Re: 100%

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jun 23, 2007, 10:56 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706231154300.4059@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <467CF380.6060603@lsrfire.ath.cx>

Hi,

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, René Scharfe wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin schrieb:
> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> The people I know will expect "100% identical" or even "100.0% 
> >> identical" to mean identical, period.  They will be quite surprised to 
> >> hear that "99.95%" is supposed to be included.
> > 
> > Granted, 100.0% means as close as you can get to "completely" with 4 
> > digits. But if you have an integer, you better use the complete range, 
> > rather than arbitrarily make one number more important than others.
> > 
> > For if you see an integer, you usually assume a rounded value. If you 
> > don't, you're hopeless.
> 
> Why hopeless?  It's a useful convention to define "100%" as "complete
> (not rounded)".

By the same reasoning, you could say "never round down to 0%, because I want to know when there is no similarity".

You cannot be exact when you have to cut off fractions, so why try for _exactly_ one number?

Ciao, Dscho