home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!apple!apple!netcomsv!mork!pdh
- From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
- Newsgroups: comp.programming
- Subject: Re: 400% makes sense
- Message-ID: <w2mmnc-.pdh@netcom.com>
- Date: 28 Jul 92 18:22:14 GMT
- References: <1992Jul25.171314.22419@uwm.edu> <1992Jul25.184259.20358@a.cs.okstate.edu>
- Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
- Lines: 30
-
- norman@a.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) writes:
-
- >Not exactly. 400% is a nonsensical term. Percent (%) means 'per hundred' or
- >'of each hundred', and thus is only meaningful for values between 0 and
- >100 (inclusive). Percent is best used for absolute measurements, rather
- >than relative comparisons such as the above example.
-
- I do not see where any limit must exist. Dividing 400 by 100 leaves 4.
- It's not a negative number. It's not an imaginary number. It's 4.
-
-
- >The use of percent in relative comparisons naturally leads to subtle
- >misunderstandings. Thus its best to say something like "machine A
- >(at 20 M op/sec) is four times as fast as machine B (at 5 M op/sec)."
-
- I agree that is better to say. But I think the problem is that there
- are differences in the understandings of the semantics of the WORDS
- (i.e. we all work the formulas the same way, but just come up with
- different fomulas).
-
- (5 M op/sec vs 4 M op/sec)
- "machine A is 20% slower than machine B"
- "machine A is 80% of the speed of machine B"
-
- Wording makes a difference.
- --
- /***********************************************************************\
- | Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com | "The problem with |
- | depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
- \***********************************************************************/
-