Showing posts with label Axioms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Axioms. Show all posts

Thursday, November 4, 2010

The Six Emotions To Setting Goals

Keith Abraham is a motivational and inspirational speaker and book author (best selling according to his vitae) that offered the following in an educational video available at my workplace:

1. If you’re lost, decide.

2. If you’re frustrated, pursue the opposites of what you don’t want.

3. If you’re confused, design a plan.

4. If you’re unclear, follow your heart.

5. If you’re unsatisfied, ask what matters.

6. If you’re uncertain, stay focused.

To me the most interesting of the six pieces of advice was number 2! It is an interesting approach. Close second is number 5. The ancient Greeks stated ‘know thyself'.’ That is not always easy.

Numbers 3 and 6 are taught in engineering!! Number 4 is not taught to guys!

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

8 Inches!

The rain arrived in Reading on Saturday morning and it did not stop until Monday at midnight. The weather people measured 7.6 inches of rain. That is almost 20 cm!!

  • On Saturday it rained 2.72" (6.9 cm)
  • On Sunday it rained 3.10" (7.9 cm)
  • On Monday it rained 1.79" (4.6 cm)

There was quite a bit flooding especially in Woburn (8.4" of rain) and Winchester. In Woburn one main road was closed because it was under of foot of water. In Arlington I saw hoses emptying water from houses (I assume basements).


I am thankful that the house is dry and that it was not colder and get buried under a mountain of snow. According to the NOAA website:


On average, thirteen inches of snow equals one inch of rain in the US, although this ratio can vary from two inches for sleet to nearly fifty inches for very dry, powdery snow under certain conditions.


That means it could have dumped 100" (8 ft 4 in or 2.5 m) of snow which is an insane amount. Actually, it would be a lot less than that since colder air (required for snow!) can hold a lot less water than 'warm' air as shown in the graph below.

humidity vs TinC_

During the 3 rainy days the temperature here was about 43F (6 degreed C) Assuming a temperature of 32F (0 degrees C) then it seems likely that it would have snowed about 50 inches which is not unheard of. Here people talk all the time about the Great Blizzard of 1978 which dumped over 50 inches of snow in some places. A lot of people that lived through it share horror stories about it. Therefore:


Rain is good. Really!!

03/17/10 Update

Same graph in Fahrenheit scale on the x-axis.

rainPicFinalPlot

Monday, January 25, 2010

GDP per Capita versus FIFA Rank

Another typical excuse offered to justify the ability of some countries to win consistently is their economic output. It makes sense to some extent. The richer countries have more money to invest in sports and high tech training facilities. The citizens of the rich countries have a higher standard of living and tend to expose their children to sports at an early age. Rich countries have established leagues and actively participate in international sports associations and sporting events.

But is that really the case? It is well established that money buy superb talent and thus success at the club level. (E.g. exhibit A: Chelsea FC; Exhibit B: Real Madrid C.F.; Exhibit C: F.C. Internazionale; etc.) But does money create football talent that can compete at  a national level? Again it is possible, but is it likely?

In other words: Is it really the economy, stupid?

It easy to compare FIFA Rank with GDP per capita found in the CIA factbook. GDP is the Gross Domestic Product which is the value of all goods and services made within a country. The GDP per capita is GDP divided by population and a better metric that shows how well off the citizens of the country are. Also helps dealing with England. The plot of the data versus the 12/2009 FIFA Rank is shown below.

FIFARankvsGDPCapita

It was more fun generating that plot! The MATLAB code to generate the plot is shown below:

plot( points, GDPcapita*1e-3, 'o', 'markersize', 5, ...
  'markerfaceColor', [0 0.8 0], 'markerEdgeColor', [0 0.2 0.7])

P = polyfit(points, GDPcapita, 1);

vv = polyval(P,points);

residualSTD = std( vv - GDPcapita);

R = corrcoef(points, GDPcapita);

hold on
plot(points, vv *1e-3, 'k-', 'linewidth', 1.5)
hold
off
grid on

axis([200 1800 1 ceil(max( GDPcapita*1e-3 )) ])
set(gca, 'XTick', [200:200:1800], ...
   'YTick', [1:4:ceil(max( GDPcapita*1e-3 )) ceil(max( GDPcapita*1e-3 ))], ...
   'fontsize', 9, 'fontname', 'Consolas')
xlabel('FIFA Rank Points')
ylabel('GDP per capita in thousands USD')
title('Data (dots) and 1st order fit (line)')

text(points + 30, GDPcapita*1e-3, strrep(country, '_', ' '), ...
   'fontname', 'consolas', 'fontsize', 10, 'color', 'b')

MATLAB also offers a built-in GUI (plottools) that can do a lot of great things with mouse-clicks. My preference is to use command line interfaces. (The good thing about GUIs is that What You See Is What You Get. The bad thing about GUIs is that What You See Is The Only Thing You Get!) Actually, that particular GUI is good in that it does not seem to leave anything out and some times I use it because it is faster than writing code for an unusual aspect of an one off plot.

Back to the plot: There is a general trend that says rich countries field good football teams. But the correlation is very weak. Also, the data seems shifted above and below the trendline which is probably the result of a binomial distribution (rich versus poor.) And Brazil and Argentina that are perennial winners do not have very wealthy citizens. Therefore:

It is not likely that national economic output and thus national wealth is a significant factor in the success of a country’s national team in world football!

Basic statistics for the 32 countries participating in the 2010WC:

Sample size = 32

Max: $47,500 (USA)

Min: $1,500 (Ghana)

(GDP per capita for Greece: $32,100)

Mean: $21,391

Median: $22,100

Intercept: 8,362.5

Slope: 14.1

Residual std. deviation: $13,978

Correlation = 0.2772

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Population versus FIFA Rank

It is a classic excuse mostly heard by small(er) countries: Brazil (or USA, Spain, France – pick your favorite adversary) is a very big country and it is much easier to find 20 very good players in a population of 100 million that it is to find 20 equally good players in 10 million.

It is possible but is it likely?

Based on the data available at the CIA Factbook per country participating in the World Cup and the corresponding FIFA Rank the following bar graph can be created (with Excel 2007 and Adobe Photoshop Elements.)

FIFA Rank vs Population

It seems that population is not a significant factor. Two out of the top 5 countries have populations under 20 million and one of them (Portugal) is barely over 10 million. In the Top 20 there are 3 countries under 9 million (Switzerland, Serbia, Uruguay – though not expected to do very well) and one more country (Greece) that is listed as close to 11 million. Between 21 and 32 there are 6 more countries with populations under 10 million. Not to mention that the top 2 countries by population (China and India) are not participating.

However, if you look at the data in some more detail there is a bit of a pattern that seem to favor the more populous countries.

Plot population vs. Rank and fit a first order polynomial:

FIFA Rank vs Population_MATLAB

Though the polynomial fit indicates that, in general, higher population translates to higher performance in national team soccer, the correlation coefficient (R = -0.225) is such that the two quantities are very weakly correlated. That is:

It is not likely that population is a significant factor in the success of a country’s national team in world soccer!

Some population statistics for the WC2010 countries:

N = 32

Mean: 49.5 millions

Median: 22 millions

Intercept: 75.8

Slope: –1.6

Residual std. deviation: 64.7 millions

Correlation = -0.225

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Thursday, May 7, 2009

gk. Axiom

And now that it is out of system, here is my project management axiom:

Every project is a trade off between cost, schedule, and performance and at any one time you can have two out of three but never all three together.

I read this somewhere years ago and stuck in my mind. It is absolutely true. I wish everyone kept it in mind...


Tuesday, April 28, 2009

gk. Axiom


If at first you don't succeed, transform your data!

(Not mine but very true for an experimentalist like me.)