You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

faul_sname comments on Evaluating Multiple Metrics (where not all are required) - Less Wrong Discussion

-3 Post author: imbatman 20 February 2012 07:38PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (16)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: faul_sname 20 February 2012 08:31:56PM *  1 point [-]

Here are some possible definitions you might consider using.

Class: A concentration of unusually high probability density in Thingspace.

Type: A subclass. An even denser area of thingspace or conceptspace within a cluster of things.

Metric: a scale you use to measure a single trait of something. In humans, that could be height, weight, hair color, etc. In order to be useful, a metric must give you further information about that thing as opposed to other things in its class/type (there must be significantly more variability along that dimension than others, in terms of thingspace).

In regards to the article itself, it highlights the difficulty of projecting a multidimensional space (with the number of dimensions equal to the number of metrics you're using) and a complex distribution of "goodness" within that space to a single dimension of goodness with minimal complexity and minimal loss of information.