37
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 47:
Line 47: + +
→Basis of determining values
:::::::I'm no math major, but I don't know that time needs to be factored in; times censored over opportunities to be censored seems logical to me. Why would you multiply the result of ''that'' equation by time? If something is censored 50% of the time for 5 years ... does that mean that the censorability is 2.50? That's impossible; the percent would be 250%.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 22:22, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::I'm no math major, but I don't know that time needs to be factored in; times censored over opportunities to be censored seems logical to me. Why would you multiply the result of ''that'' equation by time? If something is censored 50% of the time for 5 years ... does that mean that the censorability is 2.50? That's impossible; the percent would be 250%.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 22:22, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::: I see your point. But the original equation of E(t)=c/c+o, doesn't make sense. In that form it is not dependent on time, yet the E(t) suggests it is. E(c,o)=c/c+0 works to set a simple percent up, but if we want to add time we need to change the equation. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:20, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
==100% Censorable?==
==100% Censorable?==