Gee, Frank, you crack me up big time :-) ken
F. Frank LeFever wrote:
> When I see a question about something I don't know enough about to
> answer, I don't. I wait for someone more knowledgeable to do so.
>> Pity you lack the intelligence or humility do do the same.
>> You obviously don't have the faintest idea what is meant by
> speed/accuracy trade-off. This is a very widely used term in fields
> you obviously have not done even so much as a cursory reading in.
>> In other words, your answer has absolutely nothing to do with the
> question at hand. When an undergraduate who has not studied for an
> exam makes a pathetic attempt to bluff his way through an answer, the
> technique is colloquially known as "bull-shitting"...
>> "a rigorous correlation between energy lost to heat and accuracy" ??
> Come off it! What pretentious nonsense! No, I don't suppose much HAS
> been "reported in precisely that way"...
>> F. LeFever
>> In <36366E4F.63A8BBD4 at pop3.concentric.net> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net> writes:
> >Along with whatever approach you'll take, analyze everything in terms
> >continuous energy-exchange... Thermodynamics. Although you'll have to
> >over sets of individual nervous systems, you'll find a rigorous
> >between energy lost to heat and accuracy, and I expect such has not
> yet been
> >reported in precisely that way. Your result will be very-important for
> >Science. Good luck. ken collins
> >Alex K. wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >> I need some help:
> >> How can I measure the speed-accuracy-trade off? I'll take the
> reaction time
> >> and the error rate. How can I present it?
> >> I thought I could make a diagram. On one axis I put the reaction
> time, on
> >> the other the error rate.
> >> Are there any other ideas?
> >> Thank you for your help,
> >> Alex