Hot under the collar about 'exponential'

I read an article about how well the Greens did in the local elections recently and got a bit narked. It wasn't about the main thrust of the article (though I'm doubtful how much council election gains for a small party mean in terms of general elections), but rather as a result of a distinctly painful use of the word 'exponential'.

In his article, Peter Franklin says 'the Greens grew exponentially — doubling their council seats from 240 to 481'. There are two problems with this. One is you can't tell if growth is exponential from two data points. And the other is that exponential growth does not mean large growth, as seems to be thought here.

For something to grow exponentially, each data point (often with this kind of data, separated over a time period such as a week, month, year or as here election period) has to be related to the original value by the exponent of the number of data points. That sounds far more complicated than it really is. If you have N data points then the Nth value should be around x^N, where x is bigger than 1.

A classic example is exponential doubling, where x is 2. In that case, after one time period, the result is twice as much as the original value, after two time periods it's four times the initial value and so on. And yes, if Green councillor growth was to continue to double after the next election we could say there was exponential growth - but not from one election.

Note also that x can be, say 1.005. If there were exponential growth like this, the Green councillor count would go from 240 to 241 in the first time period. That could still be exponential, though we wouldn't know until several time periods had passed.

You might think that this is quibbling about word use, rather like moaning that 'decimation' does not refer to a large reduction, but to a one in ten reduction, as it originally did when the Romans were in the habit of killing off one in ten as a punishment. But decimation isn't a scientific term. Exponential is, and it's a very useful term that shouldn't be diluted.

Journalists, please don't mangle it.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog