Okay, I take it back: the equation on p.108 (printed) and p.120 (online) is *not* wrong after all. I was just using a different notation.

Immediately before the equation, I said:

Remember that the distance between two

n-dimensional pointsxandyis…

So in this convention, *x* represents one person, say Joe, and *x _{1}* is Joe’s (say) salary,

*x*is Joe’s average golf score,

_{2}*x*is Joe’s hair length, and

_{3}*x*is Joe’s salary.

_{4}*y*is a different person (Tiffany), with

*y*being Tiffany’s salary,

_{1}*y*being Tiffany’s average golf score,

_{2}*y*being Tiffany’s hair length, and

_{3}*y*being Tiffany’s salary. In this case, then, the formula is exactly correct.

_{4}This is the opposite to what I was doing in class, where I had the two *people* being named 1 and 2, with *x _{1}* and

*y*being person #1’s features/coordinates, and

_{1}*x*and

_{2}*y*being the other’s.

_{2}It’s all just a matter of definitions.

Sorry for the confusion!

## Recent Comments