Metalkid's post about the role of fractional stats in IV calculation relies on flawed mathematics.
Using Metalkid's example of:
10 10.67-10.99
12 12.34-12.66
14 14.00-14.33
15 15.67-10.99
Let's see if that always works. Try using the formula f(x)=1.7x+8.9. Since Fractional Stats (I call it Fractionalization) are not formula-dependent, the numerical coefficient doesn't matter (Translation: It should work with ANY linear increase, not just ones which are actually possible in real Pokémon stats). Using this hypothetical formula, you get
10.6
12.4
14.0
15.7
which rounds down to
10
12
14
15
That is the same as the sample stats Metalkid used in his post, but 10.6 isn't between 10.67 and 10.99!
Another example: Try Fractionalizing this set:
46
49
51
53
56
58
60
63
65
These are actual Pokémon stats where the Base+IV+EV/4 (rise per level) is 2.32! In one extreme case, Fractionalization predicts a value of 65.63-65.75 for the last stat, and the actual value is 65.32, which is off by more than 0.3, almost 2 1/2X the predicted range! I do know that the problem is with predicting the rise per level, and not with the Fractionalization itself. With a known rise per level, Fractionalization works perfectly. Then again, with a known rise per level, perfect IV's can be calculated without Fractionalization.
Using Metalkid's example of:
10 10.67-10.99
12 12.34-12.66
14 14.00-14.33
15 15.67-10.99
Let's see if that always works. Try using the formula f(x)=1.7x+8.9. Since Fractional Stats (I call it Fractionalization) are not formula-dependent, the numerical coefficient doesn't matter (Translation: It should work with ANY linear increase, not just ones which are actually possible in real Pokémon stats). Using this hypothetical formula, you get
10.6
12.4
14.0
15.7
which rounds down to
10
12
14
15
That is the same as the sample stats Metalkid used in his post, but 10.6 isn't between 10.67 and 10.99!
Another example: Try Fractionalizing this set:
46
49
51
53
56
58
60
63
65
These are actual Pokémon stats where the Base+IV+EV/4 (rise per level) is 2.32! In one extreme case, Fractionalization predicts a value of 65.63-65.75 for the last stat, and the actual value is 65.32, which is off by more than 0.3, almost 2 1/2X the predicted range! I do know that the problem is with predicting the rise per level, and not with the Fractionalization itself. With a known rise per level, Fractionalization works perfectly. Then again, with a known rise per level, perfect IV's can be calculated without Fractionalization.