Cambridge Stalking Thread 2016 Entry

The list should only be there one time? Try refreshing the page maybe - I'm only seeing the list once.

And that is a bug with tables on mobile and I haven't looked into it yet. I'll try to sort it out (and I hope there's a way) but I don't have any idea yet why that is happening :P

Lol I refreshed and it's only there once now, this happened yesterday too :tongue:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 61

Duskstar

OP

13

Original post by C0balt

Lol I refreshed and it's only there once now, this happened yesterday too :tongue:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yep yesterday there was a bug that I fixed at midnight where if you went from the stalk page to the submit and back again it would add all the data back in :P Today the duplication was caused by me mucking about with backing up the table (I assume) but that should all be sorted :biggrin:

Reply 62

Number Nine

12

Original post by thecsstudent

So sorry to "barge in" but the fibonacci sequence with memoization still has O(n) time complexity. That is because if you want to find the nth number in the sequence you have to have calculated n-1 terms before that so even though you can run the algorithm once and then get the results in O(1) it still is O(n). Also you can use recursion but with memoization and it would still take O(n) time, otherwise yes it would be O(2^n). I don't know if that makes sense and I don't mean to be annoying I have made the mistake many times.

No worries mate. Does the O(n) part not come from using a for/while loop? So for using this to generate the nth number it has no advantages of say using iteration, but for finding n numbers it would be better than using iteration, as iteration's algorithm itself is O(n), so using a for/while loop with iteration would ultimately culminate in O(n^2)

At least that's how I thought it worked, the O(n) part not coming from the fibonacci algorithm if using memoization

Original post by Duskstar

Yeah that sounds right - try upgrading your RAM lol. Plus I really need to do some PE in the next 1 month...

8GB mate. The 200,000th Fib number is 41,000+ digits long

Reply 63

thecsstudent

13

Original post by Number Nine

No worries mate. Does the O(n) part not come from using a for/while loop? So for using this to generate the nth number it has no advantages of say using iteration, but for finding n numbers it would be better than using iteration, as iteration's algorithm itself is O(n), so using a for/while loop with iteration would ultimately culminate in O(n^2)

At least that's how I thought it worked, the O(n) part not coming from the fibonacci algorithm if using memoization

Yes memoization is better than just using iteration because it would take O(n) for each of the n numbers and it would lead to O(n^2) so for that you are right. Finding a number would take O(1) with memoization but only after having used a loop so the overall algorithm would be considered O(n). I just thought you meant the whole algorithm was O(1) and got confused.

Reply 64

Duskstar

OP

13

Original post by Number Nine

No worries mate. Does the O(n) part not come from using a for/while loop? So for using this to generate the nth number it has no advantages of say using iteration, but for finding n numbers it would be better than using iteration, as iteration's algorithm itself is O(n), so using a for/while loop with iteration would ultimately culminate in O(n^2)

At least that's how I thought it worked, the O(n) part not coming from the fibonacci algorithm if using memoization

8GB mate. The 200,000th Fib number is 41,000+ digits long

I think he's right - you still have to iterate up to n (O(n) time) if you are using memoization - O(1) implies you can just pluck the nth term out of thin air presuming you have n, which would be the case if you had the data for every fibonacci number (inherently impossible since there's an infinite amount) but even with memoization which kind of simulates that you have to have iterated up to n to store the data in the first place.

And yeah, so you need more RAM :P

On a side note, I wonder what the fib numbers look like in binary...

Reply 65

1144297

9

Just did some statistics on the stalking thing - thanks Duskstar for your help!

The average person on there has a UMS average of 95.2%, has 6.8A*s, 2.5As, 0.8Bs and 0.1Cs at GCSE. They got 0.1A*s (1 year maths represent), 2.5As and 0.1Bs at AS level and are currently predicted 2.7A*s and 0.5As.

UMS AVERAGE = 95.2%
==========
GCSE STATS
==========
A* - 6.8
A - 2.5
B - 0.8
C - 0.1
==========
AS STATS
==========
A* - 0.1
A - 3.5
B - 0.1
C - 0
==========
A2 STATS
==========
A* - 2.7
A - 0.5
B - 0
C - 0

Reply 66

Number Nine

12

Original post by ThatPerson2

snipped

I am well below average for GCSEs and UMS lol

Reply 67

BBeyond

15

Original post by Number Nine

I am well below average for GCSEs and UMS lol

Bare in mind TSR isn't representative of the general public :tongue:

Reply 68

Number Nine

12

Original post by BBeyond

Bare in mind TSR isn't representative of the general public :tongue:

The general public aren't all Oxbridge applicants

Reply 69

username1865079

14

Original post by Number Nine

The general public aren't all Oxbridge applicants

This genuinely made me lol.... :biggrin:

Reply 70

BBeyond

15

Original post by Number Nine

The general public aren't all Oxbridge applicants

true aha but i reckon the actual average will be lower than 95.2...

Reply 71

1144297

9

Original post by BBeyond

true aha but i reckon the actual average will be lower than 95.2...

Original post by Number Nine

I am well below average for GCSEs and UMS lol

The actual UMS thing will probably be lower - 95.2% is more like the average accepted amount, whereas the average entrant I believe has about 90% according to Cambridge.

Reply 72

WhiteyBread101

21

Original post by ThatPerson2

Just did some statistics on the stalking thing - thanks Duskstar for your help!

The average person on there has a UMS average of 95.2%, has 6.8A*s, 2.5As, 0.8Bs and 0.1Cs at GCSE. They got 0.1A*s (1 year maths represent), 2.5As and 0.1Bs at AS level and are currently predicted 2.7A*s and 0.5As.

UMS AVERAGE = 95.2%
==========
GCSE STATS
==========
A* - 6.8
A - 2.5
B - 0.8
C - 0.1
==========
AS STATS
==========
A* - 0.1
A - 3.5
B - 0.1
C - 0
==========
A2 STATS
==========
A* - 2.7
A - 0.5
B - 0
C - 0

Well above average for GCSEs, UMS average was disappointing though :sad:

Reply 73

not you

11

Original post by ThatPerson2

==========
AS STATS
==========
A* - 0.1

it's so sad lol

Reply 74

C0balt

16

Now let's prove that S1 is actually used and calculate standard deviation and PMCC with UMS average and A* at GCSE lol

Reply 75

Krollo

17

Seems to be working perfectly at my end. This needs to go on your personal statement Duskstar :ahee:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 76

C0balt

16

Original post by Duskstar

Yep yesterday there was a bug that I fixed at midnight where if you went from the stalk page to the submit and back again it would add all the data back in :P Today the duplication was caused by me mucking about with backing up the table (I assume) but that should all be sorted :biggrin:

Hey my browser autocorrected C0balt to Cobalt and there's now Cobalt on the list, can you delete that thing? XD Sorry XD

Reply 77

1144297

9

Original post by C0balt

Now let's prove that S1 is actually used and calculate standard deviation and PMCC with UMS average and A* at GCSE lol

Mean of UMS is 95.2223%, with a standard deviation of 2.9554.

Going with A* being 8, A being 7 and so on, the mean grade at GCSE is 7.5886. The standard deviation of this is 0.6368.

Calculating the average GCSE score for each applicant and putting it against UMS percentage gets a PMCC of 0.2012 - so it doesn't seem to be too closely related. I have attached a graph of UMS against average GCSE point score. As you can see, there is barely any correlation between the two.