Anonymous user
Talk:Functional coverage tree: Difference between revisions
m
→Weighted sums: Whoops.
(→Data in a more functional form: Weighted sums.) |
m (→Weighted sums: Whoops.) |
||
Line 48:
The specified weights look like they are meant to be percentages (all=100), but the specification for missing weights seems to be fractional (all=1). I think that this deserves either a bit more explanation (as to why the use of "1" for default weight is correct) or correction. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 01:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
:Hi Rdm, Those weights are not percentages - They are "fractions of the sum of the weights" at that level. I was playing around with what weight to apply to house1 and house2 and rejected 1, 2 then eventually considered 2, 3 and realised that for those integers it would be the same as
:# Ease of hand calculation.
:# Similarity to prcentages.
| |||