How many Error Reports did MS get off Vista?

[Moo]

I think what Ghost is trying to say is you didnt have to type me a gaint post, besides the equation does fail Peow made it.

[peow130]

Well Since Omega is being a big nerd the vairable "v" is not supposed to be decided it gets reflected upon y and x

Are you retarded? Actually, no need to answer that.

"Y=x^v

y is the number of reports
x is the number of people sending reports
v is the average number of reports per person."

If v is the average number of reports per person, we merely need to average the number of reports per person. We don't fucking "decide" anything, we can calculate it. If only 3 people, Persons A through C send reports, and Person A sends 5 reports, person B sends 3, and person C sends 7 reports, then average reports per person = v = (5+3+10)/3 = 15/3 = 5

The number of people sending reports in that case is obviously three.

The number of reports sent as per the equation would then be 243. Of course, given the information needed to calculate v we can also determine that the number of reports is in fact 15. That's an error of 1,520 percent. To get a correct value for Y, we'd need to use a v value that is ln(15)/ln(3). That value is nonsensical and wrong, because we have the data needed to find the average number of reports per person in this instance, and it's certainly fucking not ln(15)/ln(3).

Additionally, if v was the variable you wanted to find out, and not y, the equation would be arranged so that v is solved for, NOT ARRANGED HOW IT CURRENTLY IS. That is, it'd be v = ln(Y)/ln(x). Of course, using that wouldn't help us at all, since the value for v will not always yield the true value for v (I'm too lazy to figure out whether or not you could even *ever* get a sensible true value for v).

***THE POINT IS, THE EQUATION FAILS, AND ANYONE CAN SEE IT DOES***

tl;dr

[Omega]

Well Since Omega is being a big nerd the vairable "v" is not supposed to be decided it gets reflected upon y and x

Are you retarded? Actually, no need to answer that.

"Y=x^v

y is the number of reports
x is the number of people sending reports
v is the average number of reports per person."

If v is the average number of reports per person, we merely need to average the number of reports per person. We don't fucking "decide" anything, we can calculate it. If only 3 people, Persons A through C send reports, and Person A sends 5 reports, person B sends 3, and person C sends 7 reports, then average reports per person = v = (5+3+10)/3 = 15/3 = 5

The number of people sending reports in that case is obviously three.

The number of reports sent as per the equation would then be 243. Of course, given the information needed to calculate v we can also determine that the number of reports is in fact 15. That's an error of 1,520 percent. To get a correct value for Y, we'd need to use a v value that is ln(15)/ln(3). That value is nonsensical and wrong, because we have the data needed to find the average number of reports per person in this instance, and it's certainly fucking not ln(15)/ln(3).

Additionally, if v was the variable you wanted to find out, and not y, the equation would be arranged so that v is solved for, NOT ARRANGED HOW IT CURRENTLY IS. That is, it'd be v = ln(Y)/ln(x). Of course, using that wouldn't help us at all, since the value for v will not always yield the true value for v (I'm too lazy to figure out whether or not you could even *ever* get a sensible true value for v).

***THE POINT IS, THE EQUATION FAILS, AND ANYONE CAN SEE IT DOES***

Goddamnit, I'm too dumb to read and understand. To cover this fact, I'll write "tl;dr" instead.

Fixed.

[peow130]

I wrote that shitty equation just to piss you off.
What i thought was going to make you slightly angry, has made up EXPONENTIALLY more angry .

[Omega]

I wrote that shitty equation just to piss you off.
What i thought was going to make you slightly angry, has made up EXPONENTIALLY more angry .

Now you're just trying to cover your failure some other way...

Give it up.

[peow130]

Lol okay.
Why would it make any sense to use an exponential function to graph a clearly linear graph?
Obviously you're an angry little elf and its funny to make you mad.