POLL: explain your answer please...is 255 close to 300?

[MrDudeMan]

if i said to you "wow that roller coaster goes up almost 300ft!" what would you think? would you think i meant 230ft, 255ft, or 270+ ft?

my girlfriend and i are going to six flags, and she is all scared of rollercoasters, so she was looking at the website where it says how high and how fast they go. she said "wow its almost 300 feet tall." i was like umm its 255ft, thats not close to 300ft. then my brother in law commented that he thinks its close as well. i said "so if you have 2.5 million dollars, is that almost 3 million dollars?"

he said yes, thats close. i said "ok, what if i had 150, is that close to 200?" (note: i was getting him to back into a corner and it worked). he said "no, its about percentages, and thats only 75%. 255/300 is 85%."

so i then said "what about a guy who is 6'-1" tall? is he almost 7'-0"? because that is like 84-85%." he follows up with "it only works with integers."

WHISKEY TANGO...

only integers? wtf is he even saying? so basically he is wrong, and i am curious if you guys would call 255 close to 300.

i think that is the most flawed logic ever...255 is not "close" to 300. id say maybe 270ish + is "close" to 300, but not 255. thats only half way up to the next hundred...how is that close?

 

[notfred]

Not close. The significant digit in a measurement like "300" is the hundreds place. 255 is BARELY closer to 300 than it is to 200, which is the next significant number in our hundreds-place scale. While "Close" is arbitrary, what we have here is barely over half, and I'd say "close" starts at maybe .85-.90 of the way to the next significant measurement.

 

i think that sort of judgement is related to what's being measured
for height, sure 255 is close to 300
but if 255 people die in a plane crash, it's not close to 300

365 used condoms is a good year

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: notfred
Not close. The significant digit in a measurement like "300" is the hundreds place. 255 is BARELY closer to 300 than it is to 200, which is the next significant number in our hundreds-place scale. While "Close" is arbitrary, what we have here is barely over half, and I'd say "close" starts at maybe .85-.90 of the way to the next significant measurement.

i agree, but he is too stubborn to admit he spoke without thinking. i cant really understand how anyone could think 255 is close to 300, but i am willing to change my view if someone can provide a valid explanation.

 

[Instan00dles]

Personally I would think that 255 is closer to 250 feet, not 300.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: jntdesign
i think that sort of judgement is related to what's being measured
for height, sure 255 is close to 300
but if 255 people die in a plane crash, it's not close to 300

365 used condoms is a good year

how can you say that? i dont get it. 255 is only half way up to the next hundred from 200. that doesnt make any sense. in order for something to be close, it has to actually be near that distance/measurement/whatever. if you are 25, you are not almost 30. if you have a 5 inch penis, its not almost 7 inches. if you have a 3000w stereo system, its not almost 4000w.

it makes no sense how these two numbers can be considered close.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Instan00dles
Personally I would think that 255 is closer to 250 feet, not 300.

YES!!! AHHH thats what i said (after all of this though)

i would have said, "wow! that roller coaster is 250 feet tall!"

 

[crt1530]

I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: crt1530
I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

i think you are correct, but i want to know what other people think. flame me all you want, but please give your honest opinion.

 

[FunkierThanU]

My amplifier goes up to eleven.

 

[MrDudeMan]

lol

 

[hdeck]

not close in terms of roller coaster heights

 

[bootymac]

It depends on the situation. I think when deeling with larger amounts/numbers, it's better not to round it at all.

And 45ft is a big difference

 

[DT4K]

If you round to the nearest 100, it's not just close, it IS 300.
So if rounding would make it 300, then it's close to 300.

 

[glenn1]

explain your answer please...is 255 close to 300?

Okay, I'll put it in terms even your brother can understand. Offer to hand him a check for $255, and ask if he'll give you back $300 in cash, since it's "close to 300." If he does, then pocket the $45 and go ahead and agree with him that 255 is close to 300. If he doesn't, then tell him he just lost the argument.

 

[godspeedx]

Originally posted by: FunkierThanU
My amplifier goes up to eleven.

hehe

 

[Yax]

When it comes to how many feet up a roller coaster goes I say its okay to think they're close. Would you be more scared if it was really 300 ft or just as equally scared when its at 255ft?

This should not be compared to money or anything else where exact change counts.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
When it comes to how many feet up a roller coaster goes I say its okay to think they're close. Would you be more scared if it was really 300 ft or just as equally scared when its at 255ft?

This should not be compared to money or anything else where exact change counts.

it has nothing to do with how scary it will be due to the height. it is a matter of numbers, and 255 is simply not close to 300 in any application. you cant relate the two. see the posts up above about money...or height of a person...or anything that uses these two numbers as the determining value.

we never rounded, so using rounding is not an answer.

 

[sash1]

I think its funny that he denied your 6'1" to 7' claim, because they're units of height, just like 255' and 300'. You should have converted them into inches...what a moron. 255 and 300 aren't even CLOSE! There are 2.54cm in one inch. So if 255 and 300 are close, that means that 3cm in one inch is a good approximation? NO!

`K

 

[crazychicken]

i'm sure there is some statistics definition of this somewhere.... any math people out there?
but i'd make up something more along the lines of...

ok, you take the difference (this case 300-255=45).

divide the difference by both the numbers in question

300/45=.15
255/45=.176

i'd say if those 2 numbers are within some range, then it would be considered "close". (maybe within .01?)

the argument that it is farther toward the 300 than the 200 is rediculous. one might say , well it is closer to 300 than 0, and you wouldn't disagree, so that is silly logic.
but i dont even know what the hell i'm talking about... thinking about it my little thing is almost the same as just dividing and getting .85 like was done originally.... but seems like one should consider the ratio of both extremes to the difference...

(haha about the condoms)

ps. that is what part of the alphabet would look like if they took out Q and R

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: glenn1

explain your answer please...is 255 close to 300?

Okay, I'll put it in terms even your brother can understand. Offer to hand him a check for $255, and ask if he'll give you back $300 in cash, since it's "close to 300." If he does, then pocket the $45 and go ahead and agree with him that 255 is close to 300. If he doesn't, then tell him he just lost the argument.

you dont seem to understand. he lost and knows it, but wont admit it. i already won IMO.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Kauru
I think its funny that he denied your 6'1" to 7' claim, because they're units of height, just like 255' and 300'. You should have converted them into inches...what a moron. 255 and 300 aren't even CLOSE! There are 2.54cm in one inch. So if 255 and 300 are close, that means that 3cm in one inch is a good approximation? NO!

`K

yes, my height example was exactly the same concept, but he shot it down saying it wasnt the same thing

there is no way to win with someone who is too proud to admit defeat

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: glenn1

explain your answer please...is 255 close to 300?

Okay, I'll put it in terms even your brother can understand. Offer to hand him a check for $255, and ask if he'll give you back $300 in cash, since it's "close to 300." If he does, then pocket the $45 and go ahead and agree with him that 255 is close to 300. If he doesn't, then tell him he just lost the argument.

Do the same thing with a $295 check. I'd say that's close to $300, but I still don't expect a free $5.

 

[SludgeFactory]

That's too much rounding error. They're adding ~18% to the height.

I take it these are not engineers. Even if you sat them down and drew the numbers out on paper for them, I doubt they will see 18% as a big deal. Even though you're right, this is an argument that makes you look like an uber-geek, and in the end that means YOU LOSE

Sometimes it's a sad lonely world for those of us who see beauty in accuracy and precision

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: crazychicken
i'm sure there is some statistics definition of this somewhere.... any math people out there?
but i'd make up something more along the lines of...

ok, you take the difference (this case 300-255=45).

divide the difference by both the numbers in question

300/45=.15
255/45=.176

i'd say if those 2 numbers are within some range, then it would be considered "close". (maybe within .01?)

the argument that it is farther toward the 300 than the 200 is rediculous. one might say , well it is closer to 300 than 0, and you wouldn't disagree, so that is silly logic.
but i dont even know what the hell i'm talking about... thinking about it my little thing is almost the same as just dividing and getting .85 like was done originally.... but seems like one should consider the ratio of both extremes to the difference...

(haha about the condoms)

ps. that is what part of the alphabet would look like if they took out Q and R

you...you mathematician you!!

yeah, i can definitely see that being a dtermining factor, but he is arguing semantics, and you cant use math to do that. he is simply ignorant of the fact that height is the same as anything else...it is a measure of distance, which has the same bearing on relative proximity as any other unit that measures width, weight, amount, number, etc.

he is simply missing the train on this one (as is everyone else who disagrees with crazychicken and the whole concept in general)