>>74253197>I have a math degree anon.Holy LARP
A "math major" who can't comprehend the concept that a *decelerating* car isn't "getting faster" just because it is still, in fact, moving
Where'd you get your "degree", anon? A box of Cap'n Crunch?
>However, you will never win in this area of discussion.It's remarkable how obsessed you are with "winning" and "losing", considering all I have to do to "win" is sit back, watch you shoot yourself in the foot, and then laugh at you for being retarded
>so saying you need look no further than the derivative to understand a curve, is incorrect.Good thing nobody said this.
Since apparently you need a reminder, what I said is that you only need the derivative, and I quote, "when determining whether or not Gura is in the act of IMPROVING."
A determination which - as I have repeatedly, painstakingly explained - is NOT dependent upon the entire curve in this case, but ONLY upon the most recent, localized region of the curve, compared to the second-most recent, PRIOR localized region of the curve.
Why? Because the whole point is that she is improving, relative to her last ghosting arc.
This isn't even the only relevant metric, by the way - you can also look at, for example, the number of days separating streams within each period. 120-ish during the 2023 ghosting arc (more like 180 if you don't count the Sendai aquarium collab); by comparison, the most recent "ghosting" streak during Fes and Taiwan (and not counting the Twitter space) is closer to 50.
No matter how you look at it, the fact remains: we are not where we should be yet, but Gura is slowly and steadily IMPROVING, relative to the absolute low point we were at in the Fall. We are on a good trajectory, and the fact that you need to muddy that trajectory with irrelevant, outdated data from three years ago speaks volumes.
>Second, the derivative... Half the time it isn't.And yet again, it's a good thing I said you need to see if "the slope" of the derivative is positive or negative, not whether "the derivative" is positive or negative
Serious question - are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just an ESL?
>You suggest supplying the initial condition... is good enough to determine positive or negative trends at larger scales. It's notNo, anon, as a matter of fact I didn't. In fact, I have made EXACTLY the opposite point - that determining an *instantaneous* property of the subject of a graph
(like, say, oh, I don't know... the speed, position, and/or acceleration of a car?) is something that has nothing to do with "larger scales". Neither does a comparison between two regions on said graph. In fact, if you do so, then you are actually *obscuring* the reality of the property at that instant or period in time by contaminating your dataset with irrelevant noise from a period which is not at question.
>Consider the the rotated sine curve f(x) = sin(x) - x/2. Enter it into wolfram alpha if you can't envision it.I can quite easily, but b) this is irrelevant deflection, because - as I quite clearly said - we are specifically NOT talking about an overall trend, but SPECIFICALLY a local one
Oh, and here is a good opportunity to elucidate on why:
>The graph is similar to Gura's stream outputHoly fucking shit, Now I see what it is you're so hung up on, and it confirms to me that you are not just retarded, but also an unironic automaton bugman
Human beings are not predetermined to follow the trajectory of any function just because it would neatly fit your graph. Even if they hypothetically were, there would be outside factors influencing and changing the function which we, also, could neither predict nor account for
In the event that she continues to get better, suddenly this wave will cease to approximate her stream activity... and there's no magical universal force stopping that from happening. Why presume otherwise?
>You essentially explained literally what I was acusing you of earlier.Because I am CORRECT to do so.
You, meanwhile, are admitting to doing the opposite - INcorrectly.
>You are looking at a small time periodYes - because that tells us how she's ACTUALLY doing NOW. And there is, in fact, no magic spell binding her to a rotated sine wave extending down into the future regardless of what all that messy, convoluted, impure "empirical reality" has to say.
>The sine wave is still tilted downYeah, anon - the one that doesn't actually exist except in your own head, has no power in physical space, and which you cannot even guarantee would still be accurate if it did
>and so when measured against any time greater than the last few months, nothing is improving. We are still on a downward trajectory.Good thing there's no reason to do so, because abstract models do not, in fact, have the bounding effect on human action that spreadsheet-worshiping stats lizard always assume they have
The Vienna Circle and its consequences were a disaster for the natural sciences... 