Gold Medal Heights-SL Type 2

IB Pre-Calculus SL

Guillermo Esqueda Silva 1/30/2012

Introduction
a) The Olympic Games is an international event featuring summer and winter sports, in which athletes participate in different competitions. In ancient Greece the Olympic Games were athletic competitions held in honor of Zeus. Since the Olympic Games began they have been the competition grounds for the world s greatest athletes. First place obtaining gold; second silver and third bronze. The Olympic medals represent the hardship of what the competitors of the Olympics have done in order to obtain the medal. On one side the Olympic medal has Nike the goddess of victory holding a palm and a winners crown and on the other side the medal has a different label for each Olympiad reflecting the host of the games. Olympic medals could be used as a unit of measure of athleticism. Top 10 Olympic Medal- winning Countries Country 1. The United States 2. Soviet Union 3. Great Britain 4. France 5. Germany 6. Italy 7. Sweden 8. East Germany 9. Hungary 10. Finland Medals won 2404 1204 689 679 648 595 588 519 454 446

This is a table showing the top 10 Olympic Medal- Winning Countries and definitely shows how the Olympics can be seen as a standardized unit of athleticism

Data
a) Height (in centimeters) achieved by the gold medalist at various Olympic games. Year 1932 Height 197 (cm) 1936 203 1948 198 1952 204 1956 212 1960 216 1964 218 1968 224 1972 223 1976 1980 225 236

Variables and Constraints

a) The dependent variable for this data set is the Olympic Gold Medalist Heights. The independent variable for this data set is the years in which the summer Olympic Games occurred in. A constraint of this data set is the limited amount of data that is available. The data available is only between 1932 and

1980. If there were more data and if there is a pattern the pattern would become more apparent. On top of this there is a gap between 1936 and 1948 which is a 12 year chunk of data missing. And since the Olympics are held every 4 years that is 3 Olympic competitions missing from the data. b) In a math textbook the variables and constraints could be seen as y= Olympic Gold Medalist Heights and x= years in which the summer Olympic games occurred in. c) In the context of this problem is that the x axis would be used to show the Year of the Olympic Games and y would be used to show the height of the gold medalist. d) This data set is continuous because it is associated with a measurement and its possible to have the same y value for different x values. And since the data is measuring height a decimal answer is possible. A function that would fit most of the data would be a quadratic function. The constraint that there is a 12 year gap between 1936 and 1948 could skew the data. The data that we are missing could of showed us a much clearer model like a linear or could of reassured us of a quadratic model.

Graph of Initial Data

a)

Year Of Olympics VS. Gold Medal Heights

240 235 230 Height ( cm) 225 220 215 210 205 200 195 1920 1930 1940 1950 Year 1960 1970 1980 1990 Initial values

Analysis and Model Construction

Based on the data the type of curve that might be expected is quadratic and maybe even a third degree function. The expected shape would be quadratic if we disregarded the 1936 value and if we didn t it looks like a third degree function would fit well.

a) Some general formulas that the data could fit can be quadratic linear , or exponential . Quadratic possible values  X 1932 197.99 1936 199.04 1948 204.33 1952 206.82 1956 209.67 1960 212.88 1964 216.46 1968 220.39 1972 224.69 1976 229.34 1980 234.36 

f(x), : Y

Linear Possible values

X 1932 1936 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980  194.14 197.16 206.22 209.24 212.26 215.28 218.3 221.32 224.34 227.36 230.38

Exponential Possible Values

X 1932 1936 1948 1952 1956 194.72 197.49 206.04 208.97 211.95

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980

214.96 218.02 221.12 224.27 227.46 230.69

All of the formulas used to fit the data are increasing and all have a min ( when x=0) for the quadratic fit the minimum is 41946.847 of the linear fit the minimum is -1264.6484 and for the exponential fit the min is 0.21211804. All of the formulas don t have a maximum. For the model to become much more realistic the logical fit would be a sinusoidal curve. The constraints on a sinusoidal curve would be that the curve would have to be half a cycle. The curve has to be half a cycle because it wasn t the curve would show that the heights fluctuate from Olympics to Olympics and this would not represent our data. But by limiting the curve to half a cycle then the curve would fit the data. b) Linear Model General form for a linear equation:    When using two points from the data and substituting them into the values for x and y the values for m and b can be found. The points that are going to be used are going to be (1972,223) and (1960,216). These points were chosen because they look like a nice line can be drawn between them without too much differentiation between the other points.   To find the value of a, we can subtract the two equations. This will essentially cancel out b. Quadratic Model The general form for an quadratic equation is . With 3 points on the graph an equation can be formulated in the form . The points that are going to be used are going to be (1936,203),(1972,233) and (1960,216) We can make three equations using these three points and the general formula . by substituting x and y values we get: or  

or or

We can now find m by dividing both sides by 12 so we get: The value for b can now be found by substituting  to any of the equations

Then we can subtract two equations together to eliminate C. I chose to subtract the first and second equation    

The equation will now be: 

Now I will subtract the second and third equation to get two new equations to solve for a and b.  

 With the two equations now we must isolate a variable to solve, I will be chosing a, so we need to eliminate b. we can do this by multiplying By since . By multiplyin by we get . then we add the equations:  

 Now we can solve for a and we get . Now we can substitute a into one of the equations with two variables to solve for . I will be using the equation .by substituting a we get:

 

we can now substitute both a and b into the original equations and solve for c. I will be substituting in into the second equation.

 

  Now we have found all variables and we can write our equation. And we get:  

Linear Function

Quadratic function  

The reason why I chose a linear model is because despite some points the data in the graph seemed to be modeled well by a linear model. I also chose a quadratic model because the data points seemed to be modeled well by a quadratic model. b) Linear Equation:  

Year Of Olympics VS. Gold Medal Heights

240 235 230 Height ( cm) 225 220 215 210 205 200 195 1920 1930 1940 1950 Year 1960 1970 1980 1990 Initial values Linear Equation

Years 1932 1936 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980

Initial values 197 203 198 204 212 216 218 224 223 225 236

Linear Equation 199.67 202.0033333 209.0033333 211.3366667 213.67 216.0033333 218.3366667 220.67 223.0033333 225.3366667 227.67

This linear function is not the best fit for the model because as we can see from the graph there are a lot of points left out and that are not even close to the linear equation. Also in the data table there are some years where the linear equation varies greatly from the actual values initial value . We can see that for some years it is close like for 1936 but for others it is much farther away from the linear equation like in 1948.

Quadratic Equation:

Year Of Olympics VS. Gold Medal Heights

300 250 200 Height ( cm) 150 100 50 0 1920 1930 1940 1950 Year 1960 1970 1980 1990

Years 1932 1936 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980

Initial values Quadratic Equation 197 204.5789474 203 203 198 204.1578947 204 206.5087719 212 209.8421053 216 214.1578947 218 219.4561404 224 225.7368421 223 233 225 241.245614 236 250.4736842

The quadratic equation that I came up with is a reasonable fit but still not the best fit. As we can see from the graph the quadratic equation increases quicker than the actual values. This causes the data to

be way off for the final two years in our data. We can see this from the data table as 1976 and 1980 are not as close are the other actual values to the values from the quadratic equation.

Linear Regression

Year Of Olympics VS. Gold Medal Heights

250

200 Height ( cm)

150 Initial values Linear Regression 50

100

0 1920 1930 1940 1950 Year 1960 1970 1980 1990

Years

Initial values Linear Regression 1932 197 194.1382426 1936 203 197.1585048 1948 198 206.2192914 1952 204 209.2395536 1956 212 212.2598158 1960 216 215.280078 1964 218 218.3003402

1968 1972 1976 1980

224 223 225 236

221.3206024 224.3408646 227.3611268 230.381389

This is a better linear model but it is still not the best. Because it is linear it excludes some points like 1948. In 1948 we can see that difference between the actual values and the linear regression models is quite significant.

Quadratic Regression

Year Of Olympics VS. Gold Medal Heights

240 235 230 225 Height ( cm) 220 215 210 205 200 195 1920 1930 1940 1950 Year 1960 1970 1980 1990 Initial values Quadratic Regression

Years 1932 1936 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964

Initial values Quadratic Regression 197 197.9952965 203 199.0379511 198 204.3348209 204 206.8234127 212 209.6734888 216 212.8850493 218 216.458094

1968 1972 1976 1980

224 223 225 236

220.392623 224.6886364 229.346134 234.3651159

This is the best fit because as we can see from the graph it fits most points without leaving other too far off. From the data table we can see that this is the only function that does not vary too wildly from the actual value.

Proposed model
The quadratic regression model is a reasonable fit for the data because the regression line does not vary all that much from the actual values.

Year Of Olympics VS. Gold Medal Heights

240 235 230 Height ( cm) 225 220 215 210 205 200 195 1920 1930 1940 1950 Year 1960 1970 1980 1990 Initial values Quadratic Regression

As we can see the quadratic regression model fits the graph almost perfectly. The only year that the graph does not fit all that well is 1948. The data is increasing for the entire domain but this does not necessarily mean that future years will be accurate. This is because there are almost asymptotes in all of the graphs. There has to be a limit of how low the heights have to be to qualify and since the Olympic competitors are human there is a limit. This makes all of the graphs not a best fit for all of the future years that the event will be held and all of the past years but this quadratic model does model the data given accurately.

Consideration of Accuracy
Linear Equation: Years  1.35 .49 5.55 3.6 .79 .0015 .154 1.48 .0015 .15 3.53 1.55

Initial values Linear Equation Percent Error 1932 197 199.67 1936 203 202.0033333 1948 198 209.0033333 1952 204 211.3366667 1956 212 213.67 1960 216 216.0033333 1964 218 218.3366667 1968 224 220.67 1972 223 223.0033333 1976 225 225.3366667 1980 236 227.67 Average

Quadratic Equation:

X-Values Initial values Quadratic Equation Error Percent 1932 197 204.5789474 1936 203 203 1948 198 204.1578947 1952 204 206.5087719 1956 212 209.8421053 1960 216 214.1578947 1964 218 219.4561404 1968 224 225.7368421 1972 223 233 1976 225 241.245614 1980 236 250.4736842 Average 

3.85 0 3.11 1.23 1.02 .85 .67 .77 0 7.22 6.13 2.26

Linear Regression:

X-Values Initial values Linear Regression Error Percent 1932 197 194.1382426

1.45

1936 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 Averga

203 198 204 212 216 218 224 223 225 236

197.1585048 206.2192914 209.2395536 212.2598158 215.280078 218.3003402 221.3206024 224.3408646 227.3611268 230.381389

2.88 4.15 2.56 .122 .333 .14 1.2 .60 1.05 2.38 1.53

Quadratic Regression: X-Values Initial values Quadratic Regression Error Percent 1932 197 197.9952965 1936 203 199.0379511 1948 198 204.3348209 1952 204 206.8234127 1956 212 209.6734888 1960 216 212.8850493 1964 218 216.458094 1968 224 220.392623 1972 223 224.6886364 1976 225 229.346134 1980 236 234.3651159 Average

.50 1.95 3.2 1.38 1.1 1.44 .71 1.61 .76 1.93 .69 1.36

From the error percentages we can see that the most accurate is the quadratic regression model. The quadratic regression model had an average error percent of about 1.36 while the others had higher error. The only model that came close was the linear regression model with an error percentage of 1.53.

Predictions
These predictions are going to be with the model that I thought was the best. Quadratic Regression model. The equation is:   1984 Predictions First we must substitute in the year for x and then we can find y which is the height. 2016 Predictions First we must substitute in the year for x and then we can find y which is the height.

 Height in cm = 239.75 295.8

Table: Initial values 197 203 198 204 212 216 218 224 223 225 236 Quadratic Regression 197.9952965 199.0379511 204.3348209 206.8234127 209.6734888 212.8850493 216.458094 220.392623 224.6886364 229.346134 234.3651159 239.75 295.8

X-Values 1932 1936 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 2016

Graph:

Year Of Olympics VS. Gold Medal Heights

350 300 250 Height ( cm) 200 150 100 50 0 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Quadratic Regression

Year

My answers for 1984 make sense because it is not too far from the other values like that of 1980. On the other hand my value for 2016 is high. The main problem with any of the models is that they show that the height is continuously rising. It is very unlikely that the results would keep rising like the models I suggested. Since 2016 far from the years given we can safely say that neither of the models stated (linear or quadratic) are a suitable regression to use.

Additional Data

a)

Year Heig ht (cm)

1896 190

1904 180

1908 191

1912 193

1920 193

1928 194

1984 235

1988 238

1992 234

1996 239

2000 235

2004 236

2008 236

Year Of Olympics VS. Gold Medal Heights

300 250 Height ( cm) 200 150 Initial values 100 50 0 1880 1900 1920 1940 Year 1960 1980 2000 2020 Quadratic Regression

b)

As we can see the model does fit the new data for the most part. The only part that we see not fitting the data is when the quadratic regression starts increasing from 1984 and beyond. Year Height (cm) Year Height (cm) Year 1896 190 1960 216 2004 1904 180 1964 218 2008 1908 191 1968 224 1912 193 1972 223 1920 193 1976 225 1928 194 1980 236 1932 197 1984 235 1936 203 1988 238 1948 198 1992 234 1952 1956 204 212 1996 2000 239 235

Year Of Olympics VS. Gold Medal Heights

300 250 Height ( cm) 200 150 Initial values 100 50 0 1880 1900 1920 1940 Year 1960 1980 2000 2020 Quadratic Regression

Height (cm)

236

236

As we can see from the graph the quadratic regression seems to follow the data closely. There are only some values at the beginning and at the end where the quadratic regression is different. From the table below we can see that most of the values are reasonably close to the given actual value. A thing that could be done to make the data more accurate is make a new quadratic regression line for all of the data and not just the initial data given.

X-Values 1896 1904 1908 1912 1920 1928 1932 1936 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

Initial values 190 180 191 193 193 194 197 203 198 204 212 216 218 224 223 225 236 235 238 234 239 235 236 236

Quadratic Regression 204.878198 200.8182743 199.3305388 198.2042877 197.0362383 197.3141261 197.9952965 199.0379511 204.3348209 206.8234127 209.6734888 212.8850493 216.458094 220.392623 224.6886364 229.346134 234.3651159 239.7455821 245.4875327 251.5909675 258.0558866 264.88229 272.0701777 279.6195497

Further testing and application The patterns that showed up in Men s High Jump also show up in other sports in the Olympics. For example the Olympic records for men s 100 m free style shows this same pattern.

Year Time ( seconds) Year Time ( seconds) Year Height (cm)

1896 82.2 1960 55.2 2004 48.2

1904 62.8 1964 53.4 2008 47.2

1908 65.6 1968 52.2

1912 63.4 1972 51.2

1920 61.4 1976 49.9

1928 58.6 1980 50.4

1932 58.2 1984 49.8

1936 57.6 1988 48.6

1948 57.3 1992 49.0

1952 1956 57.4 55.4 1996 2000 48.7 48.3

When the data is graphed it looks like this:

Year Of Olympics VS. Gold Medal Heights

90 80 70 Height ( cm) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1880 1900 1920 1940 Year 1960 1980 2000 2020 Initial values

The X values represent the years in which the Olympics were hosted in The Y values represent the time of the gold medalist results The graph shows a decline in time since the early 1900s. The gold medalist s results were becoming shorter and shorter over the year until towards the start of the 21st century. Like on the Gold medalist heights this suggests a type of asymptote. If we do a quadratic regression for this data we get the equation f(x) = .0017830124x^2-7.173749547x+7264.004005. When we graph this equation we get the following graph.

Year Of Olympics VS. Time of 100m FreeStyle

90 80 70 Height ( cm) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1880 1900 1920 1940 Year 1960 1980 2000 2020 Initial values Quadratic

X-Values Initial values Quadratic Regression 1896 82.2 72.17636761 1904 62.8 68.98994819 1908 65.6 67.48232308 1912 63.4 66.03175436 1920 61.4 63.30178612 1928 58.6 60.80004347 1932 58.2 59.63475673 1936 57.6 58.5265264 1948 57.3 55.54417377 1952 57.4 54.66416903 1956 55.4 53.84122067 1960 55.2 53.07532872 1964 53.4 52.36649316 1968 52.2 51.714714 1972 51.2 51.11999124 1976 49.9 50.58232487 1980 50.4 50.1017149 1984 49.8 49.67816133 1988 48.6 49.31166415 1992 49 49.00222337 1996 48.7 48.74983899

2000 2004 2008

48.3 48.2 47.2

48.554511 48.41623941 48.33502422

Compare and contrast:

Year Of Olympics VS. Time of 100m Freestyle

90 80 70 Height ( cm) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1880 1900 1920 1940 Year 1960 1980 2000 2020

Year Of Olympics VS. Gold Medal Heights

300 250 Height ( cm) 200 150 100 50 0 1880 1900 1920 1940 Year 1960 1980 2000 2020

From the two graphs above we can see that they are really opposites of each other. The gold medal heights are a concave up quadratic function while the time for the 100m men s freestyle is concave down. The gold medal heights graph is increasing throughout the data and the 100 m men s freestyle is decreasing throughout the data. They are both similar in the way that they don t accurately model every single year that the Olympics will be held because they will both decrease and increase beyond the actual values. This is because humans are competing in these events and we all have limits. This is also apparent in the gold medal heights, as the years went on the heights got more and more close to each other without significant difference. The 100m men s freestyle seems to fit the data better because towards recent years the times have been very close. Over all we can see that the 100m men s freestyle quadratic regression model fits its data better than the gold medal heights.

Conclusion a) The Men s High jump results from 1896 to 2008 Olympics showed that the gold medalist results for high jump steadily increased. Towards the end the heights started to level off because of human limits. The best model that was found to model the data was quadratic. This is because from 896 towards 2008 the data was steadily increasing at a parabola like shape. The men s 100m Freestyle results from 1896 to 2008 showed that the results for the 100 m freestyle were steadily decreasing, and towards the end the results leveled off. This is because of human limitations. A good type of model to model the 100m freestyle data from 1896 to 2008 was also a quadratic function. This modeled the data almost perfectly

Bibliography
Swim-City. "Swim-City.com - Record History Olympic Records Men." Swim-City.com - Swimming Metropolis. Swim-City, 2011. Web. 20 Jan. 2012. <http://www.swimcity.com/recordhistorie.php3?record=orh>.