In a message dated 10/17/2006 10:09:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> As I understand it, if A is 37% cheaper than B, then it costs 63% (100-37) what >>B costs. >I quite clearly stated that I meant a factor of 37 and _NOT_ 37%. I made the >distinction so as to avoid this kind of inanity, but it seems someone will always be >dumb enough to step forward. Your original post, on 12 OCT 2006, said "I've seen an IBM internal analysis of a Websphere Application Server implementation that was 37x cheaper on Intel than on zSeries. That's 37 _TIMES_ - not 37%!" You made it abundantly clear that you meant a factor of 37 and not 37%. But you sowed confusion by adding the word "cheaper." Your post was followed on 13 OCT 2006 by Matt Simpson's post in which he said "Statements like this always confuse me. How can something be 37 times (or 3700%) smaller or cheaper than something else?" I posted an explanation, shortly after Simpson's describing his confusion over your choice of words, on the basic mathematics and the wording one must use to communicate a percent change in order not to confuse readers who are well versed in basic mathematics, as are Simpson and I. Simpson was not confusing 37 times with 37%, as you apparently thought. He was questioning how a price can be reduced by more than 100%. Basic math states that the percent change in moving from X to Y is 100*(Y-X)/X, unless X=0. E.g., moving from 10 to 20 is a 100% increase of the beginning value of 10, from 10 to 0 is a 100% decrease, and moving from 10 to -40 is a 500% decrease of the original value. This works fine in abstract math but not always in the real world. >I'm quite stunned at the apparent ignorance of basic mathematics shown in the >responses. Simpson and I are both stunned whenever anyone unthinkingly throws in words like "cheaper" or "less" with a % value greater than 100, indicating the writer has succumbed to the inane, endemic mind-rot sown by advertisers, media hypers, and politicians who, in trying to gain the attention of the reader, claim that something has been reduced in price by more than 100%. These hype-mongers are the ones who are dumb enough not to understand basic mathematics. Simpson's use of "37%" was a hypothetical attempt to understand your confusing use of the word "cheaper", not an attempt to claim that "37 times" is the same as "37%". In your latest post you have cleared up the confusion by saying "I HAVE IN MY POSSESSION AN IBM INTERNAL STUDY SHOWING THAT THE COST OF PROCESSING ONE CUSTOMER-SPECIFIC SAMPLE WEBSPHERE APPLICATION SERVER TRANSACTION ON XSERIES IS 1/37TH THE COST OF PROCESSING THE SAME TRANSACTION ON ZSERIES." Thank you for rewording your original statement into a non-confusing and mathematically precise wording to express the basic math involved, which neither Simpson nor I misunderstand. "1/37th the cost" is not the same as being "37x cheaper." Engineers, architects, and even corporate accountants are careful to resist dumb and inane wordings when describing percent changes. Bill Fairchild, B.S. Applied Mathematics, 1967 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
