Comments on: 100% unnecessary http://philikon.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/100-unnecessary/ Philipp on software and other interesting things Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:05:34 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Geir Bækholt http://philikon.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/100-unnecessary/#comment-215 Geir Bækholt Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:43:52 +0000 http://philikon.wordpress.com/?p=146#comment-215 "Normal" people don't properly understand decimals (as proven by the audio file at http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/verizon-doesnt-know-dollars-from-cents.html ) and try to compensate by switching models. ;-) “Normal” people don’t properly understand decimals (as proven by the audio file at http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/verizon-doesnt-know-dollars-from-cents.html ) and try to compensate by switching models. ;-)

]]> By: paddy3118 http://philikon.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/100-unnecessary/#comment-214 paddy3118 Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:18:20 +0000 http://philikon.wordpress.com/?p=146#comment-214 You made me think of an allied pet-peeve of mine: So many graphs that miss out a natural origin. I constantly see graphs, especially of money related things, where the zero on one or both axis is missing. When an article is describing the change in the FTSE they may show a very limited excerpt, with the index going, say from 5000 to 5500 and so magnifying any change, which coincidentally supports their articles point of view. - Paddy. You made me think of an allied pet-peeve of mine: So many graphs that miss out a natural origin.

I constantly see graphs, especially of money related things, where the zero on one or both axis is missing. When an article is describing the change in the FTSE they may show a very limited excerpt, with the index going, say from 5000 to 5500 and so magnifying any change, which coincidentally supports their articles point of view.

- Paddy.

]]> By: philikon http://philikon.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/100-unnecessary/#comment-211 philikon Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:04:04 +0000 http://philikon.wordpress.com/?p=146#comment-211 Brandon: Yes, the "1." is redundant in a way, but you could argue that the "%" is redundant as well. Why say 20% growth if you could say 1.2? Regarding negative growth, I still think that the actual factor is more meaningful. Because a growth of -20% on year won't be compensated by a 20% growth the next year. It will be compensated by a 25% growth. Figuring this out means having to add or subtract the invisible "1." all the time. If I were to look at a shrinking of factor 0.8, then figuring out the compensating growth is easily obtained by taking the reciprocal value of that, 1.25. Brandon: Yes, the “1.” is redundant in a way, but you could argue that the “%” is redundant as well. Why say 20% growth if you could say 1.2?

Regarding negative growth, I still think that the actual factor is more meaningful. Because a growth of -20% on year won’t be compensated by a 20% growth the next year. It will be compensated by a 25% growth. Figuring this out means having to add or subtract the invisible “1.” all the time. If I were to look at a shrinking of factor 0.8, then figuring out the compensating growth is easily obtained by taking the reciprocal value of that, 1.25.

]]> By: Brandon Craig Rhodes http://philikon.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/100-unnecessary/#comment-210 Brandon Craig Rhodes Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:09:23 +0000 http://philikon.wordpress.com/?p=146#comment-210 But your proposed alternative scheme generates enormous amounts of redundancy! When comparing the growth ratios 1.041, 1.076, and 1.156, we keep repeating the useless "1.", which is common to all three measures. Whereas calling them 4.1%, 7.6%, and 15.6% is more efficient because it only bothers to print the "interesting part" that we care about. And your proposal is even worse when applied to things that are shrinking (the current stock market, say, or the world economy). Numbers like 0.997, 0.989, and 0.891 require mental subtraction to figure out what is going on. Whereas -0.3%, -1.1%, and -11.9% show us, again, what we really care about, which is how "different from one" the fraction is. So I vote this proposal -100%. But your proposed alternative scheme generates enormous amounts of redundancy! When comparing the growth ratios 1.041, 1.076, and 1.156, we keep repeating the useless “1.”, which is common to all three measures. Whereas calling them 4.1%, 7.6%, and 15.6% is more efficient because it only bothers to print the “interesting part” that we care about.

And your proposal is even worse when applied to things that are shrinking (the current stock market, say, or the world economy). Numbers like 0.997, 0.989, and 0.891 require mental subtraction to figure out what is going on. Whereas -0.3%, -1.1%, and -11.9% show us, again, what we really care about, which is how “different from one” the fraction is.

So I vote this proposal -100%.

]]> By: Andy McKay http://philikon.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/100-unnecessary/#comment-206 Andy McKay Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:19:55 +0000 http://philikon.wordpress.com/?p=146#comment-206 Agree 120% Agree 120%

]]>