Yes, which is why it's important to actually discuss these things and think about them rather than blithely assuming them!
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @perdricof
And it’s important to begin with shared definitions rather than oscillate between exaggerated hypotheticals of excessive rounding and semiotics to continue to resist in various ways the still very basic point that it’s good that we’re on the same page as to what 2 and 4 mean.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Aya62335284 @perdricof
You're using the word "semiotics" incorrectly, and "excessive rounding" is a silly thing to say It's not some kind of personal aesthetic decision, you understand, you MUST round based on how many significant digits of precision you have (which often isn't in your control)
2 replies 2 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @perdricof
Buddy. Define semiotics. “Excessive rounding” is an odd phrase. It’s meant to suggest that when rounding starts to become obvious in real world situations it becomes dishonest. Like rounding 2.2 pounds and 2.4 pounds to 5 pounds in a market. That’s not reasonable, objectively.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Aya62335284 @perdricof
It is completely reasonable if that is the limit of my method of measurement You do not CHOOSE the number of significant figures you have in a measurement, they are an outcome of the limitations of your tools for measuring
1 reply 2 retweets 23 likes -
Christ this is exactly like being back in high school trying to tutor kids in chemistry Look do you get that there's no objective definition of a "large" or "small" number? 5 grams is 0.005 kilos and is 5000 mg
2 replies 1 retweet 21 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @perdricof
Yes. In fact I do *share that understanding!* We’re talking about common understandings of 2 in a real world context. Round .0000002 on a bill and it essentially affects no one. Say half a pizza in one box and a whole pizza in another are 2 pizzas and it’s obvious.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Aya62335284 @perdricof
Rounding is not something you do because you are lazy and it doesn't matter, it is a necessity borne of the fundamental nature of measurement in the real world
1 reply 2 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @perdricof
If said measurement is intentionally manipulative , say, playing with rounding in a financial context, it’s a crime of fraudulence for a reason.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Aya62335284 @perdricof
Rounding 2.6 down to 4 rather than up to 5 is, in fact, generally considered the fraudulent thing to do
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likes
Anyway that's an incorrect framing Our imaginary measurer here doesn't actually have access to the number 4.6, they don't see it and change the number to a 5
-
-
I am talking about the many real life scenarios where measuring two quantities separately gets you a 2 and a 2 but together gets you a 5 Literally 2+2=5 (because the discrepancy is below your threshold of precision) This *always exists* in *any* measurement
6 replies 2 retweets 19 likes -
Can you get that through your head? It's not a special case, it's not something I'm "arguing for" It is an inevitable result of applying numbers to real physical things
3 replies 1 retweet 17 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.