Paul's 32 again

Here it is, sorted by a hyperbolic cutoff function in the
log(err)-log(complexity) plane. This was fudged so as to put
ennealimmal at the bottom of the list. The cuttoff would be some value
of (15 - ln(TOP error)-15)(40 - ln(L1 TOP complexity)). I could try to
fudge father instead, or eqifudge them.

[1, 4, 10, 4, 13, 12]

[7, 9, 13, -2, 1, 5]

[2, -4, -4, -11, -12, 2]

[5, 1, 12, -10, 5, 25]

[3, 0, -6, -7, -18, -14]

[4, -3, 2, -14, -8, 13]

[1, 9, -2, 12, -6, -30]

[6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7]

[2, 8, 1, 8, -4, -20]

[2, 8, 8, 8, 7, -4]

[1, 4, -2, 4, -6, -16]

[7, -3, 8, -21, -7, 27]

[1, -8, -14, -15, -25, -10]

[6, -7, -2, -25, -20, 15]

[10, 9, 7, -9, -17, -9]

[4, 4, 4, -3, -5, -2]

[3, 0, 6, -7, 1, 14]

[9, 5, -3, -13, -30, -21]

[6, 5, 22, -6, 18, 37]

[0, 5, 0, 8, 0, -14]

[4, 2, 2, -6, -8, -1]

[2, 1, 6, -3, 4, 11]

[0, 0, 7, 0, 11, 16]

[16, 2, 5, -34, -37, 6]

[1, -3, -4, -7, -9, -1]

[2, 25, 13, 35, 15, -40]

[5, 13, -17, 9, -41, -76]

[1, -1, 3, -4, 2, 10]

[2, 3, 1, 0, -4, -6]

[1, 4, 3, 4, 2, -4]

[13, 14, 35, -8, 19, 42]

[18, 27, 18, 1, -22, -34]

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> Here it is,

I put this list together in a fairly absurd manner from the
information you gave, because it was the best I could do. I
appreciate your great efforts to help out, but the most valuable
thing you could do in this case would be to come up with a new list.
The reason Dave and I wanted it in single-line format was so that we
could graph it and make decisions based on it. Starting with the same
32 defeats the whole purpose, I'm afraid.