-
The scaling arrows in the middle are not great. The pattern is “a case where two things that are close but not equal are classified with as equal, and as a result of going through the process of expanding the difference, the things that were considered to be identical are no longer considered to be identical.
-
On a related topic, in cases where the likelihood of error is not zero but is equated with zero, and the process is such that the difference is magnified, e.g., if you play the message game on a long report line, problems occur with a frequency that should be zero but does not seem to be zero.
-
On the other hand, it is theoretically possible to have a case where “things that were not identical become identical due to a reduction in difference,” but I can’t think of a particularly interesting case.
-
Context first
- ‘Just a random repetition of seemingly equal transfers of funds creates disparity! Amazing!” I told him that it was neither a surprise nor a surprise.
- tokoroten ""Even with equal rules (with seemingly high equality of results), there will be disparities, surprise” is an implicit assertion in the parentheses, so isn’t the tweak “If the WTA has low equality of results, there will be disparities” misplaced? I’m just saying.”
- The claim is that “equal rules with seemingly high equality of outcome” are not equal, but rather “1 close to 0”, and “when 1 close to 0 is added repeatedly, the result is 100! Amazing!” It’s no wonder, since we are adding non-zero values.
- I explained that it is the same as adding 100 from the beginning, but if the listener thinks that 0 and 1 are the same and 100 and 1 are different, then this explanation does not make sense. I understood.
- To reiterate, the variance is non-zero no matter how equal it appears to be except by distributing the same amount to everyone, etc., so if you add it independently to the ownership money, it will all “widen the gap”. We need to change our perception that in the vast majority of cases the disparity will increase, and that it is only in a few special cases that it does not.
- ‘Just a random repetition of seemingly equal transfers of funds creates disparity! Amazing!” I told him that it was neither a surprise nor a surprise.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/イコールでないものを同一視し、差の拡大によって同一視できなくなる using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.