> If it were defined as you stated, Rich (i.e., if 200% implied two
> successive 100% increases

It's all in the wording and context. If you said "100% increase" I
think most people would take that to mean there were twice as
many as before. I think they may also take "200% increase" to
mean the same, because of the "2", regardless of whether it's
mathematically correct

> if a 50% increase is not multiplying by 1.5, then why is 50% of
> something, half?

I'd assume the speaker meant * 1.5 by 50% increase, or 150%,
but, as above, I'd have to think about what was really meant by
200%. It should be up to the speaker to convey what they mean.
My initial reaction would be to think 3 times as many as before
because I know that 100% increase is 2 times, But would I think
that way outside of this conversation ?

100% per cent =3D 100 per 100. 50% is therefore 50 per 100, or half

Joe
--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.