Talk:White chocolate chip cookies

From TheKolWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Consumption data

Starwed data

Character 1: Travesty

3,2,2,2,4,3,3
2,2,3,3,2,3,4
3,2,4,4,2,2,2
2,2,4,3,4,3,3
4,2,2,2,2,3,2
3,2,4,3,3,4,2
4,5,5,4,3,4,4
3,3,5,4,2,2,2
2,2,4,4,2,3,2
3,2,4,2,2,4,5
5,2,4,4,5,4,3
2,2,2,4,2,4,4
3,3,2,4,2,2,2
4,4,5,3,2,3,2

Character 2: u2660

2,2,4,2,5,3,4
4,4,4,4,3,4,4

Character 3: consumer

2,3,5,3,5,2,2

Quantum data

Character 1: jaff

4,3,4,2,4,2,3
3,3,3,3,5,4,3
4,3,4,3,4,2,2
3,3,2,2,2,4,3
2,2,5,4,5,4,4
3,2,3,2,4,3,3
3,3,3,2,3,4,4
4,5,3,4,3,4,2
3,3,3,4,4,4,4
2,4,2,2,5,5,2
4,2,3,4,3,4,5
2,5,3,4,3,4,4
4,3,2,3,3,4,3
2,4,2,3,2,2,4
5,4,3,4,3,4,4
3,2,2,3,4,4,2


Character 2: tpjaff

3,4,3,2,2,3,2
3,3,2,4,2,2,4
5,4,4,2,2,5,3
4,2,2,2,2,2,4
2,3,4,4,4,3,4
4,2,2,2,2,2,4
4,3,5,2,3,4,3
2,4,2,4,2,3,3
3,4,5,2,3,2,2
3,4,3,2,4,5,5
4,3,3,3,3,2,2
5,4,4,2,4,4,3
4,4,2,4,5,3,3
4,4,3,4,4,4,4
4,3,4,4,3,3,3
3,4,4,3,2,3,5


Sums

Travesty:

  • 2: 40
  • 3: 24
  • 4: 27
  • 5: 7

u2660:

  • 2: 4
  • 3: 1
  • 4: 8
  • 5: 1

consumer:

  • 2: 3
  • 3: 2
  • 4: 0
  • 5: 2

QNM:

  • 2: 59
  • 3: 70
  • 4: 77
  • 5: 18

Combined:

  • 2: 104
  • 3: 98
  • 4: 112
  • 5: 28

--Starwed 12:01, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

With the current data, it leans towards 2 and 4 not being split. (That is, each have an equal probability.) --Starwed 03:59, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Adding new QNM info finally yields a 5 adv incident, meaning it's 2 and 5 which are split. --Starwed 04:04, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Added my own data to the pile, and updated the running total.--QuantumNightmare 21:59, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Added separate totals for Starwed's and QNM's data. --Quietust (t|c) 21:37, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I like how the initial data showed 2 and 4 being evenly split, while this new data shows a definite skew towards 2 with a few 5's. That's just how the data works out - no conclusions at all can be drawn from a small sample size. If we can double or triple the current sample size (91), then we should have some real results.--QuantumNightmare 20:53, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, if we assume that the S&Q rules are valid, then we can conclude that 3<SQ<3.3. And the most likely result right now is that SQ=3.1, which is a bit annoying, given that it implies Q=1.55. --Starwed 03:06, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't think we can apply our knowledge of quality yet, because this data doesn't conform with out base assumptions yet - too much noise. While the occurrence of 3 and 4 are equally likely with the addition of my data, 2 should not occur most often! We expect the number of 2's and 5's to be equal to the number of 3's, and only when that is shown by the data can we use our formulas and things to find a value for Q.--QuantumNightmare 23:12, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

The thing is, that it's still within the range of expected statistical error. --Starwed 01:12, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Ok, the current data now contradicts the S&Q model with pretty good statistical power. 2s and 5s occur with a combined rate of .427, with a standard error of .033. That's 2.8 standard errors away from the expected value of 1/3. --Starwed 00:09, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

  • The number of 2's has fallen below the number of 3's and 4's in my data, for the first time. Hopefully this pattern will continue, and we just met some weird RNG until now. At this point I'd expect 56 3's and 4's, and I have found 51 and 53 instead. Not too far off.--QuantumNightmare 14:24, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
    • While mine is still strongly slanted towards 2. I'm wondering if it's some sort of white castle burger effect. (Note how neither of us got a single 5 for quite a while) What's the total number of cookies consumed for your characters? --Starwed 09:57, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Ok, I took a rolling average of the data:

RacistCookieTrend.gif

Each point represents the average of 5 consecutive days of data (105 cookies eaten), and each successive point moves the 5-day window forward one day. There's actually a pretty clear trend, which wasn't really visible until I thought to do the rolling average. I'm assuming that QNMs cookie consumption started at 0 for all characters involved, and that he's been using the same two characters for each set of data. (The first assumption wouldn't invalidate the existence of a trend, while the second one would.) --Starwed 10:37, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

  • That's a novel idea, I'll put some thought to it as well.
I've been using the same two characters, one marmot and one mongoose. I always record all 7 adventure gains from one character, followed by 7 of the other, but it's random who i display first. I have mafia logs if that's important later.
Both characters started with 0 white chocolate chip cookies consumption. They're both at 84 consumed today, and I have posted 168 data points on this page.--QuantumNightmare 10:52, 10 June 2007 (CDT)