Estimate a number within two (or more) overlapping ranges of number

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around estimating a single number from overlapping ranges of estimates with varying accuracy levels. A simulation produced an output range of 185 to 285 at 30% accuracy and 219 to 249 at 100% accuracy, resulting in the number 235. Participants explored using linear functions to find the intersection of these ranges, yielding a close prediction of 233.4, which aligns with linear interpolation methods. The conversation also touches on the potential for improving predictions by incorporating more ranges and weighting intervals based on their confidence levels, although this approach may not account for correlations among the intervals.
lost&found
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

Let's say a simulation outputs a range of estimates with various accuracy level, ranging from 30% to 100%, with the range given at 30% being widest and the range at 100% being the narrowest. The ultimate goal of this simulation is to arrive at a single number within the estimated range.

For example, 30% estimate is 185 to 285 and 100% estimate is 219 to 249. (There are intermediate estimated ranges with accuracy ranging from 31% to 99%, but I've left out for now.)

The result of the simulation: 235. Not sure what the algorithm was for the simulation (I was leaning toward RNG), but given the information of the different sets of ranges, can we predict this number reliably and if so, how does such method work? Will having more sets of ranges give a more reliable prediction?

-----
I've been told that if we model each range as a linear function as followed:

f(x)= (285-185)x + 185
g(x)= (249-219)x + 219

Then finding the intersection of the two lines will yield the answer:

Set f(x)=g(x), solve for x, and sub it back into f(x), yielding f(34/70)=233.4

-----

233.4 is so really close to the actual 235. This method mirrors linear interpolation isn't it? So same questions as above (if this is how we predict the number, how/why does it work? and can we improve on our prediction, perhaps with more ranges?), if someone could kindly answers, thanks!
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
There is a lot of guesswork in this question. What immediately came to mind was to weight all intervals with their according level of confidence, which basically is the expectation value. But this is only one measure which doesn't distinguish possible preferences or correlations among the intervals.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top