<I just noticed that I sent this reply to Michael, not the list. Sorry,
Michael.>
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 21:24:07 -0500 (CDT)
"Michael Martinell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, July 8, 2005 8:45 pm, Cybe R. Wizard said:
> >>
> > Yes, that makes perfect sense and reiterates what I have said; that
> > if a thing has dropped in price 2000-fold /someone/ should now be
> > paying me to use their hardware. Isn't it similar to the problem in
> > saying that something costs, say, three times less than <time ago>?
> > Isn't/one/ time less than what was paid equal to zero? Wouldn't we
> > be more correct in saying one third the price?
> >
> > Cybe R. Wizard -wants to understand, not just pedantic
>
> Following these statements and math, one is always dividing, not
> subtracting. No matter how many times you divide you are still left
> with parts. If you then call each of the new parts a whole and divide
> it you never end up with 0 or less then 0. Unless you divide by 0,
> but of course that is an imaginary number (i).
>
Well, that doesn't seem right so I had to look it up:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dict fold
10 definitions found
<snip to the relevant part>
>From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
[gcide]:
Fold \Fold\, n. [From {Fold}, v. In sense 2 AS. -feald, akin to
fealdan to fold.]
...
2. Times or repetitions; -- used with numerals, chiefly in
composition, to denote multiplication or increase in a
geometrical ratio, the doubling, tripling, etc., of
anything; as, fourfold, four times, increased in a
quadruple ratio, multiplied by four.
[1913 Webster]
Now, the way I remember math is that if you divide you end up with
fractions, not multiples.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Q: What's the difference between MicroSoft Windows and a virus?
A: Apart from the fact that viruses are supported by their authors,
use optimized, small code and usually perform well, none.
Winduhs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
