[From Bruce Abbott (941116.1330)]
Rick Marken (941115.2220)]
Bruce Abbott (941115.1830 EST) --
O.K., let's try geometry:
Oh god, no. Not GEOMETRY.
[Another avoidance response. The geometrical argument is simply ignored.]
Nutrient Rate of Change Before a Tumble - Nutrient Rate of Change
After a Tumble. Positive is better, negative is worse. Notice that
Nutrient Rate of Change is what is being compared, not Nutrient
Level.
OK. I ran a simulation where I determined the probability that
Nutrient Rate of Change (dNut in your program) is better (or worse)
after a tumble. If dNut was negative before the tumble and positive
after then Nutrient Rate of Change got better; my estimate of the
probability of this happening (over 2560 instances in which dNut was
negative before the tumble) was .48. If dNut was positive before the
tumble and negative after then Nutrient Rate of Change got worse; my
estimate of the probability of this happening (over 2440 instances in
which dNut was positive before the tumble) was .52. So the actual
probability of Nutrient Rate of Change getting better after a tumble was
slightly less than .5; given more samples I think we could have pulled
it up to chance. And the probability of Nutrient Rate of Change getting
worse was actually better than chance.
[The photon torpedo strikes the Enterprise, rocking it an nearly knocking Kirk
out of his seat. (Apparently the concept of "seat belt" has been lost
sometime after the 20th century.) Kirk is not upset.]
Now you've got me explaining subtraction. Let's say dNut = 3.5 before a
tumble and dNut = 2.5 (still positive) after a tumble. Then:
dNutAfter - dNutBefore = 2.5 - 3.5 = - 1.0.
Thus a tumble has decreased dNut by 1.0, which, following TRT terminology, I
am calling "punishment."
Try THAT definition and see what happens to your probabilities....
Patient as ever,
Bruce