3 ms·
That is much less than “almost an order of magnitude.“
by jb1991 3y ago
That is much less than “almost an order of magnitude.“
- resolutebat 3y agoSince we're being pedantic here, it's just over half an order of magnitude, and could be rounded up to 1. log(95)-log(30)=0.5006
- eviks 3y agoCould be rounded, but couldn't be converted into "almost"
- littlestymaar 3y agoHad it been 105 year it would have been an order of magnitude. Being only 5 years off an order of magnitude justified the “almost an order of magnitude”.
- jb1991 3y ago> Had it been 105 year it would have been an order of magnitude That’s not true. How are you getting that number? That’s not how you calculate an order of magnitude.
- littlestymaar 3y agoYou don't “calculate” orders of magnitude, that the point of manipulating them in the first place. And an order of magnitude colloquially means “one more digit”, hence the original remark. I appreciate the irony of nitpicking about a concept that merely exist to allow for low precision napkin math.
- jb1991 3y agoBut in this case, the "napkin" math of 95 years would be off by 200 years! Hardly a useful estimate for this particular topic. Still confused where you come up with 105 years as an order of magnitude from 30.
- littlestymaar 3y ago> But in this case, the "napkin" math of 95 years would be off by 200 years! Which is fine, because 300 and 100 are the same order of magnitude ;). > Still confused where you come up with 105 years as an order of magnitude from 30. 30 ≈ 10^1 105 ≈ 10^2 Here you go.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- heisenzombie 3y agoCuriously it’s almost exactly half an order of magnitude (30*10^0.5 = 94.9)