<p>So lets say you are walking along a bar crawl with two friends of yours. One friend says to you, “damn dude she is a 7” and the other says “no she is obviously a 5.”</p>
<p>Now, here is where the philosophical quandry comes in. What if the first friend was using a linear scale where an increase from x to x+1 could be considered equivalent for x in Z such that x=[0,9]. Now, what if the second ranking system was such that in a jump from x to x+1 the real value of the ranking could be considered 10/55*(1+x)x/2 that the higher the numbers, the harder it is to get a real ranking. Meaning a 9 could really equate to something like an 8.18. Now obviuosly these are not the real scales but ask yourself this:</p>
<p>which scale has more utility? The linear scale? Or the scale that pays respect to the fact that high numbers really are fairly hard to achieve and thus achieving that raw 10 is rather hard.</p>
<p>Or you might argue that since they are just numbers and a function exists deriving the two that there really is no comparison. There are just numbers, which are irrelevant.</p>