Re: Need help w/ Weight Formula
From: Tom (anynomys_at_newsgroup.com)
Date: 03/03/05
- Next message: Jason Morin: "Re: Comment Indicators"
- Previous message: CyberTaz: "RE: Advanced filter question"
- In reply to: Bob Tarburton: "Re: Need help w/ Weight Formula"
- Next in thread: Bob Tarburton: "Re: Need help w/ Weight Formula"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:01:16 -0500
Sorry,
this ain't it at all...
Tom
"Bob Tarburton" <reply2bobtt@intergate.com> wrote in message
news:1b6e21lcnit99kurrfiij11fmn6vabjn25@4ax.com...
> It sounds (at least from this descrition) as if the lower and upper
> limits are somewhat arbitrary, but I think you're looking for
> something like the table below, wheer you copy D2:E2 down. I leave it
> to you to set the lower and upper limits. Note that the randbetween
> function will change every time you recalculate. Paste values if you
> want cosistency in repeated tests.
>
>
> A B C D E
> your# lower upper random weight
> >1.01 900 1000 =RANDBETWEEN(b2,c2) =D2/SUM(D$2:D$22)
> >1.02
> >1.03
> >1.04
> >1.05
> >1.06
> >1.07
> >1.08
> >1.09
> >1.10
> >1.11
> >1.12
> >2.01
> >2.02
> >2.03
> >2.04
> >3.01
> >3.02
> >4.01
> >4.02
> >4.03 1 50 =RANDBETWEEN(b22,c22) =D22/SUM(D$2:D$22)
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 20:09:30 -0500, "Tom" <anonomys@home.com> wrote:
>
> >I need some help with developing some function... here what I need to
> >achieve:
> >
> >Create "weights" for the 21 numbers listed below (in between ***s).
> >
> >Their cumulative weight (sum) must equal 100% (or 1).
> >
> >Here's the trick though... the weight of the 21 listed numbers below are
NOT
> >sequential.
> >
> >For instance:
> >
> >1.01 may equal = "0.2800"
> >1.02 may equal = "0.2200"
> >1.03 may equal = "0.1600"
> >
> >but now,
> >2.01 may equal = "0.1000"
> >3.01 may equal = "0.0800"
> >4.01 may equal = "0.0500"
> >
> >then
> >
> >1.04 may equal = "0.0250"
> >1.05 may...
> >2.02 may...
> >3.02 may...
> >4.02 may...
> >1.06 may...
> >etc.
> >
> >Essentially, it would look this the following:
> >
> >Group 1 High
> >Group 2 High
> >Group 3 High
> >Group 4 High
> >Group 1 Medium
> >Group 1 Low
> >Group 2 Low
> >Group 3 Low
> >Group 4 Low
> >
> >
> >Also, there should be some relationship between the propitiate counts
within
> >each of the 4 groups.
> >
> >Group 1 contains: 12 records
> >Group 2 contains: 4 records
> >Group 3 contains: 2 records
> >Group 4 contains: 3 records
> >
> >Again, the top numbers (e.g. "1.01 to 1.03") should get the greatest
> >weights.
> >But the top number of the other 3 groups (2.01, 3.01, 4.01) must be
greater
> >than the lower numbers of Group 1 (1.04 to 1.12).
> >
> >At the same time, the lower numbers of Group 2 - 4 (e.g. 2.02 to 2.04;
3.02;
> >4.2 to 4.3) must be lower than the lower numbers of Group 1 (1.04 to
1.12).
> >
> >Group 1 is the only group with a relative high count of numbers (compared
to
> >the other 3 groups). So, maybe Group 1 should have something like "High
> >Numbers", "Medium Numbers", and "Low Numbers"... while the other 3 groups
> >have only "High and Low Numbers".
> >
> >Lastly, this needs to be somehow dynamic... I may add or delete to/from
> >these 21 numbers. So, the function that calculates the "propitiate
counts"
> >amongst the 4 groups must be automatically adjusted based on additions or
> >deletions.
> >
> >This does not have to be 100% scientific-proof... nevertheless, I'd like
> >this to be as "scientific" as it can be.
> >
> >
> >****
> >1.01
> >1.02
> >1.03
> >1.04
> >1.05
> >1.06
> >1.07
> >1.08
> >1.09
> >1.10
> >1.11
> >1.12
> >2.01
> >2.02
> >2.03
> >2.04
> >3.01
> >3.02
> >4.01
> >4.02
> >4.03
> >****
> >
> >Thanks for any ideas,
> >Tom
> >
> >
>
- Next message: Jason Morin: "Re: Comment Indicators"
- Previous message: CyberTaz: "RE: Advanced filter question"
- In reply to: Bob Tarburton: "Re: Need help w/ Weight Formula"
- Next in thread: Bob Tarburton: "Re: Need help w/ Weight Formula"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
