Yes I am a first time posting wanderer. But I really need some help.
I'm a programmer and I designed a report for monitoring a set of alarms with boolean values(true/false). I know basic math, and I've stuck to the "divide anomoly by total = probability". But I think this equation requires more variables than that. Like I said...i know very very basic math.
These alarms activate down to a millisecond of the boolean change and store within a historical database, and stand until cleared back to the original position. Let's say 0 false, 1 true. - 1 is good, so 0 is bad.
I'm not being simplistic to insult anybody, I just really want to make this clear for anyone reading it.
Alright so here is how the program proceeds.
I have 3 months worth of data, with my majority of wanted data needing to be in the 1 boolean position. BUT calculating and extracting millisecond by millisecond of data within the database is impossible(atleast processor time extensive), not to mention on a larger scale, this would make monitoring 2000 other alarms inconceivable!(princess bride ).
So, I pulled back the algorithm to only extract a minute by minute basis of the data from within the database. The algorithm then looks at the closest minute and rounds up the seconds/milliseconds to the next minute. (13:13:13.124 = 13:13:00);
Alright, now I've got a minute by minute record of the boolean values for 3 months worth of data, I totalled the minutes for the 3 month periods, and scanned the data log for the initiation and exit of the false variable. Like this:
9:01 - true
9:02 - false (anomoly minutes + 1)
9:03 - false (anomoly minutes + 1)
9:04 - false (anomoly minutes + 1)
9:05 - false (anomoly minutes + 1)
9:06 - true (anomoly minutes + 1) - To display that the alarm technically had a minute extra of false status.
Alright, so I take the anomoly minutes (AM) by the total minutes (TM) and get the probability(P). AM/TM = P And here's the problem....every single time, the value is >= 96.4%.
By pulling back time to hours or half hours I sacrifice authenticity and rational data. But I also look like my report spits out this 96.4 percentage status as an overactive programmable tourettes syndrome.
Am I approaching this problem in the wrong directional, completely not noticing some variable? Some step I completely missed?
I appreciate any help you can give me and thanks for sticking through this painful act of crappy mathematical equations.
And finally, nice to meet you!