios you may want to avoid being over or under. In others it is simply getting as close to the number as possible.
Be curious what your theory is.
I just discussed this with my mom for half an hour. :D (math prof.) She explained to me how stupid I am and why my answer does not make sense but in some cases my thoughts actually do, she had to admit in the end. But she definitely pointed out pretty well how misleading my riddle is formulated and that in its currenty form it does indeed not makes sense. Well... 1:0 to her. But...
What I wanted to point out with this is... Sometimes the pure distance between an estimated value and the actual value is not the only factor that defines how representative (or "acturate") that estimated value actually is. Take a situation like this: (actually a topic in Germany because of these Covid protests...)
Let's say the protesters say they were 800k, the police says they were 20k. Huge difference. One of them has to be completely wrong. But who is more wrong or more accurate? The truth is, there were 200k. So what number is more representative for the actual real value. Does 20k represent 200k more or is 800k better? Actually the distance between 20k and 200k (180k) is less than the distance between 800k and 200k (600k), and yet you could argue that 800k is the more representative value because its relation to the actual value is more actuate. 800k is only 4x 200k while 200k is 10x 20k. Know what I mean?
Yup, I get it.
The riddle you proposed is unanswerable. Even if your theory is right, the numbers are too small for there to be a significant weight into one direction. Also your theory is just one of many "angles" you can use.
Theory works with small numbers too... Take 2, 4 and 7.
Raw distance (smaller value wins):
2 --> 4 = 2 <- closer by distance
7 --> 4 = 3
Ratio (value closer to 1 wins):
2/4=0.5
(7/4)-1=0.75 <- closer by ratio (edit: ok sorry this is bullshit but somehow it works.... xD)
(-1 because the ratio will be represented after the decimal point)
And when it comes to estimations I would say that the ratio/magnitude is more important than the pure numerical distance.
And well... in theory this means that 6 is closer 4 that 2 is, even though they are equally distant from 4. :D
Yes, but it is your theory. I might have another one for a different scenario. There wasn't enough information in the above riddle that leaned to any specific theory.
Yes of course. We don't have to argue about that. In the end, I just think out loud ... And there's a lot of nonsense to watch out for.