Moderator: Community Team
Dukasaur wrote:saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.
Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.
ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
Lord+Master wrote:So a solitary figure of 100% with no data nor even the disclaimer that rounding is a thing is,
Dukasaur wrote:Lord+Master wrote:So a solitary figure of 100% with no data nor even the disclaimer that rounding is a thing is,
No sane person would assume that such a figure would not involve rounding.
Does the speedometer in your car say you're doing 99.69835 km/hour?
When someone asks how old you are, do you specify that you're 32.877750264 years old? And do you realize that in the four seconds it took you to inform them of that fact, you aged 0.00000012 years, so your answer is now no longer correct -- you are actually 32.877750384 years old?
To be completely technical, '100' has only one significant digit. However, even if you want to argue that 100% implies three-digit accuracy, that still does not imply four-digit accuracy. If it did, it would say '100.0%'. And that would still be a rounded figure, which would not imply five-digit accuracy. If it claimed five-digit accuracy, it would be specified as '100.00%'.
All non-ordinal numbers used in the normal course of life are rounded unless they specify otherwise.
Lord+Master wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Lord+Master wrote:So a solitary figure of 100% with no data nor even the disclaimer that rounding is a thing is,
No sane person would assume that such a figure would not involve rounding.
Does the speedometer in your car say you're doing 99.69835 km/hour?
When someone asks how old you are, do you specify that you're 32.877750264 years old? And do you realize that in the four seconds it took you to inform them of that fact, you aged 0.00000012 years, so your answer is now no longer correct -- you are actually 32.877750384 years old?
To be completely technical, '100' has only one significant digit. However, even if you want to argue that 100% implies three-digit accuracy, that still does not imply four-digit accuracy. If it did, it would say '100.0%'. And that would still be a rounded figure, which would not imply five-digit accuracy. If it claimed five-digit accuracy, it would be specified as '100.00%'.
All non-ordinal numbers used in the normal course of life are rounded unless they specify otherwise.
Well yeah, granted. Nonetheless I still feel, quite strongly, that a figure of 100% specifically is associated with a perfect record.
That's my whole bug-bear really, rounding everywhere else is fine just not when one would be presented as having the perfect score when it is not in fact perfect at all.
The friend in question asked if placing the "<" sign in front of the 100% would satisfy me and I believe it would, because at least then we would not be so grievously and wantonly misled.
demonfork wrote:Lord+Master wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Lord+Master wrote:So a solitary figure of 100% with no data nor even the disclaimer that rounding is a thing is,
No sane person would assume that such a figure would not involve rounding.
Does the speedometer in your car say you're doing 99.69835 km/hour?
When someone asks how old you are, do you specify that you're 32.877750264 years old? And do you realize that in the four seconds it took you to inform them of that fact, you aged 0.00000012 years, so your answer is now no longer correct -- you are actually 32.877750384 years old?
To be completely technical, '100' has only one significant digit. However, even if you want to argue that 100% implies three-digit accuracy, that still does not imply four-digit accuracy. If it did, it would say '100.0%'. And that would still be a rounded figure, which would not imply five-digit accuracy. If it claimed five-digit accuracy, it would be specified as '100.00%'.
All non-ordinal numbers used in the normal course of life are rounded unless they specify otherwise.
Well yeah, granted. Nonetheless I still feel, quite strongly, that a figure of 100% specifically is associated with a perfect record.
That's my whole bug-bear really, rounding everywhere else is fine just not when one would be presented as having the perfect score when it is not in fact perfect at all.
The friend in question asked if placing the "<" sign in front of the 100% would satisfy me and I believe it would, because at least then we would not be so grievously and wantonly misled.
I guess the problem lies in your assumption that 100% means an absolute perfect record.
This is your own issue and it's too bad for you that you don't understand how tolerances, rounding & decimal place accuracy works.
Lord+Master wrote:demonfork wrote:Lord+Master wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Lord+Master wrote:So a solitary figure of 100% with no data nor even the disclaimer that rounding is a thing is,
No sane person would assume that such a figure would not involve rounding.
Does the speedometer in your car say you're doing 99.69835 km/hour?
When someone asks how old you are, do you specify that you're 32.877750264 years old? And do you realize that in the four seconds it took you to inform them of that fact, you aged 0.00000012 years, so your answer is now no longer correct -- you are actually 32.877750384 years old?
To be completely technical, '100' has only one significant digit. However, even if you want to argue that 100% implies three-digit accuracy, that still does not imply four-digit accuracy. If it did, it would say '100.0%'. And that would still be a rounded figure, which would not imply five-digit accuracy. If it claimed five-digit accuracy, it would be specified as '100.00%'.
All non-ordinal numbers used in the normal course of life are rounded unless they specify otherwise.
Well yeah, granted. Nonetheless I still feel, quite strongly, that a figure of 100% specifically is associated with a perfect record.
That's my whole bug-bear really, rounding everywhere else is fine just not when one would be presented as having the perfect score when it is not in fact perfect at all.
The friend in question asked if placing the "<" sign in front of the 100% would satisfy me and I believe it would, because at least then we would not be so grievously and wantonly misled.
I guess the problem lies in your assumption that 100% means an absolute perfect record.
This is your own issue and it's too bad for you that you don't understand how tolerances, rounding & decimal place accuracy works.
How many times must it be stated that I have a full and thorough understanding of "how rounding works!?! Graarrgh!! Don't get me started on tolerance, you no-good hippy!
demonfork wrote:So you claim to understand yet wont accept it.
Are you suggesting that we throw out all of the standards & rules that govern the universe and instead all just live in "Lord+Master" world?
2dimes wrote:I just missed a turn and it did not change. Maybe just take the meter off. It does seem a bit pointless.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users