Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
blog:giocoso_random_music_selection_logic_bomb [2026/03/25 09:17] – hjrblog:giocoso_random_music_selection_logic_bomb [2026/03/25 09:18] (current) – hjr
Line 16: Line 16:
 Except there was one //other// requirement which makes things even worse: from the possible play candidates, play only one. The way Giocoso did that was to say “where rank = 1”… and I hope you can see that I won’t be playing //anything// by Benjamin Britten, because his ‘rank=1’ item is one of the forbidden recordings (forbidden by its long duration). The Cello Symphony //could// be played on duration grounds, but because it was **already** assigned a rank of ‘3’, the ‘rank=1’ selection test renders it ineligible for play. Except there was one //other// requirement which makes things even worse: from the possible play candidates, play only one. The way Giocoso did that was to say “where rank = 1”… and I hope you can see that I won’t be playing //anything// by Benjamin Britten, because his ‘rank=1’ item is one of the forbidden recordings (forbidden by its long duration). The Cello Symphony //could// be played on duration grounds, but because it was **already** assigned a rank of ‘3’, the ‘rank=1’ selection test renders it ineligible for play.
  
-This is how Giocoso has been selecting music for a long while now… and it’s logically flawed. It certainly “worked” with a sufficiently large music collection with sufficiently high numbers of different composers and with sufficiently lax duration requirements: but it ranked first and filtered second… and doing things that way round means that lots of **eligible** recordings (say, Britten’s //Cello Symphony// or //Violin Concerto// from the above example) would **not** get selected, because they happened to be assigned the wrong, not-1, ranking number first.+This is how Giocoso has been selecting music for a long while now… and it’s logically flawed. It certainly “worked” with a sufficiently large music collection with sufficiently high numbers of different composers and with sufficiently lax duration requirements: but it ranked first and filtered second… and doing things that way round means that lots of **eligible** recordings (say, Britten’s //Cello Symphony// or //Violin Concerto// from the above example) would **not** get selected, because they happened to be assigned the wrong, not-1, ranking number early on.
  
 The logically correct way of doing things is to filter first and rank second. If I had done that, I would have struck out all the red items in the last table for duration reasons and that would have left this selection of three candidate recordings: The logically correct way of doing things is to filter first and rank second. If I had done that, I would have struck out all the red items in the last table for duration reasons and that would have left this selection of three candidate recordings:
  • blog/giocoso_random_music_selection_logic_bomb.txt
  • Last modified: 2026/03/25 09:18
  • by hjr