Originally Posted by
jefferee
. . .
A cyclist has an Eddington number of
E if (s)he has cycled
at least E miles on
E different days.
[STRIKE]and has never cycled more than E miles on any other day.[/STRIKE]* You count the highest value of E for which this is true--i.e., if you have done 65 rides of at least 65 miles, but not 66 rides of 66 miles, your E is 65.
Here's another definition from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Stanley_Eddington
"Eddington number (cycling)
Eddington is credited with devising a measure of a cyclist's long distance riding achievements. The Eddington Number in this context is defined as E, the number of days a cyclist has cycled more than E miles[5][6]. For example an Eddington Number of 70 would imply that a cyclist has cycled more than 70 miles in a day on 70 occasions. Achieving a high Eddington number is difficult since moving from, say, 70 to 75 will probably require more than five new long distance rides since any rides shorter than 75 miles will no longer be included in the reckoning." . . . .
I added the
bold typeface above to highlight the point addressed below:
The edited definition(s) of
E are not the same.
One refers to
at least E miles, the other refers to
more than E miles.
In the second definition ("more than"), a ride of exactly
E.0 miles would not count towards the
E.
In evaluating my personal data, the above discrepancy actually makes no difference because I record the length of my rides by truncating to the lower tenth-of-a-mile (therefore, what I have recorded as, e.g., 63.0 miles, was actually slightly more than 63.0 miles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am still digesting what impact the revised definition has in a situation where one has, e.g., 61 rides of 64.0 miles or more, and 73 rides of 63.0 miles or more.