tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post624634632437437377..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: When Simplification ObscuresGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-31039955892903228572015-07-23T04:40:02.231-06:002015-07-23T04:40:02.231-06:00Maybe, maybe not, since decimals combines reductio...Maybe, maybe not, since decimals combines reduction with conversion to a denominator of 10, 100, 1000, etc. Even non-standard numbers like 93 can be easier in, say, a shared context of things that regularly occur 93 times. (Maybe a company finds it convenient to package 93 of something for some reason or another...)<br /><br />It all depends on context (as above and in terms of what normal humans can process) and the mathematical background/ability of the audience. Time and again, I see examples of people who don't really understand what "percent" means, and that's arguably better than a decimal since those are whole numbers (or easily-enough rounded to them), and easier to read than decimals. I think Cook's main point is that we have to keep context in mind when using numbers, and that doing things the same way every time can get in the way.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-32225279940004595552015-07-22T21:01:10.473-06:002015-07-22T21:01:10.473-06:00Decimal format (0.123) is even better so that frac...Decimal format (0.123) is even better so that fractions can be compared to each other. Unless the denominator is small (2/3) or standardized (90°, 45/365 days) you probably shouldn't use fractions. Who can do mental math with numbers like 29/93?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com