had one ... but the doors fell off

Dan Larsen wrote:
> Mr. Bill wrote:
>>
>>All I can say is that $0.05 or $10,000 ÷ 0 (his baseline) is not 100%.
>>*NOW* who is not grasping the concepts? 8^)
>>
>>Bill Putney
>>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>adddress with the letter 'x')

>
> Let us know when you decide whether you want to add, subtract,
> multiply, or divide. You can't do all of these in the same problem, you know.
> Settle on one, and get back to us.

I didn't have to decide. The entire
mathematics/engineering/scientific/commercial community already decided
the conventions years ago. You are just showing that you are ignorant
of the conventions. And by the way - being ignorant is not in and of
itself a disgrace. It's when a person is first ignorant (again - no
disgrace), then hears the truth and subsequently decides to remain
ignorant that is the true disgrace.

Put your emotions aside for a few minutes - but first lets get one thing
out of the way: In your immediately previous post (for you and, to
borrow a phrase from Rush Limbaugh, those in Rio Linda, that means the
one you did just before this one), you said "winning this argument is
VERY important to you, for some reason". That would be equivalent to
you and I disagreeing over the standard color of stop signs in the U.S
where you were adamantly claiming that it is green and I inform you that
it is red, you saying it was green again, my saying it's red again,
you...green, me...red, back and forth, back and forth, and then finally
you saying that winning the argument was important to me for some reason.

OK - back to turning your emotions off and your brain on, here's the
scoop. You can believe it or not:
In every field of mathematics, science, whatever, when you express
change (increase or decrease) in a parameter (in this discussion, the
parameter is money in one's pocket), per cent change is defined as the
difference between the starting state and the ending state divide by the
ending state. IOW, the baseline (your term, and a good one, BTW) is
**ALWAYS** the beginning state used in the comparison (calculation).

Thats |P1-P2|/P1. When the words "per cent change" (again, increase or
decrease, hence the absolute value of the difference) are used, it is
never |P1-P2|/P2. If you doubt this, check out a book on interpretation
of word problems - you will see that the above is correct.

Having said that, there is a type of similar calculation in which the
denominator is the second (ending) state - but when that formula
applies, the phrasing is **NEVER** "per cent change" (or per cent
increase or per cent decrease). For that second formula to be correctly
applied, the wording would be something like a goal or target. For
example, you could say "The local fund drive met X% of its goal this
year". That would be |P1-P2|/P2, where the starting condition, P1, was
zero (0), and the end condition was some finite value - it could be 100%
- meaning the goal was 100% met. If the goal was $10,000, then $10,000
was raised. If they met 90% of the goal, then they would have raised
$9,000.

So back to the "flat broke" scenario. The beginning condition was zero.
The end condition was some finite value - the nickel, the dollar, the
$10,000, whatever.

If you are using the term "per cent increase", then every competent (key
word: "competent") mathematician, accountant, businessman, or engineer
would tell you that the calculation for % increase was |P1-P2|/P1. And
they would also tell you that if the starting point was zero, then it
was a meaningless statement. (Dividing by zero only has meaning under
specific situations involving limits of Calculus fame.)

**NOW**: If you re-stated it to say that you are flat broke, but you
have a goal of making $100 by next Tuesday, and by next Tuesday, you had
that $100, *THEN* I would say that you met your goal 100% (again:
|P1-P2|/P2).

(In the above, allow me to multiply everything by 100 to convert the
decimals to per cent - thank you.)

Here's a very down-to-earth practical example. Let's say you made
$10,000 last year, and this year you made $20,000. Would you say your
gross income increased 100% (|P1-P2|/P1), or would you say it increased
50% (|P1-P2|/P2)? Any adult that has sense enough to put gas in his/her
car would tell you, without even having to stop and think about it, that
it doubled, or it was a 100% increase. They would not say that it was
a 50% increase. So you tell me which formula you want to use. Once you
determine, from that or any similar example, the right formula to use
for determining "per cent increase", then see what happens to your
meaningless phrase when you plug the numbers into your word problem.

Now, Dr. Larsen. The question is are you going to choose to remain
ignorant after hearing the truth, or are you, by your freedon of will
going to choose to believe the (now) painfuly obvious? Choice is yours.
Is that stop sign green or red?

NEXT!!

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Mr. Bill responded:

>> Mr. Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>All I can say is that $0.05 or $10,000 ÷ 0 (his baseline) is not 100%.
>>>*NOW* who is not grasping the concepts? 8^)
>>>
>>>Bill Putney
>>>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>>adddress with the letter 'x')
>
>>
>> Let us know when you decide whether you want to add, subtract,
>> multiply, or divide. You can't do all of these in the same problem, you
>know.
>> Settle on one, and get back to us.
>
>I didn't have to decide. The entire
>mathematics/engineering/scientific/commercial community already decided
>the conventions years ago. You are just showing that you are ignorant
>of the conventions. And by the way - being ignorant is not in and of
>itself a disgrace. It's when a person is first ignorant (again - no
>disgrace), then hears the truth and subsequently decides to remain
>ignorant that is the true disgrace.
>
>Put your emotions aside for a few minutes - but first lets get one thing
>out of the way: In your immediately previous post (for you and, to
>borrow a phrase from Rush Limbaugh, those in Rio Linda, that means the
>one you did just before this one), you said "winning this argument is
>VERY important to you, for some reason". That would be equivalent to
>you and I disagreeing over the standard color of stop signs in the U.S
>where you were adamantly claiming that it is green and I inform you that
>it is red, you saying it was green again, my saying it's red again,
>you...green, me...red, back and forth, back and forth, and then finally
>you saying that winning the argument was important to me for some reason.
>
>OK - back to turning your emotions off and your brain on, here's the
>scoop. You can believe it or not:
>In every field of mathematics, science, whatever, when you express
>change (increase or decrease) in a parameter (in this discussion, the
>parameter is money in one's pocket), per cent change is defined as the
>difference between the starting state and the ending state divide by the
>ending state. IOW, the baseline (your term, and a good one, BTW) is
>**ALWAYS** the beginning state used in the comparison (calculation).
>
>Thats |P1-P2|/P1. When the words "per cent change" (again, increase or
>decrease, hence the absolute value of the difference) are used, it is
>never |P1-P2|/P2. If you doubt this, check out a book on interpretation
>of word problems - you will see that the above is correct.
>
>Having said that, there is a type of similar calculation in which the
>denominator is the second (ending) state - but when that formula
>applies, the phrasing is **NEVER** "per cent change" (or per cent
>increase or per cent decrease). For that second formula to be correctly
>applied, the wording would be something like a goal or target. For
>example, you could say "The local fund drive met X% of its goal this
>year". That would be |P1-P2|/P2, where the starting condition, P1, was
>zero (0), and the end condition was some finite value - it could be 100%
>- meaning the goal was 100% met. If the goal was $10,000, then $10,000
>was raised. If they met 90% of the goal, then they would have raised
>$9,000.
>
>So back to the "flat broke" scenario. The beginning condition was zero.
> The end condition was some finite value - the nickel, the dollar, the
>$10,000, whatever.
>
>If you are using the term "per cent increase", then every competent (key
>word: "competent") mathematician, accountant, businessman, or engineer
>would tell you that the calculation for % increase was |P1-P2|/P1. And
>they would also tell you that if the starting point was zero, then it
>was a meaningless statement. (Dividing by zero only has meaning under
>specific situations involving limits of Calculus fame.)
>
>**NOW**: If you re-stated it to say that you are flat broke, but you
>have a goal of making $100 by next Tuesday, and by next Tuesday, you had
>that $100, *THEN* I would say that you met your goal 100% (again:
>|P1-P2|/P2).
>
>(In the above, allow me to multiply everything by 100 to convert the
>decimals to per cent - thank you.)
>
>Here's a very down-to-earth practical example. Let's say you made
>$10,000 last year, and this year you made $20,000. Would you say your
>gross income increased 100% (|P1-P2|/P1), or would you say it increased
>50% (|P1-P2|/P2)? Any adult that has sense enough to put gas in his/her
>car would tell you, without even having to stop and think about it, that
> it doubled, or it was a 100% increase. They would not say that it was
>a 50% increase. So you tell me which formula you want to use. Once you
>determine, from that or any similar example, the right formula to use
>for determining "per cent increase", then see what happens to your
>meaningless phrase when you plug the numbers into your word problem.
>
>Now, Dr. Larsen. The question is are you going to choose to remain
>ignorant after hearing the truth, or are you, by your freedon of will
>going to choose to believe the (now) painfuly obvious? Choice is yours.
> Is that stop sign green or red?
>
>NEXT!!
>

No. The questions, Mr. Bill, . . . . are whether you are going to
allow me to continue to jerk your chain, . . . . and exercise your keyboarding
abilities, or see the light at the end of this endless tunnel?? There are
lots of funny and cutting lines, in response to your super-serious efforts
above, to cram a HUGE amount of conditions and data into the current
discussion, (hence your proclivity to allowing one to logically mis-identify
you as a leftist), but exactly like my use of the intentionally misspelled
"Presonal Perferance" terminology, you again give me the opportunity to crank
hard on the chains that seem to drive you. I'm sorry to say that my own ethics
won't allow me to close in on the purest definition of the name "Troll," so in
all sincerity, I'll concede your position and allow your irrelevent
conditionals and data, and say it's been fun. Have a nice day !! ;-)~
BTW, . . . . Nice that you chose red for your position on the previously
unmentioned stopsigns, and green for mine, . . . . I'd have done the same, I
guess! BUBB -- Eye!


God Bless,
Dan'L

("If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around.")

Mr. Bill responded:

>> Mr. Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>All I can say is that $0.05 or $10,000 ÷ 0 (his baseline) is not 100%.
>>>*NOW* who is not grasping the concepts? 8^)
>>>
>>>Bill Putney
>>>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>>adddress with the letter 'x')
>
>>
>> Let us know when you decide whether you want to add, subtract,
>> multiply, or divide. You can't do all of these in the same problem, you
>know.
>> Settle on one, and get back to us.
>
>I didn't have to decide. The entire
>mathematics/engineering/scientific/commercial community already decided
>the conventions years ago. You are just showing that you are ignorant
>of the conventions. And by the way - being ignorant is not in and of
>itself a disgrace. It's when a person is first ignorant (again - no
>disgrace), then hears the truth and subsequently decides to remain
>ignorant that is the true disgrace.
>
>Put your emotions aside for a few minutes - but first lets get one thing
>out of the way: In your immediately previous post (for you and, to
>borrow a phrase from Rush Limbaugh, those in Rio Linda, that means the
>one you did just before this one), you said "winning this argument is
>VERY important to you, for some reason". That would be equivalent to
>you and I disagreeing over the standard color of stop signs in the U.S
>where you were adamantly claiming that it is green and I inform you that
>it is red, you saying it was green again, my saying it's red again,
>you...green, me...red, back and forth, back and forth, and then finally
>you saying that winning the argument was important to me for some reason.
>
>OK - back to turning your emotions off and your brain on, here's the
>scoop. You can believe it or not:
>In every field of mathematics, science, whatever, when you express
>change (increase or decrease) in a parameter (in this discussion, the
>parameter is money in one's pocket), per cent change is defined as the
>difference between the starting state and the ending state divide by the
>ending state. IOW, the baseline (your term, and a good one, BTW) is
>**ALWAYS** the beginning state used in the comparison (calculation).
>
>Thats |P1-P2|/P1. When the words "per cent change" (again, increase or
>decrease, hence the absolute value of the difference) are used, it is
>never |P1-P2|/P2. If you doubt this, check out a book on interpretation
>of word problems - you will see that the above is correct.
>
>Having said that, there is a type of similar calculation in which the
>denominator is the second (ending) state - but when that formula
>applies, the phrasing is **NEVER** "per cent change" (or per cent
>increase or per cent decrease). For that second formula to be correctly
>applied, the wording would be something like a goal or target. For
>example, you could say "The local fund drive met X% of its goal this
>year". That would be |P1-P2|/P2, where the starting condition, P1, was
>zero (0), and the end condition was some finite value - it could be 100%
>- meaning the goal was 100% met. If the goal was $10,000, then $10,000
>was raised. If they met 90% of the goal, then they would have raised
>$9,000.
>
>So back to the "flat broke" scenario. The beginning condition was zero.
> The end condition was some finite value - the nickel, the dollar, the
>$10,000, whatever.
>
>If you are using the term "per cent increase", then every competent (key
>word: "competent") mathematician, accountant, businessman, or engineer
>would tell you that the calculation for % increase was |P1-P2|/P1. And
>they would also tell you that if the starting point was zero, then it
>was a meaningless statement. (Dividing by zero only has meaning under
>specific situations involving limits of Calculus fame.)
>
>**NOW**: If you re-stated it to say that you are flat broke, but you
>have a goal of making $100 by next Tuesday, and by next Tuesday, you had
>that $100, *THEN* I would say that you met your goal 100% (again:
>|P1-P2|/P2).
>
>(In the above, allow me to multiply everything by 100 to convert the
>decimals to per cent - thank you.)
>
>Here's a very down-to-earth practical example. Let's say you made
>$10,000 last year, and this year you made $20,000. Would you say your
>gross income increased 100% (|P1-P2|/P1), or would you say it increased
>50% (|P1-P2|/P2)? Any adult that has sense enough to put gas in his/her
>car would tell you, without even having to stop and think about it, that
> it doubled, or it was a 100% increase. They would not say that it was
>a 50% increase. So you tell me which formula you want to use. Once you
>determine, from that or any similar example, the right formula to use
>for determining "per cent increase", then see what happens to your
>meaningless phrase when you plug the numbers into your word problem.
>
>Now, Dr. Larsen. The question is are you going to choose to remain
>ignorant after hearing the truth, or are you, by your freedon of will
>going to choose to believe the (now) painfuly obvious? Choice is yours.
> Is that stop sign green or red?
>
>NEXT!!
>

No. The questions, Mr. Bill, . . . . are whether you are going to
allow me to continue to jerk your chain, . . . . and exercise your keyboarding
abilities, or see the light at the end of this endless tunnel?? There are
lots of funny and cutting lines, in response to your super-serious efforts
above, to cram a HUGE amount of conditions and data into the current
discussion, (hence your proclivity to allowing one to logically mis-identify
you as a leftist), but exactly like my use of the intentionally misspelled
"Presonal Perferance" terminology, you again give me the opportunity to crank
hard on the chains that seem to drive you. I'm sorry to say that my own ethics
won't allow me to close in on the purest definition of the name "Troll," so in
all sincerity, I'll concede your position and allow your irrelevent
conditionals and data, and say it's been fun. Have a nice day !! ;-)~
BTW, . . . . Nice that you chose red for your position on the previously
unmentioned stopsigns, and green for mine, . . . . I'd have done the same, I
guess! BUBB -- Eye!


God Bless,
Dan'L

("If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around.")

Dan Larsen wrote:
> Mr. Bill responded:
> ...I'll concede your position and allow your irrelevent
> conditionals and data

Ah - so it is clear which path you have chosen (that is, to purposefully
remain ignorant). Freedom of will is a great thing.

> ...Have a nice day !!

And you do the same! To quote Jon Lovitz's character in "A League of
Their Own", it's been a little slice of heaven.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Dan Larsen wrote:
> Mr. Bill responded:
> ...I'll concede your position and allow your irrelevent
> conditionals and data

Ah - so it is clear which path you have chosen (that is, to purposefully
remain ignorant). Freedom of will is a great thing.

> ...Have a nice day !!

And you do the same! To quote Jon Lovitz's character in "A League of
Their Own", it's been a little slice of heaven.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Mr Bill wrote:

>Dan Larsen wrote:
>> Mr. Bill responded:
>> ...I'll concede your position and allow your irrelevent
>> conditionals and data
>
>Ah - so it is clear which path you have chosen (that is, to purposefully
>remain ignorant). Freedom of will is a great thing.
>
> > ...Have a nice day !!
>
>And you do the same! To quote Jon Lovitz's character in "A League of
>Their Own", it's been a little slice of heaven.
>

Just don't hurt yourself, jumping to those kind of conclusions.
Maybe a little research on my occupation or profession wold help, . . . .
naaaww, . . . . prolly not.


God Bless,
Dan'L

("If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around.")

Mr Bill wrote:

>Dan Larsen wrote:
>> Mr. Bill responded:
>> ...I'll concede your position and allow your irrelevent
>> conditionals and data
>
>Ah - so it is clear which path you have chosen (that is, to purposefully
>remain ignorant). Freedom of will is a great thing.
>
> > ...Have a nice day !!
>
>And you do the same! To quote Jon Lovitz's character in "A League of
>Their Own", it's been a little slice of heaven.
>

Just don't hurt yourself, jumping to those kind of conclusions.
Maybe a little research on my occupation or profession wold help, . . . .
naaaww, . . . . prolly not.


God Bless,
Dan'L

("If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around.")