|No such thing as a small change|
Comment onby gods
|on Feb 11, 2000 at 00:06 UTC||Need Help??|
Then I misunderstand what you meant by "2. radius: ie any distance within this inner radius should be pretty much as important as any other point within this radius"
To me that reads as, everything inside the circle is equally important, but as the distance outside that circle increases, the importance falls off exponentially. This was reinforced by your adding the distance to the radius in your formula.
As that does not appear to be the case, and as you new diagram does nothing to explain the relationship between 'radius' and 'distance', I think you are going to have to explain the relationships between the 4 input variables much more clearly?
For at least me. I'm sometimes quite good at reading between the lines, but with your latest information I cannot reconcile your formula, terminology, and stated goals.Ie.
Is 'distance' measured inside the circle? From the centre toward the edge? Or from the edge toward the centre?
Is 'boost' an exponential decline in 'importance' over 'distance'? As suggested by the term 'dropoff'. (It is a strange name for a decline in anything?)
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.