[RocketManJames]

So, let's say that in a given event/task/whatever you can be ranked as Nth best in the world. So, someone who is the #1 best tennis player in the world would get 1 point in Tennis. Someone who is the 458,555th best in the world would get 458,555 points.

Now, if you were allowed to customize a set of events/skills/whatever, how many different ones would you need so that you would be the best at this particular customized mix? Sum the points, and lowest number of points wins.

Anyone who is #1 at anything would automatically need only 1 event. But, someone who is very very good at something, would need to attach more events that he's pretty good at, in order to become the best at the combined set of events.

For example, say you are #100 in the world at tennis. But, you happen to be the 10,000th best chess player in the world. It is now very likely that you are #1 in the world for the [Tennis, Chess] combination.

Also, say knowledge of certain things can also be considered events. Like, someone's list of events could be [poker, backgammon, curling, speed reading while hopping on left leg to the beat music, knowledge of French Literature, hot-dog eating given 12 minutes and 22 seconds]. Maybe this particular set of events maps to (in points/rankings): [40,000; 250,000; 800,000; 10,232,230, 280,000,000, 500,000]. The total score for the set of events would be the sum. So then everyone in the world would also have some summed score for this set of events. The lowest score would designate who was #1 for this set.

How many different 'events' would you think you'd need to be #1? I would guess that most people would eventually become #1 if they were allowed to tack on more and more events. But, it's clear that some would never be able achieve #1 status no matter what combination.

I'm guessing I could maybe be #1 given 40 events... though, I have no idea what these events would be.

-RMJ