Difference between revisions of "Talk:1124: Law of Drama"
Noni Mausa (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:I think that may be it. Care to add it to the page? [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 11:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | :I think that may be it. Care to add it to the page? [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 11:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I think that the upper limit for drama statements does indeed have an end-point, beyond which those declarations can't increase. At that point, I suppose, the drama-ridden person experiences a split state-change, either dropping to the original non-drama state by disavowing all the causers-of-drama in their lives, or by becoming a causer-of-drama.--[[User:Noni Mausa|Noni Mausa]] ([[User talk:Noni Mausa|talk]]) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:11, 22 October 2012
Regarding the transcript: I don't think you have enough data to characterize this short curve as exponential. What does "slightly exponential" mean, anyway? In any case, it looks like it becomes linear as the x values increase. --Prooffreader (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I think Randall thought about the shape of this curve. You see how it becomes linear as both drama and anti-drama declaration increase? At low values, there is a residual amount of drama even when there is little anti-drama declaration, but the marginal increase eventually becomes constant. --Prooffreader (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the upper limit for drama statements does indeed have an end-point, beyond which those declarations can't increase. At that point, I suppose, the drama-ridden person experiences a split state-change, either dropping to the original non-drama state by disavowing all the causers-of-drama in their lives, or by becoming a causer-of-drama.--Noni Mausa (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
