Conquer Club

Metsfanmax wrote:Your statement is correct, but in a nation of 308,745,538 people, in order for your statement to be relevant, the fractions would need to be exactly, say, 27.5%, 12.5%, or 29.5%. Since those percentages of 308,745,538 all include some fraction of a person, we can safely discount that possibility. Thus the rounding was done incorrectly.

No, the problem is easier, .5 is the border case. Having two of them in the calculation, using simple rounding, will cause error. There is a more advanced form of rounding where .5 either rounds up or down depending on the even or odd nature of the digit that preceeds it. This tends to correct the double .5 error.

tzor wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Your statement is correct, but in a nation of 308,745,538 people, in order for your statement to be relevant, the fractions would need to be exactly, say, 27.5%, 12.5%, or 29.5%. Since those percentages of 308,745,538 all include some fraction of a person, we can safely discount that possibility. Thus the rounding was done incorrectly.

No, the problem is easier, .5 is the border case. Having two of them in the calculation, using simple rounding, will cause error. There is a more advanced form of rounding where .5 either rounds up or down depending on the even or odd nature of the digit that preceeds it. This tends to correct the double .5 error.

Those are still arbitrary constructions, and don't matter at the point where having .5 is either impossible due to the numerology involved, or is statistically incredibly unlikely.

MAAAATHHHH!!!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! LEAVE ME ALONE!

It does depend on counties in New York. It also depends in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Southern New Jersey is fairly conservative, so is the "Republican T" in Pennsylvania (i.e. everywhere except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh).

Metsfanmax wrote:

tzor wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Your statement is correct, but in a nation of 308,745,538 people, in order for your statement to be relevant, the fractions would need to be exactly, say, 27.5%, 12.5%, or 29.5%. Since those percentages of 308,745,538 all include some fraction of a person, we can safely discount that possibility. Thus the rounding was done incorrectly.

No, the problem is easier, .5 is the border case. Having two of them in the calculation, using simple rounding, will cause error. There is a more advanced form of rounding where .5 either rounds up or down depending on the even or odd nature of the digit that preceeds it. This tends to correct the double .5 error.

Those are still arbitrary constructions, and don't matter at the point where having .5 is either impossible due to the numerology involved, or is statistically incredibly unlikely.

Then who's wrong, the Census? Saxi?












How dare you call Saxi wrong?

Army of GOD wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

tzor wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Your statement is correct, but in a nation of 308,745,538 people, in order for your statement to be relevant, the fractions would need to be exactly, say, 27.5%, 12.5%, or 29.5%. Since those percentages of 308,745,538 all include some fraction of a person, we can safely discount that possibility. Thus the rounding was done incorrectly.

No, the problem is easier, .5 is the border case. Having two of them in the calculation, using simple rounding, will cause error. There is a more advanced form of rounding where .5 either rounds up or down depending on the even or odd nature of the digit that preceeds it. This tends to correct the double .5 error.

Those are still arbitrary constructions, and don't matter at the point where having .5 is either impossible due to the numerology involved, or is statistically incredibly unlikely.

Then who's wrong, the Census? Saxi?












How dare you call Saxi wrong?

At the risk of being censured by the unofficial CC happiness ombudsman, I'm going to have say yes, Saxi's wrong...

WOODRUFF!!!!!!!!!

john9blue wrote:ITT: a tax attorney schools an m.s. physics student in math

And one very confusing sentence.

Edit: ok, I read "schools" as referring to academic institutions. I need to be more street.

I do feel that metsfan is kinda right here, the chances that two of the numbers end in exactly one half a percent is pretty slim.

for example:

unrounded: 39.7% + 29.7% + 30.6% = 100%

rounded: 40% + 30% + 31% = 101%

that's where the discrepancy lies

edit: or to use saxi's example...

unrounded: 29.8% + 27.7% + 29.9% + 12.6% = 100%

rounded: 30% + 28% + 30% + 13% = 101%

double edit: either that OR there are people with honorary college degrees that haven't graduated high school.

Night Strike wrote:

karel wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Biggest headline: people are moving out of democratic states into republican states. Hopefully they don't keep those same values that have been tearing down the states they left.

whatever

Enjoy ignoring facts? Illinois and New York are states dominated by liberals, yet they lost people. Texas is a very conservative state and Florida has no state income tax. Both gained in population. Liberal states of California, New York, and Illinois have the largest state deficits in the country. Conservative states are either balanced or run surpluses. New Jersey was massively in a deficit, and a conservative governor has begun to restore order to their fiscal situation. Liberal spending policies have bankrupted the states that they have been living in, so now they're moving on to other states and naively thinking the same policies won't bankrupt those states.

You know what's a useful skill, nightstrike? Being able to think for oneself. Let's stop assuming for one sec that all people in blue states are liberals and all people in red states are conservatives. There's demographics and then there's generalisations. I have no doubt that you have been spoon fed the story of the stampede of liberals who are moving states, voting and destroying the states behind them. Why does it have to be that reason though?

It could be that conservatives in blue states, convinced by partisan politics that their state is embarking on socialism etc, are leaving for red states. Things have been getting very divided now especially on key issues.

Another thing that you could notice is the urban vs rural split, though that is commonly related to political affiliation. New York is an expensive place to live and perhaps people who are unemployed or cannot afford a place in an expensive urban location are moving to cheaper rural ones.

It also could be due to age. As most people know, the population of most western countries is ageing, that is the elderly are an increasing proportion of the overall population. This movement could be due to retirements.

It could be due to job demand being down in urban locations, leading to a then expected migration towards rural areas perhaps.
My point is, rather than blindly accepting what you'e been told about events you should think for yourself. The facts are so far pretty bare and it's pretty hard to be sure of what the main motivating factor is, hint people could be moving for different reasons.

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:49.5% rounded up is 50%.
50.5% rounded up is 51%.
49.5% plus 50.5% is 100%.
50% plus 51% is 101%.

Leave the math to math people, you lawyer.

So I'm wrong? I'm so confused.

Your statement is correct, but in a nation of 308,745,538 people, in order for your statement to be relevant, the fractions would need to be exactly, say, 27.5%, 12.5%, or 29.5%. Since those percentages of 308,745,538 all include some fraction of a person, we can safely discount that possibility. Thus the rounding was done incorrectly.

OMFG Poindexter ... I'm gonna haze the shit outta you.

Yes, I should have rounded using a logarithmic scale considering the set size.

But I'm still gonna haze the shit outta you!

john9blue wrote:double edit: either that OR there are people with honorary college degrees that haven't graduated high school.

in this thread or in the census?

i wonder if papers filled out as other people, such as bob dylan really count... i wonder

InkL0sed wrote:

john9blue wrote:double edit: either that OR there are people with honorary college degrees that haven't graduated high school.

in this thread or in the census?

well.. after working for the census i know that the latter is possible... and i'm fairly certain after reading enough on these forums that there is a good possibility that this thread probably has some too.

john9blue wrote:for example:

unrounded: 39.7% + 29.7% + 30.6% = 100%

rounded: 40% + 30% + 31% = 101%

that's where the discrepancy lies

edit: or to use saxi's example...

unrounded: 29.8% + 27.7% + 29.9% + 12.6% = 100%

rounded: 30% + 28% + 30% + 13% = 101%

double edit: either that OR there are people with honorary college degrees that haven't graduated high school.

The "discrepancy" is that people round when they shouldn't. When you round to the nearest percentage as saxi did, you get numbers that don't add to 100%. The point isn't that saxi managed to incorrectly round up and/or down, it's that by rounding, he got numbers that added up to 101%, which makes no sense.

Metsfanmax wrote:

john9blue wrote:for example:

unrounded: 39.7% + 29.7% + 30.6% = 100%

rounded: 40% + 30% + 31% = 101%

that's where the discrepancy lies

edit: or to use saxi's example...

unrounded: 29.8% + 27.7% + 29.9% + 12.6% = 100%

rounded: 30% + 28% + 30% + 13% = 101%

double edit: either that OR there are people with honorary college degrees that haven't graduated high school.

The "discrepancy" is that people round when they shouldn't. When you round to the nearest percentage as saxi did, you get numbers that don't add to 100%. The point isn't that saxi managed to incorrectly round up and/or down, it's that by rounding, he got numbers that added up to 101%, which makes no sense.

keep talking, Susan

Metsfanmax wrote:

john9blue wrote:for example:

unrounded: 39.7% + 29.7% + 30.6% = 100%

rounded: 40% + 30% + 31% = 101%

that's where the discrepancy lies

edit: or to use saxi's example...

unrounded: 29.8% + 27.7% + 29.9% + 12.6% = 100%

rounded: 30% + 28% + 30% + 13% = 101%

double edit: either that OR there are people with honorary college degrees that haven't graduated high school.

The "discrepancy" is that people round when they shouldn't. When you round to the nearest percentage as saxi did, you get numbers that don't add to 100%. The point isn't that saxi managed to incorrectly round up and/or down, it's that by rounding, he got numbers that added up to 101%, which makes no sense.

True, but you're still an idiot..

GabonX wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

john9blue wrote:for example:

unrounded: 39.7% + 29.7% + 30.6% = 100%

rounded: 40% + 30% + 31% = 101%

that's where the discrepancy lies

edit: or to use saxi's example...

unrounded: 29.8% + 27.7% + 29.9% + 12.6% = 100%

rounded: 30% + 28% + 30% + 13% = 101%

double edit: either that OR there are people with honorary college degrees that haven't graduated high school.

The "discrepancy" is that people round when they shouldn't. When you round to the nearest percentage as saxi did, you get numbers that don't add to 100%. The point isn't that saxi managed to incorrectly round up and/or down, it's that by rounding, he got numbers that added up to 101%, which makes no sense.

True, but you're still an idiot..

I am an idiot, you're right. I'm an idiot because I keep on convincing myself that it might possibly be worth my time to click the "show this user's post" link when I see you post. I think I'll be done with that.

You're also an idiot for reading this post and thinking this was going to be any addition to the discussion in this thread

Army of GOD wrote:You're also an idiot for reading this post and thinking this was going to be any addition to the discussion in this thread

And you're an idiot to think I'm kidding in this post.

Army of GOD wrote:You're also an idiot for reading this post and thinking this was going to be any addition to the discussion in this thread

you got me

Metsfanmax wrote:The "discrepancy" is that people round when they shouldn't. When you round to the nearest percentage as saxi did, you get numbers that don't add to 100%. The point isn't that saxi managed to incorrectly round up and/or down, it's that by rounding, he got numbers that added up to 101%, which makes no sense.

accuracy and ease of comprehension of the individual percentages is more important than having them add up to 100 when the occasional person decides to do the math without knowing that they are rounded

imo

GabonX wrote:idiot

Metsfanmax wrote:idiot

Army of God wrote:idiot

inkL0sed wrote:idiot

bros, chillax ... no use having a whose is bigger contest when Saxi's in the thread; it'll just be a battle for second place

metsfan: your thoughts on rounding discrepancies are misplaced. That kind of stuff happens all the time, when dealing with percentages.

Timminz wrote:metsfan: your thoughts on rounding discrepancies are misplaced. That kind of stuff happens all the time, when dealing with percentages.

Are you kidding? I would think that blaming saxi for something would be the perfect place for me to vent my anger over rounding issues.

fuckin rounding, how does it work??