Well, the OASIS formula has a big problem with situations like the following: data set is: 1,1,1. So the list contains 4 values of 1. So, the median is the middle value, BUT there is really just one value repeated 3 times.
Or consider the following list: 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4. So the calculation of the median does take just 2 of the 3 values of 2, which is a little bit ambiguous. Which one is the middle value? Are 2 two's more middle than the 3rd two? Just my thoughts. Leonard Andreas J. Guelzow wrote: > On Sat, 2007-10-02 at 00:38 +0200, Leonard Mada wrote: > > >> 2. The *OASIS open formula document* puts the sorting of the array as a >> prerequisite to defining the median. This is misleading and should >> therefore be replaced with a more algorithm neutral definition. >> Unfortunately, the subscription to OASIS is too expensive for me, >> therefore I hope that other persons that do have access to the >> development board point this out. >> > > You are clearly misreading the document. The Open Formula document does > not prescribe algorithms but only describes the return value of the > Median function. So the value ought to be the middle value (or the > average of the two middle values) if the data were sorted. No > implementaion would be required to in fact sort the data! > > (...) > > >> Although this definition is somehow more complex, I believe it is more >> accurate and more algorithm neutral. >> > > How can it be _more_ "accurate"? The OpenFormula description is 100% > accurate. > > I think it is imperative that the least complex accurate definition is > used in the OpenFormula document. It is up to implementation to chose > the preferred algorithm. (The ideal algorithm may vary depending on the > type of data they typically encounter.) > > Andreas > > > > _______________________________________________ gnumeric-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumeric-list
