5 ms·
If you want to be precise, what I meant was that there is no level of exposure in the first n samples so great that the geoemetric mean of n+1 samples is certai
by nfw2 5y ago
If you want to be precise, what I meant was that there is no level of exposure in the first n samples so great that the geoemetric mean of n+1 samples is certain to be over any arbitrary value X
This is not true of arithmetic mean. If you have 9 samples with value 10, then the arithmetic mean of 9 samples plus one more is certainly at least 9.
- BeetleB 5y agoIgnoring the context, and speaking only to the math, the two examples you give are not analogous. In a geometric mean, picking a number below 1 is the equivalent of picking a negative number in the arithmetic mean. The multiplicative identity is 1, and the additive identity is 0. Going below 1 for the geometric mean is like going below 0 in the arithmetic mean. So mathematically, you do not have a guarantee with the arithmetic mean either. Of course, in your case, the numbers aren't allowed to be negative. Either approach you take, there is some "contextual" bias going on.
- nfw2 5y agoWhy is it helpful to ignore the context? My examples clearly state I am making statements in the context of taking exposure samples