We are assuming that he was aiming for the holes that the first shooter made, and that he hit each one, correct? Now, it's possible that his aim was so bad that he just completely missed the target everytime, or perhaps he intentionally missed the target, or by some fluke he aimed at one hole and the bullet went through another, etc. But if we assume that he hit exactly what he was aiming for with each shot, then yes, his shooting was perfect.
If her skill had matched his, how many holes would have been in the target after she shot all of her rounds?
If her aim were perfect, and she aimed at the same point with each shot, then there would be exactly one hole and it would be exactly at the spot where she aimed. If the second shooter's aim were perfect, and he aimed at the same spot, there would still be only one hole.
If we assume that her first shot was placed perfectly, wouldn't her initial hole become her new target?
One would think so, but she's the one with the gun go she gets to decide what to aim for. :)
As the first shooter, she set the standard. Her skill affected her accuracy & her accuracy determined the precision of the session.
Unfortunately, we still seem to be using the word "precision" differently. You seem to be talking about actual spread of the shots, while I am talking about the aim itself. A shot is accurate if it hits its mark, i.e. if it hits where the shooter wants it to. This depends on the precision of the shooter's aim, but is also affected by things like the calibration of certain parts of the gun. However, if the aim is imprecise, then the shots will tend to deviate from their intended marks (one may land a bit to the right, another up and to the left, etc.), and thus be inaccurate.
At any rate, we are discussing an illustration. My claim itself is found in post 122. It is this:
Anyway, I think the analogy might be this: In science, it is meaningless to say that measurements are accurate if they are all over the place (i.e. imprecise); in logic, it is meaningless to say that a statement is accurate if it is not defined precisely. In both cases, there are ideals for both accuracy and precision, but the ideal of accuracy cannot be attained without also attaining the ideal of precision. Also, the further one deviates from the ideal of presision, the further one [necessarily] deviates from the ideal of accuracy.
Not quite correct. Each of his bullets made a hole that was connected to the hole that she had made. That's why I said, "double hole" & talked about his accuracy based on a center to center measurement. If all of the measurements were the same, then we could say that his accuracy was perfect. Making double holes prevented an assumption of a total miss of the target, so it would probably be correct to assume the near miss was intentional.
But if we assume that he hit exactly what he was aiming for with each shot, then yes, his shooting was perfect.
There'd be no reason to assume perfection without the center to center measurement, as there would be no reason to expect a variation in that was intentional.
If her aim were perfect, and she aimed at the same point with each shot, then there would be exactly one hole and it would be exactly at the spot where she aimed. If the second shooter's aim were perfect, and he aimed at the same spot, there would still be only one hole.
Each of the holes she made established a target for him. Her accuracy determined the precision of the session, but affected neither the accuracy, nor precision of any of his individual shots. However, it did impact his overall accuracy, when we are speaking in terms of the session. He hit dead center of the target no more accurately than she had. Getting accuracy within the session seems to be have less importance to him than demonstrating the precision with which he could place his shots & the accuracy of his shooting allowed him to do that.
I said, "If we assume that her first shot was placed perfectly, wouldn't her initial hole become her new target?"
One would think so, but she's the one with the gun go she gets to decide what to aim for. :)
LOL Makes me glad our posts passed in the middle of the ether & I didn't see your correction before posting additional explanation to you about the single hole scenario.
Unfortunately, we still seem to be using the word "precision" differently. You seem to be talking about actual spread of the shots, while I am talking about the aim itself.
Kind of. Precision is about replication. But, you say, he replicated all of her shots. That is true, but in doing so he failed to replicate any of his own. As far as session precision, his shots were a wash. He could have raised the session precision by increasing shot density in any location. A duplication of a single one of his shots wouldn't have changed the spread, but it would have improved the precision of the session.
A shot is accurate if it hits its mark, i.e. if it hits where the shooter wants it to. This depends on the precision of the shooter's aim, but is also affected by things like the calibration of certain parts of the gun. However, if the aim is imprecise, then the shots will tend to deviate from their intended marks (one may land a bit to the right, another up and to the left, etc.), and thus be inaccurate.
All true, but you're just throwing extra noise at me. Accounting for the throw of the weapon makes attaining accuracy & precision more difficult, but we're only dealing with the end results here.
Anyway, I think the analogy might be this: In science, it is meaningless to say that measurements are accurate if they are all over the place (i.e. imprecise);
If you're measuring a single thing & getting measurements all over the place, then yes. If you're talking about measuring many things, the precision of your standard wouldn't be knowable.
in logic, it is meaningless to say that a statement is accurate if it is not defined precisely.
Meaningless or not knowable? I'm reminded of Rumsfeld's talk about known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns & unknown unknowns.
In both cases, there are ideals for both accuracy and precision, but the ideal of accuracy cannot be attained without also attaining the ideal of precision.
Ideal is a newly introduced standard. The ideal of precision comes from replication, hitting that mark perfectly, with the more instances of hitting it raising the reliability of precision. The accuracy of something is unknowable unless tested against a precise standard, but something could be accurate without that test. You just wouldn't know how accurate it was. But, you said ideal, so a standard would be required to change your unknown known or known unknown into a known known.