Do you think the equation I came up with could be correct?

[jelhanauz]

Hi everyone

 

Since I'm only just starting my second semester in Biomedicine and therefore no math expert, I thought it would be great if any of you math enthusiasts/experts could check the equation I came up with regarding the value of leisure activities is correct?

 

I wrote sort of a "paper" which explains my thought process and here is the Excel File with which one can calculate the different activities.

 

Here is a brief summary:

Let's call the activity into which hour spent time goes medium M. M can be described through 3 variables: regret r, skill s and fun f.

We can determine those variables by asking 3 questions:

1. If you find yourself at the end of your life and were able to see all your activities projected onto a wall, how much would you wish you would have done something different instead of doing this activity, 1 being “very much” and 5 “not at all”?
2. Coming back to the pleasant present, how much do you think will this activity improve any skill in your life, 1 being “not at all” and 5 “very much”?
3. And the probably easiest question, how much fun do you think you will have doing this activity, 1 being “not at all” and 5 “very much”?

Since r, s and f are not equally valuable, so the parameters a, b and c are needed. These parameters can be determined by asking:

1. a: How much is an activity you would for sure know you wouldn't regret at all (like visiting the place you most want to) worth to you? (Scale of 1 to 10; 1 "nothing", 10 "everything")
2. b: How much is participating in an activity that would only improve one specific skill in your life worth to you?
3. c: How much is an activity which only entertains you highly worth to you?

And M(r,s,f) can be described as:

M(r,s,f)=[1-(r+s+f)^-1]*log(r^a*s^b*f^c)

 

Because each person's situation is different, another term is needed. I call it the quality Q of spare time or leisure l. Each person has certain responsibilities ρ [1,10], age α [in years] (needed, because our time on earth is limited and therefore more valuable, the older we get) and free time l [h/week].

Q(l) can be described as:

Q(l)=0.1*log(0.001*ρ*α/l)

 

To differentiate a good activity from a bad one, I set the reference point at M(3,3,3).

 

M(3,3,3)=M₀=(8/9)*(a+b+c)*log(3)

 

To calculate the target value, this Term can be used:

V(t)=M*(M/M₀)^Q(l)*Δt

 

To have the reference point at 50, I multiply it with (50/M₀). And so I get finally:

 

V(t)=50*(M/M₀)^Q(l)+1*Δt

(V(t): [vh], "Valenzstunde" or valence hour; Δt: [h], time spent)

Example:

Person X, or me, if you want: With responsibility=3.5; age=20; l=23; a=9.9; b=6.4; c=4.8

• Watching television=(1,1,5)=10.8 vh per hour
• Gaming=(1,2,5)=20.5 vh per hour
• Reading Harry Potter =(4,2,5)=59.8
• Going for a run=(5,5,2)=72.3 vh per hour
• Travelling=(5,5,5)=89.4 vh per hour

 

Person Y: responsibility=8.5; age=40; l=10

• Watching television=(1,1,5)=9.6 vh per hour
• Travelling=(5,5,5)=93.5 vh per hour

 

I'd appreciate any kind of feedback.

Kaminaji

Edited February 2, 2016 by Kaminaji

[Prometheus]

At a quick glance it looks interesting - but i couldn't get past the irony of reading about wasting time while procrastinating from my own work.

 

Hopefully i'll get time to take a closer look, but i would say that it might be more prudent to ask whether your model is useful rather than correct. It's my experience that these types of models don't represent some fundamental aspect of reality (as do many models in physics), but just try to usefully capture some aspect of our world.

[jelhanauz]

Hopefully i'll get time to take a closer look, but i would say that it might be more prudent to ask whether your model is useful rather than correct. It's my experience that these types of models don't represent some fundamental aspect of reality (as do many models in physics), but just try to usefully capture some aspect of our world.

 

Well my goal is it to implement this Idea with the help of my friend into an application and develop a point system, in order to get a better visualization of how we are doing in a period of time. But thanks for the response!

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I have posted rule 2.7 below, with the especially relevant part bolded.

 

Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned.

 

So could you post a summary here - cos at present members have to click a link that they might not want to in order to take part in any discussion

 

[jelhanauz]

So could you post a summary here - cos at present members have to click a link that they might not want to in order to take part in any discussion

 

I hope my brief summary is sufficient enough. If anyone has any questions regarding my thought process, I will be more than happy to explain it.

[jelhanauz]

If I'm not mistaking, the parameters a, b and c are getting canceled out because I set the reference point to 50. But if I leave that part out, I don't get values as good as before. Like Person X get's for (1,1,2) a value of 0.5vh and for (5,5,5) a value of 16.0vh.

So I guess I will have to just multiply the value by 10, in order to get a bit more informative numbers.

 

Also I feel like 1/5 of Q(l) corresponds more to the reality than 1/10.

 

Q(l)=(1/5)*log(1000*ρ*α/l)

V(t)=10*M*(M/M₀)^Q(l)*Δt