NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/programm/2080

Text File | 1992-07-23 | 3.4 KB | 65 lines

Newsgroups: comp.programming
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!flu!lowry
From: [e-mail] (Andy Lowry)
Subject: Re: Does "400% faster" make sense? (Was: Re: finding 1st one in integer)
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:23:37 GMT
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:56:36 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: rotor.watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Lines: 49

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alexander Berlin) writes:
 > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andy Lowry) writes:
 > |> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alexander Berlin) writes:
 > |>  > Just a side note: it's impossible to have code that runs 400% faster. Twice
 > |>  > as fast means 50% faster. 100% faster means in NO TIME.
 > |>  > 400% slower makes sense, 400% faster doesn't.
 > |>  > 4 times faster means 75% faster.
 > |>
 > |> Hmm... did somebody issue an edict on this of which I wasn't aware (or
 > |> was this the edict itself :-)?  I know these are confusing terms that
 >
 > Must be your math teacher :)

I have another theory.  Perhaps one of your math teachers taught you a
precise definition of these things and then did you the misfortune of
making you think everybody in the world uses it!

 > If some job takes me 100 seconds and you can do it in 25 seconds:
 > I am 300% slower then you are.              (100-25)/25*100
 > You are 75% faster than I am(not 300)       (100-25)/100*100
 > Your performance is 400% of mine.           (1/25)/(1/100)*100
 > My performance is 25% of yours.             (1/100)/(1/25)*100
 >
 > And yes, to do the job 75% faster (in 75% less time) you need to increase your
 > performance by 300%. Vote is not required here.

You're missing my point entirely.  Repeating what I clearly understood
will not make me agree with you.  The fact (sad, perhaps) is that if
you go digging through a bunch of scientific literature, or listen in
on engineering discussions, you will find that these terms are
generally used very loosely, and there simply is no precise definition
that is used consistently, or even close to consistently.  So saying
there is such a definition not only does no good, it makes the
situation worse because it can mislead some people.  Anyone who
believes you will, like you, have false expectations that everybody
will use the terms in a certain way.  It does no good to hold dear to
a mythological view of how the world works.

The meaning of words isn't dictated by dictionaries or glossaries or
textbooks or math teachers.  When common usage contradicts those
sources, common usage wins.  Of course, this implies that if you mount
a campaign to get people to start using your definitions and you do a
good job of it, perhaps down the road the situation will have changed,
and we'll all be better off for having these terms finally nailed down
and used consistently.  But I wouldn't go around claiming that we're
already there!
--
Andy Lowry, [e-mail], [phone]
IBM Research, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598