3 ms·

>The cruising airspeed of an airplane is roughly speaking an order of magnitude faster than its landing speed. No. No it is not. 787 approach speed is 145-153

>The cruising airspeed of an airplane is roughly speaking an order of magnitude faster than its landing speed. No. No it is not. 787 approach speed is 145-153 knots. It does not cruise at 1400+ knots.

gugagore 8y ago
Thanks for bringing more precision to the conversation (really). What would you like to call the factor? 3? Call me a weasel, but I was hoping "roughly speaking an order of magnitude" would go down to 3. I suspected it was comfortably above 2. Am I right about that?
- a1369209993 8y ago
  > I was hoping "roughly speaking an order of magnitude" would go down to 3. I'd call that half a order of magnitude, considering log₁₀(3) is around 0.477. So you're off by more than a factor of two.
  - gugagore 8y ago
    You know, I considered saying that the "roughly" buys me a factor of two in log space. I didn't want to be that person, but I'm glad you were ;).
    - a1369209993 8y ago
      It's surprisingly non-trivial to pin down exactly what the 'correct' scale[0] for a given measurement is. I do agree about "roughly" generally being up to a factor of two in the appropriate scale[1], although I'm the sort who thinks a 19% increase (or 16% decrease) should be called a quarter of a factor of two. 0: Uniform, linear and logarithmic are obvious candidates, but depending on the domain you can end up with some really wierd scales (eg floating-point ULPs, which can look logarithmic or linear, but aren't either). 1: hence > So you're off by more than a factor of two.
- billforsternz 8y ago
  3 is half an order of magnitude (because it is a good approximation to 10^0.5)
- Tushon 8y ago
  re go down to 3: Use different words and see if you think it was reasonable roughly 10x going down to 3x would also mean it would go up to 17x. That's a pretty wide range, so I don't think that order of magnitude is going to ever really be similar to 3x of something on the basis of what it means.
  - gugagore 8y ago
    but what about a rough order of magnitude? There is definitely some qualifiers you can put on "order of magnitude" to make it include 3.
    - abduhl 8y ago
      "within an order of magnitude"

gugagore 8y ago

Thanks for bringing more precision to the conversation (really). What would you like to call the factor? 3? Call me a weasel, but I was hoping "roughly speaking an order of magnitude" would go down to 3. I suspected it was comfortably above 2. Am I right about that?

a1369209993 8y ago
> I was hoping "roughly speaking an order of magnitude" would go down to 3. I'd call that half a order of magnitude, considering log₁₀(3) is around 0.477. So you're off by more than a factor of two.
- gugagore 8y ago
  You know, I considered saying that the "roughly" buys me a factor of two in log space. I didn't want to be that person, but I'm glad you were ;).
  - a1369209993 8y ago
    It's surprisingly non-trivial to pin down exactly what the 'correct' scale[0] for a given measurement is. I do agree about "roughly" generally being up to a factor of two in the appropriate scale[1], although I'm the sort who thinks a 19% increase (or 16% decrease) should be called a quarter of a factor of two. 0: Uniform, linear and logarithmic are obvious candidates, but depending on the domain you can end up with some really wierd scales (eg floating-point ULPs, which can look logarithmic or linear, but aren't either). 1: hence > So you're off by more than a factor of two.
billforsternz 8y ago
3 is half an order of magnitude (because it is a good approximation to 10^0.5)
Tushon 8y ago
re go down to 3: Use different words and see if you think it was reasonable roughly 10x going down to 3x would also mean it would go up to 17x. That's a pretty wide range, so I don't think that order of magnitude is going to ever really be similar to 3x of something on the basis of what it means.
- gugagore 8y ago
  but what about a rough order of magnitude? There is definitely some qualifiers you can put on "order of magnitude" to make it include 3.
  - abduhl 8y ago
    "within an order of magnitude"