I had to standardize a range of numbers to a scale from 0 to 1. The end result is interpreted in the new range as higher the number in new scale is positive (0.9 is better than 0.5). How is it possible to rearrange the formula so that the scale can be reversed, that is lower number in the scale is positive?
2026-04-22 11:04:56.1776855896
Reverse scaling
1.4k Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in ALGEBRA-PRECALCULUS
- How to show that $k < m_1+2$?
- What are the functions satisfying $f\left(2\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{a_i}{3^i}\right)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{a_i}{2^i}$
- Finding the value of cot 142.5°
- Why is the following $\frac{3^n}{3^{n+1}}$ equal to $\frac{1}{3}$?
- Extracting the S from formula
- Using trigonometric identities to simply the following expression $\tan\frac{\pi}{5} + 2\tan\frac{2\pi}{5}+ 4\cot\frac{4\pi}{5}=\cot\frac{\pi}{5}$
- Solving an equation involving binomial coefficients
- Is division inherently the last operation when using fraction notation or is the order of operation always PEMDAS?
- How is $\frac{\left(2\left(n+1\right)\right)!}{\left(n+1\right)!}\cdot \frac{n!}{\left(2n\right)!}$ simplified like that?
- How to solve algebraic equation
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
Let the old numbers be $x_1, x_2, x_3 \dots x_n$. If you want to scale them so that the smallest number becomes $0$ and the largest becomes $1$, the new numbers are $y_1, y_2, \dots y_n$, where $$ y_k = \frac{x_k - x_{\text{min}}}{x_{\text{max}} - x_{\text{min}}}, \qquad k = 1, 2, 3 \dots ,n $$ where $x_{\text{min}}$ is the smallest number in the original set and $x_{\text{max}}$ is the largest number in the original set. You can see easily that now $0 \leq y_k \leq 1 $. If you want to turn it upside down, so that the smallest number in the original set corresponds to $1$ and the largest corresponds to $0$, you just have to take one minus the previous result, or $$ y_k = 1 - \frac{x_k - x_{\text{min}}}{x_{\text{max}}- x_{\text{min}}} $$