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"...
In <36366E4F.63A8BBD4 at pop3.concentric.net> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
>>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
>reported in precisely that way. Your result will be very-important for
>Science. Good luck. ken collins
>>Alex K. wrote:
>>>> I need some help:
>> How can I measure the speed-accuracy-trade off? I'll take the
>> and the error rate. How can I present it?
>> I thought I could make a diagram. On one axis I put the reaction
>> the other the error rate.
>>>> Are there any other ideas?
>>>> Thank you for your help,