4 ms·
No, the .02 is correct. If you ignore the percentages part (since both left and right side use it), you're doing 0.72 x 0.03, which is indeed 0.02 If you d
by primo4444 7y ago
No, the .02 is correct. If you ignore the percentages part (since both left and right side use it), you're doing
0.72 x 0.03, which is indeed 0.02
If you do it as probabilities not expressed as percentages, it's 0.0072 x 0.0003, which is 0.0002, but that's 0.02%
- rlpb 7y agoYou can't just ignore the percentage signs. 0.72% expressed as a decimal is 0.0072. 0.03% expressed as a decimal is 0.0003. 0.0072 x 0.0003 = 0.000002. Expressed back as a percentage, that's 0.0002%.
- gus_massa 7y ago> it's 0.0072 x 0.0003, which is 0.0002, but that's 0.02% No. 0.0072 x 0.0003 = 0.00000216 ~= 0.000002 = 0.0002%
- primo4444 7y agoYou're right. Not sure how I fell into that trap so easily.
- injb 7y agoI wonder if it's better to treat percentage as a unit or variable. So a-percent x b-percent = c(percent-squared), or c divided by 100 twice.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- petrogradphilos 7y agoYou could also replace % with 10⁻² and use scientific notation: 0.72% ⋅ 0.03% = 0.72 ⋅ 10⁻² ⋅ 0.03 ⋅ 10⁻² = 7.2 ⋅ 10⁻³ ⋅ 3 ⋅ 10⁻⁴ = 7.2 ⋅ 3 ⋅ 10⁻³ ⋅ 10⁻⁴ = 21.6 ⋅ 10⁻⁷ = 2.16 ⋅ 10⁻⁶ ≈ 2 in 1 million
- prestonh 7y agoIt's because we usually dont multiply percentages, but instead work with normal decimal figures.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]