Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement
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 vernacular use of whole numbers, as in 12, and 18, in this example denote whole number only derivation?
To decimal or not, that is the question.
ps I'm on a lark here, I'm no mathematician.

If jaded dog had stated it was rounded to whole number then he would have a case. He didn't all he said was that Eberle's shooting percentage would be 12% or lower. Therefore since his shooting percentage is actually above 12% he has to honour the bet. Even if it was 12.000000001 % he still would have lost the bet.