11–20 of 37 posts
> Different people have different conventions for how to rank the Olympic medal results. The newspaper in my country sometimes used another method, where they divide the medal count by the population of the country. In 2008 that put Jamaica at the top, followed by New Zealand. Both China and the U.S. were well down in the chart.
A more helpful metric would be medals divided by delegation size.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A more helpful metric would be medals divided by delegation size.
Or medals divided by money invested in a nation's olympics programme.
> Different people have different conventions for how to rank the Olympic medal results. The newspaper in my country sometimes used another method, where they divide the medal count by the population of the country. In 2008 that put Jamaica at the top, followed by New Zealand. Both China and the U.S. were well down in the chart.
A more helpful metric would be medals divided by delegation size.
> Different people have different conventions for how to rank the Olympic medal results. The newspaper in my country sometimes used another method, where they divide the medal count by the population of the country. In 2008 that put Jamaica at the top, followed by New Zealand. Both China and the U.S. were well down in the chart.
A more helpful metric would be medals divided by delegation size.
Different countries make different choices there. Small poorer countries, for example, aren't likely to have any athlete who can get to the final in the 100 meters, but yet may want to send an athlete to that event, simply because it is one of the cheapest events to send someone for, and they don't want to send a zero sized team (for example because they want to earn 'legitimacy points' as a country or because their Olympic committee wants to make a trip to the Olympics)
The USA, on the other hand, isn't likely to send anybody who can't make the final in that event. Part of the reason for that is that they try hard good candidates, but part also simply is that they can make way more throws of the genetic dice, and thus are more likely to hit on an outlier who performs exceptionally well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A more helpful metric would be medals divided by delegation size.
That partly measures a policy choice "how good must athletes be for us to send them to the Olympics?" Different countries make different choices there. Small poorer countries, for example, aren't likely to have any athlete who can get to the final in the 100 meters, but yet may want to send an athlete to that event, simply because it is one of the cheapest events to send someone for, and they don't want to send a zer…
After unambiguously specifying the partial ordering for the triple, its very gratifying to note how each node gets an ordinal rank in the Hasse. So you can talk about USA > Russia ( rank 0 vs rank 1) but can't say anything about USA vs China ( both rank 0) - you can do this simply in terms of the ordinal rank and forget all about the medal tally. A few years back, there was a data science problem to predict which sta…
I think you can't do that on a partial order.
After unambiguously specifying the partial ordering for the triple, its very gratifying to note how each node gets an ordinal rank in the Hasse. So you can talk about USA > Russia ( rank 0 vs rank 1) but can't say anything about USA vs China ( both rank 0) - you can do this simply in terms of the ordinal rank and forget all about the medal tally. A few years back, there was a data science problem to predict which sta…
> After unambiguously specifying the partial ordering for the triple, its very gratifying to note how each node gets an ordinal rank in the Hasse. So you can talk about USA > Russia ( rank 0 vs rank 1) but can't say anything about USA vs China ( both rank 0) - you can do this simply in terms of the ordinal rank and forget all about the medal tally. I think you can't do that on a partial order.
After unambiguously specifying the partial ordering for the triple, its very gratifying to note how each node gets an ordinal rank in the Hasse. So you can talk about USA > Russia ( rank 0 vs rank 1) but can't say anything about USA vs China ( both rank 0) - you can do this simply in terms of the ordinal rank and forget all about the medal tally. A few years back, there was a data science problem to predict which sta…
> After unambiguously specifying the partial ordering for the triple, its very gratifying to note how each node gets an ordinal rank in the Hasse. So you can talk about USA > Russia ( rank 0 vs rank 1) but can't say anything about USA vs China ( both rank 0) - you can do this simply in terms of the ordinal rank and forget all about the medal tally. I think you can't do that on a partial order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> After unambiguously specifying the partial ordering for the triple, its very gratifying to note how each node gets an ordinal rank in the Hasse. So you can talk about USA > Russia ( rank 0 vs rank 1) but can't say anything about USA vs China ( both rank 0) - you can do this simply in terms of the ordinal rank and forget all about the medal tally. I think you can't do that on a partial order.
You're correct, and on this particular example you can see the problem immediately: is France in the same "rank" as Korea or Italy? Neither, the question is ill-posed.