Ranked #1 in [customized salmagundi]

RocketManJames · #1 05-22-2005, 12:47 AM

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

CallMeIshmael · #2 05-22-2005, 12:54 AM

I like this problem a lot.

But... a big loop hole is specification.

You could come up with one set, or AT MAX 2 sets, that would rank you #1 if you let us get picky.

RocketManJames · #3 05-22-2005, 12:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I like this problem a lot.

But... a big loop hole is specification.

You could come up with one set, or AT MAX 2 sets, that would rank you #1 if you let us get picky.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate? I think that this is an interesting subject... and I thought about it quite a bit after a night out drinking.

Also, I'm not asking how many sets you could come up with that you'd be #1 at. I just want to know the minimum number of elements in a set of events that would have you ranked as #1.

-RMJ

New001 · #4 05-22-2005, 01:00 AM

I think what he means is... I could be #1 at "Hopping on one foot while reciting the Magna Carta and playing poker with my eyes closed in a minefield." Which I might be. But if they're restricted to somewhat normal, doable activities, it'll take a few different things.

But this is cool, I could probably get it with roughly 6-8 of them if they're fairly normal activities.

CallMeIshmael · #5 05-22-2005, 01:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Care to elaborate? I think that this is an interesting subject... and I thought about it quite a bit after a night out drinking.

Also, I'm not asking how many sets you could come up with that you'd be #1 at. I just want to know the minimum number of elements in a set of events that would have you ranked as #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

The set of:

1) Cornell University Bio Majors
2) The winrates of poker players who use an XBox gamepad to control their play.

With 99.999999999% confidence, I am #1.

EDIT: I need to say: the GPA of Cornell Bio majors, as there needs to be a ranking of some sort within the set.

CallMeIshmael · #6 05-22-2005, 01:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Hopping on one foot while reciting the Magna Carta and playing poker with my eyes closed in a minefield."

[/ QUOTE ]

Im pretty sure you were just giving an example... but, if you werent, I see no reason to conclude you are #1 ranked for that set.

RocketManJames · #7 05-22-2005, 01:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The set of:

1) Cornell University Bio Majors
2) The winrates of poker players who use an XBox gamepad to control their play.

With 99.999999999% confidence, I am #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well #1 isn't an event. And, if you were put into a contest with EVERYONE in the world, and made them all play poker with an XBox controller, I no longer think you'd be ranked that high. What about giving Phil Ivey a chance at playing poker with your controller, and see if he bests your winrate, for example. Just because no one has tried something before doesn't mean that they'd be ranked poorly. I'm assuming some Absolute Truth with respect to ranking an individual at a specific moment in time. Like, if at THIS INSTANT I was told to race a horse, I don't think I'd be the worst at it in the world despite never having been on a horse.

But, I agree that specification is the loophole. What if, as the other poster suggested, we used more "normal" events. Hot dog eating given a specific time frame would be allowed, as would long-distance running vs short-distance.

-RMJ

New001 · #8 05-22-2005, 01:31 AM

You clearly haven't seen me in action, then.

But yeah, it was just an example of a highly specialized, meaningless act. Your example was better.

mmbt0ne · #9 05-22-2005, 01:32 AM

Alright, I'll give it a shot...

Paintball (speedball/airball, not scenario/rec)
Stringing a tennis racket
Longest drive

I think those 3 would certainly do it. I'm mostly worried about getting the paintball players ahead of me out since it's probably the smallest subset. I can't see many of them being able to string tennis rackets period, let alone at the rate I can. Assuming that somewhere out there someone can do that, I think I can outdrive them. I'm not a monster off the tee, but I could get 320 or so, which should be good against almost 100$ of paintball players anyway. I'm not even that strong, just tall and thin so I can get enough club head speed to do some damage assuming I actually make good contact.

TimM · #10 05-22-2005, 01:45 AM

[chess, bowling, limit hold'em]?

According to FIDE my world chess rank is 9226. But this is misleading as there must be many players better than me who do not get the chance to play in FIDE rated events.

I have no way of knowing my rank at bowling or limit hold'em. Neither will be terribly good, but how many do all three? I would also have to come out of bowling retirement to use it.