Glen The Udderboat
Reputation
1,445
Top tag
Next privilege 2,000 Rep.
 Feb 10 awarded Favorite Question Jan 17 answered Unusual mathematical terms Jan 10 awarded Yearling Sep 30 awarded Explainer Jul 15 comment “I have found a dead body on my car.” Jul 15 comment Poker blind interest equation $(4300/50)^{(1/9)}-1=0.6403\dots$ Jul 2 awarded Curious May 14 accepted Is a log-normal distribution uniquely determined by its moments or not? May 14 asked Is a log-normal distribution uniquely determined by its moments or not? May 14 comment How does one 'correct' a table that doesn't add up to $100\%$? I could do that, but I must admit that I'm not very familiar with centroids, hypercubes and hyperplanes. That way it might become obvious that I don't know much at all. :) I thought that the question as such must have been thought of by many people. For example those making graphs and pie charts and such. May 13 revised How does one 'correct' a table that doesn't add up to $100\%$? added 279 characters in body May 13 comment How does one 'correct' a table that doesn't add up to $100\%$? @EmmadKareem Because if the error would be $-1\%$, some $\text{E}(y_i)$s (e.g. those belonging to $x_i=0$) could become less than zero. That indicates that that procedure cannot be right. May 13 comment How does one 'correct' a table that doesn't add up to $100\%$? Thank you. The first paragraph, I think, captures my problem. However, the problem is that the symmetry (as mentioned in your second paragraph) applies only to numbers from $1$ through $99$. $0$ and $100$ are different. And in the tables that I have to work with, there are $0$s (as mentioned in the question). :( May 13 revised How does one 'correct' a table that doesn't add up to $100\%$? added 260 characters in body May 13 comment How does one 'correct' a table that doesn't add up to $100\%$? For example take $10\%$, $80\%$ and $11\%$. Total $101\%$. Just scaling those down would obviously yield $100\%$. But $80\%\cdot 100/101=79.2079\ldots$ will now round to $79\%$ instead of $80\%$. So, this cannot be right. May 13 comment How does one 'correct' a table that doesn't add up to $100\%$? Yes, but I think that in some cases that $\text{E}(y_i)$ won't round to $x_i$ anymore. That's why I came up with the explicit prior distribution. May 13 revised How does one 'correct' a table that doesn't add up to $100\%$? added 67 characters in body May 13 revised How does one 'correct' a table that doesn't add up to $100\%$? added 58 characters in body May 13 revised How does one 'correct' a table that doesn't add up to $100\%$? edited tags May 13 comment How does one 'correct' a table that doesn't add up to $100\%$? @RossMillikan I'm fully aware that any $y$s don't change the $x$s. I'm only interested in reasonable estimates of the $y$s. The $x$s stay exactly what they were.