Percent success is proportional to the amount of effort invested into a project. However, effort is not always equal to percent. For the time being, let us place all subjectiveness aside and consider what I have found to be the general perfectio/effort curve. I considered an assignment of general difficulty presented to a large varied slice of the world population. The resulting curve is detailed in Figure A. As the graph clearly shows, 50% effort is nearly equal to 50% success. As you approach 100% however, a sort of limit occurs. This limit is not unlike the limit x-->0 of y=cos(x+3/x). The graph begins to bounce infinitely as it approaches 100% perfection. Thus, it is nearly impossible to determine when (and if) the graph actually reaches 100% perfection.
In most cases of the perfection graph, though, it is possible to determine when the graph does, in fact, touch 100. However, because every perfection graph behaves strangely as it approaches 100, there can be considered a limit of sorts there. Please realize that my definition of "limit" is very loose. In true mathematical terms, a limit is defined as being a place were a point exists, but only in a sense of infinity-you can never actually reach the point. That definition does NOT hold true with my perfection curves.
In many documented cases (such as a 36 on the ACT or a 100% on a test), people have achieved a 100% success rate. In general terms, this 100% success rate is only achieveable through a percent effort of approximately 110. This point when the graph touches 100% success is known as the Antimurphiran Point. The Antimurpharian Point is named because, by definition, it is the exact opposite of Murphy's Law (which states "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.") Clearly, at this stupendous point of perfection, everything that could go correctly did go correctly. Thus, it is the antithesis of Murphy's Law and so aptly named. As you can see from Figure A, the Antimurpharian point is near (110, 100) on an x/y table.
I will now attempt to address the subjectivity of this theory. Obviously, the graph in Figure A is extremely general, and fails to take in billions upon trillions of variables. Some easily calculatable variables include personal ability, years of experience, weather, amount of other people involved, the relative difficulty of the task, etc etc.
Some variables more difficult to account for include luck. For each and every person, the perfection graph may look slightly different. The graph will also most definetly change for the same person depending on the assignment presented to the person. Figure B provides some ideas of other possible graphs (Antimurpharian points are circled in red). Truly, there could be an infinite number of possible graphs. However, my general trend graph holds true for most persons in most situations.
Furthermore, in all graphs there will always be at least one calculatable Antimurpharian point. (Granted, in some situations it may be nearly impossible to reach this point.) In addition, percent success will never ever rise above 100%. To rise above 100% (by my theory's definition, the point of perfection) would disprove my theory and would actually raise the standard of perfection to a new level. My theory would have to be recalibrated to fit a new standard.
The graphs above are, again, general curves for no situation in particular.
Modification of Theory for Advanced Situations
My modified theory of perfection is loosely based on the graph y=x+z or success=effort + conditions. All three variables have been quantified to each axis in order to create a complete graphical representation of success. Success directly correlates to the combination of effort and conditions. However, conditions and effort have different amounts of effect on the overall shape of the graph depending on themselves!
--S=E(C+1) <--This is a very good general formula for the correlation of all variables here. However, for simplicity purposes, Effort and Conditions can be considered to be one entity, and thus combined into one variable (the x-axis). While it is true that effort and conditions can be separated into two very different variables, my original theory held that they were so dependent on each other, it would much too difficult to separate them and still come up with a practical graph or relationship.
However, with the advent of this new formula, my original theory's implications must be reconsidered. Can we still consider the variables to be separate? Not anymore. If we consider the variables to be separate, a graph will not appear, but rather a single point contained within three dimensions. By measuring its position, it would be possible to convert it into a two dimensional graph. I'm not sure how yet, but it should be possible. This proves that all graphs are very different for all different situations. Below is an example of what a 3-Dimensional graph may look like (Fig C/D)
From a view Straight On:
