My Hasse diagram done better
Almost four years ago I had a silly idea, and used Graphviz to generate a Hasse diagram of the 2008 Olympic medal table, under the partial order with which any sensible ranking of medal counts (irrespective of the country producing them) must agree no matter what relative importance it assigns to gold, silver and bronze.
I had an email from the New York Times a few weeks ago, saying that they were planning to pick up my idea and do the same thing this year. All they wanted to know was how to credit me accurately, but I mentioned to several friends a sneaking suspicion –
Apparently I greatly underestimated them. I've just checked my web logs and found this page: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/07/sports/olympics/the-best-and-worst-countries-in-the-medal-count.html. Not only did they have no trouble at all repeating my analysis, but they've managed to automate it on a web page so conveniently that they're able to drop in new data sets effortlessly –
no subject
Addendum: we can drop 'presumably', since I've now seen it do so.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
My brother's brother-in-law works on the NYT web team, from what he says they seem like quite hi-tech within the industry, quite interested in developing new technologies rather than just keeping the website ticking over, so their competence with this doesn't surprise me entirely.
no subject
no subject
It's always nice to see American journalists treat people properly. It reminds is that in Britain the Mail would probably have stolen it, got the maths wrong, say the law doesn't apply to them and then threatened any complainant with a smear campaign of dubious veracity. Continental journalists can be quite respectable too, but in a different way. American print journalists always get the details right but sometimes paint the wrong picture, continental print journalists are better at big pictures, but a bit smudgy. British print journalists (and, it seems, the CPS) seem mainly to be wearing dirty macs and sniffing around the bins for discarded polaroids.
Interestingly, in the IOC's charter it is explicitly prohibited from producing medal tables by country as the Olympics "is" a competition between individual athletes (boggle).
Chapter 1, Section 6:
The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries
Chapter 5, Section 58:
The IOC and the OCOG shall not draw up any global ranking per country. A roll of honour bearing the names of medal winners and those awarded diplomas in each event shall be established by the OCOG and the names of the medal winners shall be featured prominently and be on permanent display in the main stadium.
In light of this, I think we need to also consider a rejection of the validity of the addition operation (as each individual is a "different unit"). The only reasonable way to do that, I think, is to draw up a nullary medal table where all "moves" on medal counts are equally invalid (and so valid) and so every country is incomparable (and so comparable) to every other, (and so every medal scores zero).
So I think there's also a trivial reasonable medal table in which all countries are better than all others (including ones which they are worse than) or equivalently no country is comparable to any other (I suspect some countries are not comparable to themselves, but that's another problem!).
The New York Times could have a button where everything either collapses to a dot or else flies away to infinity.
:-)
no subject
Still, the diagram is nifty, as is the fact that the NYT picked it up and credited Simon!
no subject
no subject
no subject
Addendum: we can drop 'presumably', since I've now seen it do so.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The adjusting for population one is very funny though - I like the strategy of 'win one gold medal, have very few people' adopted by Grenada!
no subject
no subject