Quote:
Originally Posted by raab
He stated that Eberle wouldn't shoot over 12%. Eberle shot over 12% it doesn't matter what numbers are used. Jadeddog needs to suck it up and take the month long avatar bet. He would have won if Eberle had a shooting percentage of 12% or lower. No ties in this bet.

heh
Well, I'm leaving my sliderule out of this one. I have no dead horses being beat in this fish frying pan.
ps
but just for laughs could be a difference between how math is taught then and now.
There used to be an accepted concept of standardization to decimal point, or whole number, or tenths, 100ths, so on in establishing numerical answer in standardized format.
For instance 32.45 + 16.84 + 72.68 +113.13 666.66 X 33.33 would, (when I took math) be acknowledged to represent a standardized decimal point. The expectation being that the answer would be denoted in second decimal point if the input data was grouped and standardized to that decimal point. You wouldn't for instance use 6 decimal pts to derive an answer. This answer would actually be marked wrong back in the day.
or
12 + 18+ 66 2356 +9 X 558 would be standardized to whole number integers if the data set was rounded that way. You wouldn't denote the answer using .000 decimal pts.
So thus the argument becomes did the common vernacular use of whole numbers, as in 12, and 18, in this example denote whole number only derivation in the discussion and alleged agreement and transaction?
To decimal or not, that is the question.
ps I'm on a lark here, I'm no mathematician.