| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* I've changed the name now. Still not descriptive enough though. [[User:Jhunsber|His Awesomeness, Josh Hunsberger]] | * I've changed the name now. Still not descriptive enough though. [[User:Jhunsber|His Awesomeness, Josh Hunsberger]] | ||
| − | Last night I had a much better idea on how to show the average of consecutive averages, which I will put in the page when I have time. It involves Rows of Pascal's triangle over powers of two. | + | Last night I had a much better idea on how to show the average of consecutive averages, which I will put in the page when I have time. It involves Rows of Pascal's triangle over powers of two.[[User:Jhunsber|His Awesomeness, Josh Hunsberger]] |
Revision as of 03:51, 22 October 2008
Yikes, wish I had better experience with series.
This seems plausible and all, and I can see how it would work for the challenge problem, but it seems to me that other averages may not actually make the error smaller, which is a fact I think you realize. I guess only sums that oscillate around their ultimate value will act this way. I'd rather take the easy way out and take more points. --John Mason
- Well, I also realized about halfway through that it most definitely isn't Taylor Series is it? Major Brain fart.
But yes, the averages of averages should oscillate around the actual average since each average would go back and forth between being too big and too small, and since their consecutive we can show how the error gets smaller (Whether the actual error gets smaller I'm not sure, but I know that I can guarantee it is within a certain amount with more and more accuracy.
- I've changed the name now. Still not descriptive enough though. His Awesomeness, Josh Hunsberger
Last night I had a much better idea on how to show the average of consecutive averages, which I will put in the page when I have time. It involves Rows of Pascal's triangle over powers of two.His Awesomeness, Josh Hunsberger
