2 ms·
> 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 al
by 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 agoLook, 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.