But rental cars are supposed to be turned in full, not just so the gauge shows high. So, you were upset that the pump jockey screwed you when you were trying to screw the car rental company? (actually, the next renter that gets a short tank)
That would be 20% more often than the rounding down procedure. ;~)
Ok to day I had to go back to the glass company. I found that my clear piece of glass was too large, I cut it to fit thinking that I mismeasured. Then the Mirror was too small. You guessed it. She got the clear mixed with the mirror measurements.
MY ability to understand it is not at fault.
No, it's not.
OK, then, examine this series:
1.0 -> 1 1.1 -> 1 .. 1.4 -> 1 1.5 -> 2 .. 1.9 -> 2 2.0 -> 2 .. 99.9 -> 100 100.0 -> 10051 round-ups, 50 round-downs.
There simply isn't the disparity you claim there is.
Nor does anyone use a Cray XP for financial processing.
Nor does any electronic digital computer round in the way you claim it does.
No red herrings and straw men on my part, just an invalid argument and incorrect understanding of how computers function on your part.
I know what it's called. I'd like to see a cite showing that the Cray XP, or any other modern electronic digital computer, for that matter, actually performs rounding in the way he claims.
Excuse me. Should be 50 and 50.
Dunno what he claimed, but all the gory details are here:
Note that there are decimal floating point values that cannot be represented in IEEE 754 floating point (which is implemented by pretty much every processor in existence today).
Note that bankers generally do _NOT_ use binary floating point for financial calculations, but rather use fixed-point arithmetic (or even integer arithmetic denominated in pennies, hundreths of a penny, or mils).
Many of the early mainframes used BCD arithmetic for this.
scott
If you knew what it was called, why didn't you tell us, Doug?
Are you trying to tell me that it wouldn't be able to? No programmer could make a Cray round in any way? No way? In financial or scientific models, there couldn't be any rounding? Sir?
BTW, a bank if 1100 G5 Macintosh computers blew away a Cray a few years ago. (THIS time, go look it up before shooting your mouth off again.)
I rest my case. Another strawman up in flames.
I don't want to. It is not MY series, and that series of mine is the basis of this discussion. Don't start dragging your stuff into my post. Go away!
Because what it's called is not relevant.
You asserted that id *did*, i.e. that it was constructed that way. Cite, please?
Could, yes. Would, no -- because it would be incorrect. Standard rounding is that anything between .00 and .499999.... gets rounded down, .50 to .99999... gets rounded up. That's the way software rounding works -- and hardware rounding, too, in the machines that have it.
Part of the point of the discussion is that your series is incorrect, in that it arbitrarily includes a datapoint that shouldn't be there -- and without that datapoint, your claim of a supposed imbalance in rounding methods falls apart.
I could just as easily pick a different, but equally arbitrary, series to "prove" that an *opposite* imbalance exists, but that "proof" would be no more, or less, valid than yours.
ROTFLMAO -- in other words, don't bring in anything that would demonstrate your errors!
I'm still waiting for you to cite a source for your claims about the Cray XP.
On Dec 15, 10:46 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote: more nonsense.
Rounding. And I cite: With all rounding schemes there are two possible outcomes: increasing the rounding digit by one or leaving it alone. With traditional rounding, if the number has a value less than the half-way mark between the possible outcomes, it is rounded down; if the number has a value exactly half-way or greater than half-way between the possible outcomes, it is rounded up. The round-to-even method is the same except that numbers exactly half-way between the possible outcomes are sometimes rounded up-sometimes down. Although it is customary to round the number 4.5 up to 5, in fact 4.5 is no nearer to 5 than it is to 4 (it is 0.5 away from either). When dealing with large sets of scientific or statistical data, where trends are important, traditional rounding on average biases the data upwards slightly. Over a large set of data, or when many subsequent rounding operations are performed as in digital signal processing, the round-to-even rule tends to reduce the total rounding error, with (on average) an equal portion of numbers rounding up as rounding down. This generally reduces the upwards skewing of the result. Round-to-even is used rather than round-to-odd as the latter rule would prevent rounding to a result of zero. Examples:
3.016 rounded to hundredths is 3.02 (because the next digit (6) is 6 or more) 3.013 rounded to hundredths is 3.01 (because the next digit (3) is 4 or less) 3.015 rounded to hundredths is 3.02 (because the next digit is 5, and the hundredths digit (1) is odd) 3.045 rounded to hundredths is 3.04 (because the next digit is 5, and the hundredths digit (4) is even) 3.04501 rounded to hundredths is 3.05 (because the next digit is 5, but it is followed by non-zero digits)
First off, your "sequence" should stop at 10.9, on 11.0 it begins a new sequence, just at your example started at 10.0
Second, Crays are not used for routine financial transactions like interest calculations, they would be done on run-of-the-mill mainframes or AS400 type systems.
Third, maybe you're just joking?
What are you "citing"? I don't see a source for this.
This is false -- so it appears that your source for this isn't credible.
Hey, Robatoy, you gonna flame him, too, for pointing out *exactly* the same flaw in your "reasoning" that I did?
Hey, Robatoy, you gonna flame him, too, for pointing out *exactly* the same flaw in your "reasoning" that I did?
Sadly, he's quite serious.
Fourth, a Cray XP was a lot of machine 20 years ago. Now any laptop walks all over it. I suspect that my Palm Pilot comes close.
I keep seeing you reply to yourself and had to look. As I suspected, you may as being talking to a mirror. Doug is relentless and does not know how to loose gracefully. He is one of those type people that cannot pass up a good argument regardless on which side he is on. You are wasting your time trying to explain any thing to him if he has set his mind to ignore facts.
| Could, yes. Would, no -- because it would be incorrect.
|| I rest my case. Another strawman up in flames.
Seems to me that both of you are missing the point. Rounding is nothing more than a convenience for dealing with _errors_ - and it's ocurred to me that an argument over the /correctness/ of an error is almost guaranteed to produce a lot more heat than light.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA
messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Indeed. Good one, Leon.
rHomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.