03 Sep 21
@eladar saidOkay; I'm just a lawyer, not a mathematician.
Older to younger would be exponential decay.
Log curves are strictly increasing but as x gets larger the slope of the curve approaches 0. In other words, the y values would be approaching some constant.
But could you explain why the Richter scale is called a logarithmic scale when the increases are exponential and why an exponential curve isn't simply an upside down logarithmic curve?
If I wanted to plot the risk starting at age 120 and ending at age 0, would that be a logarithmic curve?
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
03 Sep 21
3 edits
@sh76 saidThe Richter curve is not logarithmic. The curve is plotted on a logarithmic scale. There is a difference.
Okay; I'm just a lawyer, not a mathematician.
But could you explain why the Richter scale is called a logarithmic scale when the increases are exponential and why an exponential curve isn't simply an upside down logarithmic curve?
If I wanted to plot the risk starting at age 120 and ending at age 0, would that be a logarithmic curve?
For instance: If you plot exponential data on a logarithmic scale the resulting curve is linear. That is...on a logarithmic scale the resulting shape of exponential data is a line with a constant slope and some intercept. This arises from the properties of logarithms.
If the data fits: y = a*e^(b*x) to use a logarithmic scale take the natural log of buth sides
ln( y ) = ln ( a* e^ (b*x) )
= ln ( a ) + ln ( e^(bx) )
= ln ( a ) + b*x
ln(y) = ln(a) + b*x
The is the slope -intercept equation of a line.
y is the output, but we instead plot natural log " ln (y) " against the independent variable.
"If I wanted to plot the risk starting at age 120 and ending at age 0, would that be a logarithmic curve?"
You could try that... but it wouldn't fit the data, because the data is exponential in nature. As eladar already stated the slope of the logarithmic curve is constantly positive. The curve you are trying to describe would have a negative slope.
03 Sep 21
@sh76 saidIt is based on log answers.
Okay; I'm just a lawyer, not a mathematician.
But could you explain why the Richter scale is called a logarithmic scale when the increases are exponential and why an exponential curve isn't simply an upside down logarithmic curve?
If I wanted to plot the risk starting at age 120 and ending at age 0, would that be a logarithmic curve?
Richter scale is based on powers of 10. 1 means the energy was 10. 2 means the energy was 100, 3 means energy 1000.
Ordered pairs..(0,0) (10,1) (100,2) (1000,4) so on the so forth. Each segment's slopes get flatter: 1/10 then 1/90 then 1/900 so on and so forth.
The problem with the Richter scale is you only see the y values, not the x values driving the numbers.
03 Sep 21
@sh76 saidYour 120 to 0 age would result in a negative slope, it would look like exponential growth reflected about the y axis, then shifted 120 units to the right, making 120 the year 0, the y-axis.
Okay; I'm just a lawyer, not a mathematician.
But could you explain why the Richter scale is called a logarithmic scale when the increases are exponential and why an exponential curve isn't simply an upside down logarithmic curve?
If I wanted to plot the risk starting at age 120 and ending at age 0, would that be a logarithmic curve?
04 Sep 21
As of May 29, 2021 there were an estimated 120.2 million total COVID infections. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html
There were 609,930 confirmed COVID deaths. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us
I believe the latter is a somewhat substantial undercount for reasons I have already explained here (reported pneumonia deaths in February 2020 were at unprecedented high level for one) but even accepting those numbers at face value, the IFR was above .5.
04 Sep 21
@no1marauder saidWhat is the IFR for people under 50?
As of May 29, 2021 there were an estimated 120.2 million total COVID infections. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html
There were 609,930 confirmed COVID deaths. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us
I believe the latter is a somewhat substantial undercount for reasons I have already explained here (reported pneumonia dea ...[text shortened]... recedented high level for one) but even accepting those numbers at face value, the IFR was above .5.
Oh wait, that would be information your propaganda sources could not provide.
@eladar saidWhy are you such a blatant and obvious liar?
What is the IFR for people under 50?
Oh wait, that would be information your propaganda sources could not provide.
You know full well the CDC keeps track of such information and publishes it for anyone to see. In fact my first "propaganda source" has that data.
04 Sep 21
@no1marauder saidThen give me the number.
Why are you such a blatant and obvious liar?
You know full well the CDC keeps track of such information and publishes it for anyone to see. In fact my first "propaganda source" has that data.
04 Sep 21
@eladar saidCheck the link yourself.
Then give me the number.
Did others always do your work for you?
04 Sep 21
1 edit
@no1marauder saidSo you just state your opinion out of ignorance. It does make sense.
Check the link yourself.
Did others always do your work for you?