Skip to main content

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 xN, 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

Popular posts from this blog

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 recent 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 ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope