Basejumper.com - archive

Unless there's a race to 2000 like there was for 1000, sometime around October of this year I reckon...

Interesting graph.

Can you explain the equation pls?

It's the equation the Excel creates for the (polynomial) trendline. You should be able to plug in values for x (numbers) for answer y (date) (or is it vice versa?)

I failed at that and just added an extra line into the data, for 2000 with gradually increasing dates until it looked roughly the same sport as the extrapolated trendline. That date was 1st October

To the dick in Switzerland who thought it would be interesting to enter number 2000 and 5000; you're not helping.

I received 1210 in November of '07. Your graph is a little off (by about a year), if that helps.

I suppose it was my eyes that were a little off.

Erm, no?

And the one in San Juan Capistrano who added 9999.

I forgot I put mine on here. I don't keep a log book these days so it's nice to remind myself when it was.

Thanks mate, I can read that unlike the one in your link which I can never get to display with letters big enough to be legible.

On a related topic, while I wouldn't expect any empirical data, is there anything around that might estimate the number of base jumps done per year?

it is a polynomial function, with a scatter diagram graph. were learning this shit in precalculus right now, and im truly NOT enjoying it.

This may very well end up being how the numbers end up. But just fitting an equation to the data you have is not a very scientific way of figuring it out. You basically have the answer and are formulating your own question to match it. Using this method, for example, in the stock market, would likely lead to heavy losses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrics

Fitting equations to real-world data is indeed a science. Trying to find trends in financial markets is one of its primary applications.

I'm familiar with some basics of econometrics, but given that your occupation is "Finance", I'd wager you know more about it than I do. I was under the impression that just coming up with a polynomial and arbitrarily changing the numbers to just give you a good R^2 value would lead to an unrealistic picture of the future.

I haven't looked at the spreadsheet. I was just replying to your general statement about his process. That said, what you're describing is the gist of econometric work.

You basically come up with a polynomial function using the variables that you think are impacting the data points. The problem is, you don't know exactly how to weight each of the variables to best fit them to the trend line.

So you'd have something like this:

.25(A) + .25(B) + .25(C) + .25(D) = Y

Where A, B, C, and D all represent the relevant variables. Your weightings (in this case evenly weighted at .25 each) can be adjusted to best fit the data and, theoretically, create hypothetical data points which should fit the incoming future data.

That said, prognostication is a tough business and most of the time reality will deviate from our nice, clean, trend lines.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or shitty, for what it's worth. You seem to be a pretty bright kid. I was a young genius in college too once, ya know.

*Edited for grammar.

BASE numbers can do down as well as up?!

I hadn't noticed that the axes had become illegible. I'll try and take a look.

Sure, if too many jumpers start taking out loans on their ultra lite, multi bridle, deluxe stainless steel w/ spacer foam rigs, and the banks sell those loans to skydivers, then they can leverage the cost of the loans against the price of tea in Japan, reducing the amount of BASE numbers...that makes sense right?

I don't think it's beyond reason that YouTube has become so saturated with wingsuit footage that the rate of entry into the sport could slow down. However, I can see how other factors, such as the increasing availability of FJCs and the increasing availability of gear could turn it in the other direction.

As for the econometrics bit, I suppose it is scientific after all. But I don't think there is a lot of value behind the way these particular weightings were done (if I correctly understand that part). I have more than a few colleagues who would break out in laughter if they heard me called a young genius.

BASE numbers can't go down, it's a membership #, not a count of active BASE jumpers.

What can go up and down is the "arrival rate". While a more logically appropriate model would be in the form of e^rt, a polynomial of second order can be used to approximate the "ideal" model.

further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series

*bump

Anyone get it yet? I'm guessing we surpassed it a couple of weeks ago.

What say ye, O keepers of the numbers?

Are you talking to me or Rick/Joy?

A friend of mine got 1958 a couple of weeks ago but she hasn't put it on my site yet.

I know 1962 was issued in August so I'm guessing sometime early next year. I thought I read there was an average of 6-7 per month but I could be mistaken.

Just received word of 1973 and here we are in October. Come on, don't make we wrong!