God Almighty.
God Almighty.
Signatures are for losers.
Signatures are for losers.
It seems you simply wish to play with semantics. That's fine. Language is a social contract. Meaning is shared. We are geared into the world as verbal beings. It's clear that you wish to apply the notion of error in a very specific way. Rounding is error to you. I see rounding as an intentional operation. Error to me suggests lack of intention and mistakes. I made no mistakes by rounding up. I did it intentionally for practical reasons. Therein lies the difference.
I don't disagree with you if you wish to cede that there can be distinctions between how a word is used and/or defined, but to crown yourself king of language is a bit of an overreach, doncha think?
Last edited by shiningbrow; July 26th, 2013 at 06:04 PM.
"When the subway jerks, it's the fixed stars that throw you down."
We round measurements to the nearest inch on our "dresses", and nobody complains, because it's not an error. It's how normally socially adjusted human beings operate with many functional numbers which have direct utility in their lives.
I bet you're impressive in the kitchen - if the receipt says a cup, it's gonna be exactly one fucking cup for you down to the millimeter, right? Oh...but that would be rounding too and therefore an "error", wouldn't it. How do you cope?
Last edited by Mistwell; July 26th, 2013 at 06:10 PM.
I like hats.
I totally get it. You're absolutely correct. And yet, seeing Ovi and Turjan froth in their pedantic desire for an orderly world is well worth continuing it. I always know when I've gotten to Ovi, for example, when he starts calling me a dress maker. It's the sort of thing that makes my day, and I'd hug him for it if I could
I like hats.
Quick! Somebody rename this thread to: When Engineers Argue With Lawyers
Life... is like a grapefruit. It's orange and squishy, and has a few pips in it, and some folks have half a one for breakfast. - Douglas Adams
FWIW, I'm on the design team and I pretty much find WoW as fun and interesting as banging my head against a brick wall.-- Mike Mearls
I mean, I never GET any but that would be preferable. --Rel
Well, we know the exact value of 1/3, but we can't represent it in decimal format. It's like that.
e is the value for which the value of e^{x} is exactly equal to it's derivative -- in laymans terms the value matches exactly the value of it's rate of change (as you vary x). That's not the hard one, though.
i is the imaginary number. We ran out of real numbers to decribe what happens when you take the square root of negative 1 (-1), so we made one up. i is equal to the square root of negative one, and it's useful shorthand to take square roots of negative numbers. For instance, the sq(-4) = 2i = sq(4)*sq(-1). If you think this is silly, all modern electroncs and power pretty much rely on the imaginary number to work (AC power, frex, especially multi-phase AC).
And we all know pi as the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter.
The above formula, though, takes advantage of Euler's identity, which is a slick piece of math if ever there was one. It translates sin and cos into e to the power of equations. It can get rather complex sometimes. However, this isn't one of them. You could rewrite the equation, using the identity, as sin(-pi)+1=0. In radians, -pi is the same as pi, which is equal to 180 degrees, and the sin of that is equal to -1. It's just a simple place to solve the Euler identity that happens to use all the really fun numbers and makes a neat equation.
No, it's not sematics. If you round, your answer is different from the correct value. It is in error. If you'd pay attention, you realize that I've also said that this error may be irrelevant to you, and acceptable. But it is, nevertheless, error.
It's funny that you're trying to find a middle ground to compromise on when you're completely wrong. And you don't even know that it's fallacies, not fallabilities, which are, again, very different things even in common language usage. Please stop arguing things you don't understand.I don't disagree with you if you wish to cede that there can be distinctions between how a word is used and/or defined, but to crown yourself king of language is a bit of an overreach, doncha think?
Of course you do. It's called 'acceptable error'. I bet you don't round to the nearest 10s of inches, though, because that would be 'unacceptable error'. But they're both rounding. If we go with your explanation, neither is an error, which is clearly wrong.
You're attempting to make an argument of scale and acceptability into an argument of correctness. Rounding introduces error. The answer after rounding in incorrect. It may, however, still be very, very useful.
If we're talking about receipts, I'm not sure what cooking you're doing. I call that takeout.I bet you're impressive in the kitchen - if the receipt says a cup, it's gonna be exactly one fucking cup for you down to the millimeter, right? Oh...but that would be rounding too and therefore an "error", wouldn't it. How do you cope?
I would recognize that I do not have exactly a cup, that my measurement is likely in error, and I would continue on, because so long as I make the attempt to get close, the error is acceptable.
It is, however, still error.
Which is the crux of it. If you don't have any understanding of a subject, you don't have the ability to recognize that you are wrong. Rounding is a mathematical operation. With lack of even some basic understanding of math, answers will necessarily become sketchy. Refusal to apply basic logic finally renders the task hopeless.
I guess this is a typical case of "all opinions are equal". But yes, in the end, everybody has the right to be wrong.