[WR] Feliks Zemdegs 4.73 3x3 single

[stoic]

a contest of who can flap their hands up and down the fastest

Sounds cool, wanna race?

 

[zipper]

Slow Motion Footage of 3x3 Single World Record
Feliks Zemdegs recently broke the 3x3 Single World Record with a time of 4.73 seconds, just barely beating Mats by 0.01 seconds. Congrats to Feliks Zemdegs!!

Mats clapped his hands 24 times

 

[pipkiksass]

Mats clapped his hands 24 times

Beating Feliks previous record by just 7 hundredths of a clap.

Perhaps he was warming up for the new flapping hands up and down event?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wir3sandfir3s]

Not expected whatsoever
No sarcasm whatsoever

 

[wir3sandfir3s]

View attachment 7249

This is more liked than the actual post

 

[KraftDamus]

Its legit

 

[biscuit]

What I got out of this. "Mats has a White Jacket?"

 

[paideiandy]

Still, a side by side video would be awesome.

 

[asacuber]

just use miiliseconds. PROBLEM SOLVED

 

[Sajwo]

So Feliks beats Mats by 0.007 seconds, within the error of the capacitive touch sensor. Wanna know who really solved faster? Cameras are the most accurate timing devices, if run at high frame rate. This is why the IAAF will resolve 'dead-heats' in track and field with the actual video of the race and the electronic time of the race is corrected every race by the timing extracted manually by the video. So, someone with good video editing skills should just create a video with both solves side by side starting from the moment they remove their fingers from the stackmat. However the frame rate needs to be faster than the victory margin. Margin is 0.007 seconds, 1/0.007 = 142, so technically you would need 142 frames per second to distinguish the victor. This is even beyond the 120fps limit of most fast cameras. Which only further shows that the victory margin is even less than 1 frame at 120fps and questionable. Still, a side by side video would be awesome.

Actually it doesn't matter who was really faster. Stackmat is what we use is competitive speedcubing and even if it's not 100% precise, we must accept it as it is now

http://imgur.com/a/2q9vJ - Feliks was faster btw

 

[TheSilverBeluga]

Mats did 4.744 +/- 0.01 = 4.734 to 4.754
Felix did 4.737 +/- 0.01 = 4.727 to 4.747

The problem with this logic is that you're assuming that the listed times are in the center of the possible margin of error. It's entirely possible that Mats' solve was 4.735 +/- 0.01 = 4.725 to 4.745 while Feliks' solve was 4.746 +/- 0.01 = 4.736 to 4.756, and we got the times we did because of that +/- 0.01 margin of error. I'm not saying this is actually what happened, I'm just saying it's possible.

Anyway, huge congrats to Feliks. You definitely deserved this.

 

[Dash Lambda]

The problem with this logic is that you're assuming that the listed times are in the center of the possible margin of error. It's entirely possible that Mats' solve was 4.735 +/- 0.01 = 4.725 to 4.745 while Feliks' solve was 4.746 +/- 0.01 = 4.736 to 4.756, and we got the times we did because of that +/- 0.01 margin of error. I'm not saying this is actually what happened, I'm just saying it's possible.

Anyway, huge congrats to Feliks. You definitely deserved this.

That's not exactly how error works. The confidence interval of radius r is by definition centered at the measured value x with boundaries r units above and below x, meaning the real value is within the range [x-r, x+r].

 

[TheSilverBeluga]

That's not exactly how error works. The confidence interval of radius r is by definition centered at the measured value x with boundaries r units above and below x, meaning the real value is within the range [x-r, x+r].

I suppose the difference between our arguments is that I'm talking about what the timer could have displayed, and you're talking about what the time could have been. When you're talking about what the timer could have displayed, you have the +/- 0.01 margin of error of what the time actually was, and then another +/-0.01 margin of error of what it could have displayed. The numbers I gave in my previous post was an example where the first error was +0.009 for Mats and -0.009 for Feliks. It could just have easily been the other way around, resulting in 4.728 +/- 0.01 for Feliks and 4.753 +/- 0.01 for Mats.

 

[Tony Fisher]

Like in the 100m dash in track and field, less than a certain margin is considered a tie.

That's incorrect. You can win a 100m race by one thousandth though the same 2 decimal place time will be displayed in the results.

 

[Dom]

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist

https://shop.spreadshirt.co.uk/lastlayer

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/speedcubing-t-shirts.62733/page-2

I just about died laughing

 

[Dash Lambda]

I suppose the difference between our arguments is that I'm talking about what the timer could have displayed, and you're talking about what the time could have been. When you're talking about what the timer could have displayed, you have the +/- 0.01 margin of error of what the time actually was, and then another +/-0.01 margin of error of what it could have displayed. The numbers I gave in my previous post was an example where the first error was +0.009 for Mats and -0.009 for Feliks. It could just have easily been the other way around, resulting in 4.728 +/- 0.01 for Feliks and 4.753 +/- 0.01 for Mats.

Are you saying there can be an error in the real value?
The timer is digital, so there can't be an error between the measured value and the displayed value, meaning the error in the timer is only in measurement. I must be misunderstanding you, because to me it sounds like you're saying the actual time can be different from the actual time.

 

[TheSilverBeluga]

Are you saying there can be an error in the real value?
The timer is digital, so there can't be an error between the measured value and the displayed value, meaning the error in the timer is only in measurement. I must be misunderstanding you, because to me it sounds like you're saying the actual time can be different from the actual time.

Let's use different numbers than the actual times to make things less confusing.
Suppose Feliks' solve had been MEASURED as 4.009 seconds. Assuming the +/-0.01 margin of error we have been, the ACTUAL time could be anywhere from 3.999 to 4.019 seconds. Let's say it was 4.000 seconds. In this case, the MEASURED time could have been between 3.990 and 4.010 seconds.
Applying the same logic to Feliks' time, which is 4.737, the MEASURED time could have been between any number from 4.717 to 4.737 and any number from 4.737 to 4.757, but with a bias towards the averages.
It makes more sense like this:
L < t < U, where 4.717 < L < 4.737 and 4.737 < U < 4.757, and t is the possible MEASURED time.

 

[Dash Lambda]

Let's use different numbers than the actual times to make things less confusing.
Suppose Feliks' solve had been MEASURED as 4.009 seconds. Assuming the +/-0.01 margin of error we have been, the ACTUAL time could be anywhere from 3.999 to 4.019 seconds. Let's say it was 4.000 seconds. In this case, the MEASURED time could have been between 3.990 and 4.010 seconds.
Applying the same logic to Feliks' time, which is 4.737, the MEASURED time could have been between any number from 4.717 to 4.737 and any number from 4.737 to 4.757, but with a bias towards the averages.
It makes more sense like this:
L < t < U, where 4.717 < L < 4.737 and 4.737 < U < 4.757, and t is the possible MEASURED time.

Ah, now I get what you're saying.
But, again, that's not exactly how error works. There's one radius and the two values (measured and actual) have to be within that distance of each other, otherwise that's not the error. If Feliks's time were in fact 4.717, then the error would have to be at least +/-.02.

 

[TheSilverBeluga]

Ah, now I get what you're saying.
But, again, that's not exactly how error works. There's one radius and the two values (measured and actual) have to be within that distance of each other, otherwise that's not the error. If Feliks's time were in fact 4.717, then the error would have to be at least +/-.02.

That's true, but Feliks' time could not have been 4.717, only his MEASURED time.

 

[Dash Lambda]

That's true, but Feliks's time could not have been 4.717, only his MEASURED time.

I was about to say that's not relevant, but then I looked back at what you originally replied to.
So yeah, you're right, I was arguing a different matter entirely.