Calculating Accuracy % of Inventory with 5 Boxes of Tools

  • Thread starter Thread starter apostolis22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Accuracy
apostolis22
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have 5 boxes with tools. I made an inventory of the number of the tools that exist in the boxes. I have the results of the inventory but I didnt count the correct number of the tools that were existed in the boxes.

the actual number of the tools is:

box 1 = 5 tools
box 2 = 4 tools
box 3 = 8 tools
box 4 = 9 tools
box 5 = 7 tools

the inventory is :

box 1 = 6 tools
box 2 = 7 tools
box 3 = 6 tools
box 4 = 8 tools
box 5 = 8 tools

How can I calculate the accuracy % of the inventory referred to the actual number of the tools (per box and summary number) ?

Thank you!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
There is no standard way to define accuracy on a 0 to 100% scale in such a situation. You could try making up your own definition. There are certain axioms you need it to satisfy. if you think of it as a proximity measure in a some kind of vector space, you could start with a metric, d(x,y), satisfying the usual axioms for those, then convert it to a proximity measure p, e.g. p = exp(-d)*100%
 
I quite understood what you ment . I want to calculate the accuracy of the inventory in excel. Could you make an a example of this please? :)
 
You could take the metric (d) as sum of squares of differences, or the square root of that. But you might feel you want to normalise it in relation to the magnitude of the correct values, e.g. (4, 6) is the same distance from a correct answer of (2, 8) as (2, 3) would be from a correct answer of (1, 4). To achieve that, divide the root sum square of the difference by the standard deviation of the target vector elements.
Then convert to an accuracy measure by any monotonic function that maps 0 to 100% and infinity to 0, e.g. Exp(-d).
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
967
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
55
Views
5K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Back
Top