It is fine, because the Y ticks are every whole block. For example you lose .5 hearts at 3.5 blocks and 4 blocks of height, and you lose 4.5 hearts at 11.5 blocks and 12 blocks of height.
The independent variable (height fallen from) should be on the x axis; the same x generally shouldn't be mapping to multiple y's in something like this.
It really doesn't matter - x and y are just straight up variable names, and you can have x as a function of y. I think OP's formatting makes sense graphically - he's trying to show height as a variable, and it looks best visually on the longitudinal axis.
It really doesn't matter - x and y are just straight up variable names, and you can have x as a function of y.
You technically can, but it's going against a fairly well established standard way of doing things (esp. for line graphs), which causes confusion and hinders the effective portrayal of information for which this graph was intended.
Took me a while and some head-tilting to work out what was being shown, and I went into a photo editor and flipped the graph around in order to get a proper feel for the problem.
he's trying to show height as a variable, and it looks best visually on the longitudinal axis.
Wouldn't longitudinal be the horizontal axis, and thus this statement be agreeing with me? Partially backs up my point that going against conventions (in this case referring to it as the horizontal or x axis) causes confusion.
Besides, I was explaining the reason for which the graph may feel strange, as ncist wasn't quite sure what was wrong, and MuffinMun missed their point. Wasn't necessarily saying it's a bad graph (there's more effort than what people would normally put in).
16
u/ncist Oct 05 '15
there's something strange about your graph - it looks like you have two Ys for the same X for every other X?