Is the glass 50% full , 50% empty , or is our measuring stick broken ? Somebody somewhare in Denver > On 2014m07d27, at 1:21, Sean Breheny wrote: >=20 > Percent is just a different way of writing numbers, wherein you take the > number and multiply by 100. No more, no less.You could call regular numbe= rs > "per unum" if you wanted. There is also "per mille" meaning a number time= s > 1000. I so agree with you that it is super annoying when people say thing= s > like "I am going to give 110% of my effort!" But the numerator of a > fraction is not always a part of the denominator. If I have $10 in my ban= k > account, I can have $100 tomorrow, and my account has experienced a 9 tim= es > increase (or a 900 percent increase, or a 9000 per mille increase). >=20 > Rich suggested that my interpretation makes no sense because two successi= ve > 100% increases result in a quadrupling, whereas I was suggesting that a > 200% increase is a tripling. There is no contradiction here - the key thi= ng > is that Rich is assuming SUCCESSIVE increases - the second 100% increase > has a different basis or denominator than the first. That means that two > successive 100% increases are NOT the same as a single 200% increase. >=20 > If it were defined as you stated, Rich (i.e., if 200% implied two > successive 100% increases and was therefore a 3x increase or 4x the > original value), then how would you define a 150% increase? And what woul= d > be the connection between percentage increase and percentage of a part of= a > whole? In other words, if a 50% increase is not multiplying by 1.5, then > why is 50% of something, half? >=20 > Sean >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:54 AM, cdb wrote: >=20 >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:17:20 -0600, NOPE9 YES wrote: >> :: The phrase " our business increased 200% " >>=20 >> Please don't start me on my philosophical maths rant :) >>=20 >> In no way can there be 200% or any other greater than 100% it is like >> saying we increase the number of cakes by 24/8ths. 100% is the maximum >> percentage =3D per 100ths - we can however have a doubling or two times = or >> twice the amount etc etc. >>=20 >> I just now I will lose this argument even though I'm pretty sure that fr= om >> a purest point of view I am correct. In fact my arrogance tells me I am >> 100% correct or is that 250% correct if there were two of me? >>=20 >> Colin >> -- >> cdb, colin@btech-online.co.uk on 27/07/2014 >>=20 >> Web presence: www.btech-online.co.uk >>=20 >> Hosted by: www.justhost.com.au >>=20 >>=20 >> This email is to be considered private if addressed to a named individu= al >> or Personnel Department, and public if addressed to a blog, forum or ne= ws >> article. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=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 >>=20 > --=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 >=20 >=20 --=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 .