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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
