3 ms·

It's not just a gripe over imprecise language... This is a serious logic error about wrong language that many people make, and it conveys absolutely the wrong

by IncRnd 9y ago

It's not just a gripe over imprecise language... This is a serious logic error about wrong language that many people make, and it conveys absolutely the wrong information. There was a highly commented article here a month ago which said a person bought litecoin at $67 and had achieved 570% gain at $387. That's absurdly wrong due to a similar misunderstanding about math. Many people didn't understand _why_ that is wrong - even after a couple people jumped in to help explain the reason.

SiempreViernes 9y ago
There can well be a serious logical error somewhere, but I think it most likely to be the authors fixation on speed rather than the interesting quantity in all examples: time. If the newest build of the game loads in one tenth of the time it took an older build, I've eliminated 90% of the previous wait time and it is completely coherent to call the new build 90% faster (in wall time to be pedantic). I think that fundamentally the author insists that "faster" can only mean "higher speed" and not "shorter time", so that when even when what he reports is a reduction in render time he only does it indirectly: by stating the change in speed...
- IncRnd 9y ago
  > There can well be a serious logical error somewhere, but I think it most likely to be the authors fixation on speed rather than the interesting quantity in all examples: time. There is a serious logical error. > If the newest build of the game loads in one tenth of the time it took an older build, I've eliminated 90% of the previous wait time and it is completely coherent to call the new build 90% faster (in wall time to be pedantic). That's not the algebra that most people use. It is, however, the exact same logical error demonstrated in the article. This is from the absolute basics of algebra. Imagine if a doctor instructed a nurse similarly about how to change the amount of critical life-saving medicine from an IV. If the nurse or doctor didn't understand algebra or ratios the patient might just die from this error of 10x dosage difference.
  - SiempreViernes 9y ago
    Look, most people don't consciously use algebra at all! When they do intentionally use algebra I would be very surprised indeed if they did use something else than the standard field of real numbers. I honestly have no idea what meaning you put into the word "algebra"; on reflection it's pretty weird to bring it to a discussion of percentages and their interpretation. In the same vein, what do you wish to prove by bringing up the example of the nurse and the doctor? They seem to do the sensible thing and communicate in absolute quantities rather than rations. Still patients do die to mistakes in the drug administration every now and then, and often from the rather banal mistake of missing a decimal point.

by IncRnd 9y ago

SiempreViernes 9y ago

There can well be a serious logical error somewhere, but I think it most likely to be the authors fixation on speed rather than the interesting quantity in all examples: time. If the newest build of the game loads in one tenth of the time it took an older build, I've eliminated 90% of the previous wait time and it is completely coherent to call the new build 90% faster (in wall time to be pedantic). I think that fundamentally the author insists that "faster" can only mean "higher speed" and not "shorter time", so that when even when what he reports is a reduction in render time he only does it indirectly: by stating the change in speed...

IncRnd 9y ago
> There can well be a serious logical error somewhere, but I think it most likely to be the authors fixation on speed rather than the interesting quantity in all examples: time. There is a serious logical error. > If the newest build of the game loads in one tenth of the time it took an older build, I've eliminated 90% of the previous wait time and it is completely coherent to call the new build 90% faster (in wall time to be pedantic). That's not the algebra that most people use. It is, however, the exact same logical error demonstrated in the article. This is from the absolute basics of algebra. Imagine if a doctor instructed a nurse similarly about how to change the amount of critical life-saving medicine from an IV. If the nurse or doctor didn't understand algebra or ratios the patient might just die from this error of 10x dosage difference.
- SiempreViernes 9y ago
  Look, most people don't consciously use algebra at all! When they do intentionally use algebra I would be very surprised indeed if they did use something else than the standard field of real numbers. I honestly have no idea what meaning you put into the word "algebra"; on reflection it's pretty weird to bring it to a discussion of percentages and their interpretation. In the same vein, what do you wish to prove by bringing up the example of the nurse and the doctor? They seem to do the sensible thing and communicate in absolute quantities rather than rations. Still patients do die to mistakes in the drug administration every now and then, and often from the rather banal mistake of missing a decimal point.