For unrealeted reasons I prefer to do calclations using the inverse of numbers, but the original setting of such on the non-inverse.
For Example..
Two Numbers 2 & 5, the point betwwen these numbers I require is 3.20. This being 40% of the difference beteween the two numbers plus the lower figure (5-2)*0.40+2.
So with the inverse :- 2 [0.50] 5 [0.20]. 0.50-((0.50-0.20)*0.40) =0.38 : I had expected that 1/0.38 would yield 3.2 and not 2.63?
Its got to be something basic - but its doing my head in.
Thanks for your input Captain Black, doubtless through my lack of clarity I'm not sure how the geometric mean is can be applied for a solution.
Put simply I wish to harmonise to 2 sets of formuli, one based on inverse values.
The inverse of 2 = 1/2 =0.50; the inverse of 5 =1/5= 0.20;
The mid point between 2 and 5 [50% Of Difference + 2] (5-2)*50/100+2 =3.5;
The mid point between the inverted values 0.50-(0.50-0.20)*50/100 =0.35
What I fail to see (what was it about stupidity being infinate) is how 0.50 relates to 2 and 0.20 relates to 5 but 0.35 does not relate to 3.5 (1/0.35 =2.85..). And what I must do to make it so.
"Why would you even expect those to be the same (or reciprocals)?"
Because I expect linear points over 1 to be reflected as linear points as inverse values.
"It looks like you need to go back and repeat arithmetic and (pre?)algebra."
Perhaps I should! And perhaps you should should refrain from issuing snide remarks on points raised you consider beneath you. You may more appreciated replying to quiries on quantum mechanics rather than this section of the forum.