Mixed unit morale

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
That's...not quite the definition of average I'm used to seeing. You're arguing that the unweighted average income of 35 CEOs and a starving beggar is the same as the average income of 35 starving beggars and one CEO. Obviously, that's not the case!

It actually is the case, since your not using a very precise definition of average.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Sindai:
NGF seems to be calling "weighted average" what most people would simply call an "average."

Probably - what I mean by weighted average in Norfleet's example, is 35 CEOs weight 35 times more than 1 beggar, thus the weighted average would be (35 x 1M$ + 1$)/36 = 975000$ (approx.)

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
Probably - what I mean by weighted average in Norfleet's example, is 35 CEOs weight 35 times more than 1 beggar, thus the weighted average would be (35 x 1M$ + 1$)/36 = 975000$ (approx.)

Yes, but 35 CEOs only weigh more than 1 beggar because it's *35* vs *1*. It's not because there's an inherent property of the CEO which causes his income to bear more weight, as weighted average would imply.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Yes, but 35 CEOs only weigh more than 1 beggar because it's *35* vs *1*.

Isn't that the exact definition of a weighted average?

It's not because there's an inherent property of the CEO which causes his income to bear more weight,

Well, someone could argue that CEOs can afford 3 meals a day precisely because of their income, while beggars spend most of their time on empty stomachs - thus in a sense the CEO's income bears more weight.

as weighted average would imply.

'Weighted average' never implied such a thing. It seems the misunderstanding began when you wrote

I don't think there's any actual weighting: The morale of the squad is simply the average morale of the squad

which made me truly wonder what you meant by 'average'. As it turns out we both meant exactly the same thing. I'll try to be less precise in the future.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
Isn't that the exact definition of a weighted average?

No, it isn't. I think this may be a translation thing, but where I come from, an "average" of values is equal to the sum of all of the values, divided by the number of values, whereas a "weighted average" assigns an additional term, a "weight" to some, but not all, of the values, thus evaluating the values unequally for the purpose of some bias: For instance, a weighted average score of a single player's per-game kill counts, with more emphasis, more weight, given to his more recent games, because players tend to improve rather than regress, so more recent values are more representative than older values.

If, for instance, larger units had a greater impact on the squad's morale, this would be a weighted average. However, squad morale is simply the summation of the morale values of each individual unit independent of any other factors, divided by the number of units in the squad - it is an unweighted average.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
Isn't that the exact definition of a weighted average?

No, it isn't. I think this may be a translation thing, but where I come from, an "average" of values is equal to the sum of all of the values, divided by the number of values, whereas a "weighted average" assigns an additional term, a "weight" to some, but not all, of the values, thus evaluating the values unequally for the purpose of some bias: For instance, a weighted average score of a single player's per-game kill counts, with more emphasis, more weight, given to his more recent games, because players tend to improve rather than regress, so more recent values are more representative than older values.

---

Thanks for the clarification. In that Last case, I would have used 'biased average' - I think I've seen it used at least once , but maybe it's uncommon usage - or is it used for yet another kind of 'average'?

[Blitz]

I can't believe you numbskulls have to argue about the definition of average. Any fourth grader knows that to find the average add em up and divide by the number of things.

[ July 18, 2004, 08:56: Message edited by: Blitz ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Blitz:
Any fourth grader knows that to find the average add em up and divide by the number of things.

They wait until *FOURTH* grade to teach you that now? Man, the educational system is really decaying. I had no idea it had gotten this bad.

I think the issue at hand here is what "add 'em up" and "number of things" is. Nagot must have been thinking that the set of things was {Militia, Emerald Guard}, and that therefore, the relative numbers were a "weighting", whereas I was thinking the set was more like {Militia, Militia, Militia, ...., Emerald Guard}, and thus it was not weighted.

[Blitz]

Well it would be pretty stupid if you could "fix" a whole group of elephants by throwing in one elite unit. I think common sense would dictate that it is done the other way.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Blitz:
I can't believe you numbskulls have to argue about the definition of average. Any fourth grader knows that to find the average add em up and divide by the number of things.

O Wise One, maybe someday you'll have to learn Japanese and will face exactly that kind of problems when posting on Japanese forums.

Anyway, you're right. Technically I'm not a 4th grader, or 27th, or even 1st, since I never had the (mis?)fortune to follow courses in the US educational system.