Even if all statements are true, this sounds like a classic case of choosing how to present your results so they appear in the best possible light for publication.
Andrew Mauer-Oats Mathematics Ph.D. Chicago Public Schools: Whitney Young > On Apr 13, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Josh Grams <j...@qualdan.com> wrote: > > That is helpful, but my basic objection still stands: you're computing > with *times* while the claim in the article was about *speeds*, I think. > He says "50% more work using the same amount of CPU cycles", which I > read as work/time. So you need to take the reciprocal of all your > values. Don't you? > >> On 2015-04-13 08:15AM, George Neuner wrote: >> So: >> percent change = 100% * ( (new - old) / old ) >> Dropping the common multiplier to keep the numbers simple: >> >> 3.7 -> 3.8 >> percent change = 100% * ( (95 - 143) / 143 ) >> = 100% * ( -48 / 143 ) >> = 100% * ( -0.34 ) >> = -34% > > Should be: > > 3.7 -> 3.8 > percent change = 100% * ( ( (1/95) - (1/143) ) / (1/143) ) > = 100% * ( ( 0.0105 - 0.00699 ) / (0.00699) ) > = 100% * ( 0.0351 / .00699 ) > = 100% * ( .50 ) > = 50% > > Yes? No? Maybe I'm reading the article wrong... > > --Josh > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
