Why cant there be another Bradman again??

[Raghav_12]

First, let me put your quote properly. In the last post you mixed it with mine's :P From what I read, based on "your" analysis: NOW: Bradman 33, Sachin 57 THEN: Bradman 100, Sachin 170 This is even worse than saying Rameez > Hammond :giggle: :icflove:

I know that may not be correct, but I just used Quality Index parameter which you had proposed. I just built on research that you had conducted.

[zen]

I know that may not be correct' date=' but I just used Quality Index parameter which you had proposed. I just built on research that you had conducted.[/quote'] There is nothing to build on my "research". And what you built would even give Sachin a heart-attack :P

[Raghav_12]

There is nothing to build on my "research". And what you built would even give Sachin a heart-attack :P

See I admit your research was fundamentaly correct and you yourself found out that quality of today's cricket is better than Bradman's cricket. I just used another sound mathematical principle of using logrithmic scale for data spread over long times. And those are the results that we are getting by combining both these sound prinples. . I didn't manipulate anything there. So what do you think, where is mistake? 1. in your "Quality Index" or 2. In mathmaticians who suggested Logrithmic scales ? You have to decide fast - your Noble prize is in danger.

[zen]

See I admit your research was fundamentaly correct and you yourself found out that quality of today's cricket is better than Bradman's cricket. I just used another sound mathmatical principal of using logrithmic scale for data spread over long times. Those are the results that we are getting. I didn't manipulate anything there. So what do you think' date=' where is mistake? 1. in your "Quality Index" or in 2. mathmaticians who suggested Logrithmic scales ? You have to decide fast - your Nobel prize is in danger.[/quote'] Why use logs on my "index"? Why assume the quality of today's cricket to be 3 times that of the past? :P

[Raghav_12]

Why use logs on my "index"? Why assume the quality of today's cricket to be 3 times that of the past? :P

First let me correct you that I did not assume that "quality of today's cricket to be 3 times that of the past". It is result of sound mathematical analysis which is based on sound parameter "quality index" which you discovered. Secondly reason behind log scale is that mathematicians belive for comparing data spread over long period of times, log scale gives better results. Any more questions?

[zen]

First let me correct you that I did not assume that quality of today's cricket to be 3 times that of the past. It is result of sound mathematical analysis which is based on sound parameter "quality index" which you discovered. Secondly reaons behine log scale is that mathematicians belive for comparing data spread over long period of times' date=' log scale gives better results. Any more questions?[/quote'] How do I use logs to increase my pay check? I want to put my earnings on a log scale and submit it to my boss :giggle:

[Raghav_12]

How do I use logs to increase my pay check? I want to put my earnings on a log scale and submit it to my boss :giggle:

Did not you see word "long time" in my explanation? It can happen on your pay check as well but for that you'll have to wait for some 60 years, same as the time gap btw Bradman and Sachin.

[zen]

Did not you see word "long time" in my explanation? It can happen on your pay check as well but for that you'll have to wait for some 60 years' date=' same as the time gap btw Bradman and Sachin.[/quote'] Let's put that in to perspective (mainly for fun) :giggle: The increase in salary in future would be represented by a higher number. The average of modern batsmen, when compared to Don's hasn't increased! In fact, the top avg of most top batsmen have hovered around the 50-60 mark irrespective of the era :winky:

[Raghav_12]

Let's put that in to perspective (mainly for fun) :giggle: The increase in salary in future would be represented by a higher number. The average of modern batsmen, when compared to the Don hasn't increased! In fact, the top avg of top batsmen have hovered around the 50-60 mark irrespective of the era :winky:

I know all these things. But I still didn't find chinks in my mathematical analysis. You should help me out in finding prolem. Was it your parameter " Quality Index"? Your Noble prize is in danger. And I am darn serious.

[zen]

I know all these things. But I still didn't find chinks in my mathematical analysis. You should help me out in finding prolem. Was it your parameter " Quality Index"? Your Noble prize is in danger. And I am darn serious.

Can someone put a log to find out how many GF's he would have? :giggle: Btw, QI (as calculated by yours truly) for 28-40 is 1.97 (not 1.73), and for 89-10 is 2.23. You can use the these numbers as the number of number for GFs :icflove:

[Raghav_12]

Can someone put a log to find out how many GF's he would have? :giggle: Btw, QI (as calculated by yours truly) for 28-40 is 1.97 (not 1.73), and for 89-10 is 2.23. You can use the these numbers as the number of number for GFs :icflove:

oh okay my mistake.. we'll redo calculations using 1.97 Antilog (1.97) = 93. Antilog (2.23) = 170. so today's 57 = 57*(170/93) = 104 (Bradman's era) . Phew, Sachin manages to go ahead of Bradman, but by just. I think now result look really credible which states that though Sachin and Bradman are comparable but Sachin is just a bit ahead of Bradman. You can go ahead and file patent for your methodology. I don't think anybody would ever have got such credible results. About your GF thing, as I told you we can use log scale there as well but you'll have to wait for some 60 years.

[zen]

oh okay my mistake.. we'll redo calculations using 1.97 Antilog (1.97) = 93. Antilog (2.23) = 170. so today's 57 = 57*(170/93) = 104 (Bradman's era) . Phew, Sachin manages to go ahead of Bradman, but by just. I think now result look really credible which states that though Sachin and Bradman are comparable but Sachin is just a bit ahead of Bradman. You can go ahead and file patent for your methodology. I don't think anybody would ever have got such credible results. About your GF thing, as I told you we can use log scale there as well but you'll have to wait for some 60 years.

The result is below:

So, based on quality index: Now: Bradman 80, Tendulkar 57 Then: Bradman 100, Tendulkar 71 Smart-ass: No 57>100, so that can't be true :hitler:

:P

[Raghav_12]

The result is below: :P

oh you have gone back to your old rant. Didn't I tell you mathematicinas believe that for analysis of data spread over long time, logrithmic scales give best results? Do you question them? Can you suggest chinks in my analysis based on sound parameter of "quality index", proposed by you? You only suggested that I should use QI of 1.97, instead of 1.73 which I agreed. Now when you are not getting favourable result, you are discarding whole analysis without giving any reason.

[zen]

oh you have gone back to your old rant. Didn't I tell you mathematicinas believe that for analysis of data spread over long time' date=' logrithmic scales give best results? Do you question them? Can you suggest chinks in my analysis based on sound parameter of "quality index", proposed by you?[/quote'] I am more in to logic than logs :P .... My analysis is logical and NOT logical :giggle:

[Raghav_12]

I am more in to logic than logs :P .... My analysis is logical and NOT logical :giggle:

So log are illogical? Do you realize how many mathematicians in world use log for their calculations. You are not playing by rules any more. You suggested changes in our methodology and which I agreed to and when you are not finding results in your favour you simply discarding all our efforts. Guys, we have developed one methodology which is based on very sound mathematical concept of "Quality Index" which was developed by Rett. Using this methodology we have seen that Sachin just edges ahead of Bradman - but just. Total approach we have discussed in this thread above. Please go though all these posts to see all efforts that me and Rett have put in.

[Raghav_12]

For more fun' date=' based on your "logical" analysis, what would Sachin's avg be in an era where the QI is 2.10.[/quote'] Don't you know how to take Ant-ilog? Take antilog and follow steps that we followed in whole process.

[zen]

Don't you know how to take Ant-ilog? Take antilog and follow steps that we followed in whole process.

As I said, I am not into logs. You will have to do it.

[Raghav_12]

For fun, based on your logis, what would Sachins avg be (in past) if the QI was 2.1

I have answered that in previous post. Also now doin't try to change data. It was you only who provided data in first place.

[Raghav_12]

As I said' date=' I am not into logs. You will have to do it.[/quote'] Than why did you come in field of mathematical analysis?. Go and give back your noble that you got for discovery of "Quality Index" (QI)

[zen]

I have answered that in previous post. Also now doin't try to change data. It was you only who provided data in first place.

I am not changing the data. Can you give me Sachin's avg if the QI was 2.1 and also 2.3.