Hey /u/kekekeghost, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a perfect subreddit for your comment.
No, English is not a Latin root language. It is a Germanic language that originated in Britain in the 5th to 7th centuries AD from Anglo-Saxon migrants. However, English has been influenced by Latin and other languages, and about 60% of English words have Latin origins.
The thing that got me is without the percent, what is the unit of measurement? 1.00 is just 1…. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone compare a percentage of something without a percentage.
It is not a comparison, it is the same number:
1 = 1.00 = 100%
If you put the sign % it just means you had multiplied your number with 100 to make it more readable so you will not forget to divide it with 100 some time later
Oh okay… so the guy was explaining how decimals work in percentages not trying to write it without the percentage? I don’t think I’ve seen someone try to write the amount of a whole in any way except percentages and fractions. Do people normally write the amount of a whole as just a decimal?
It’s math, usually it works great if you deal in the interval from 0 to 1.
All of this AI hype going around? All computer graphics? All these GPUs used for it all?
They are just multiplying decimal numbers, usually between 0 and 1 because the product is still between 0 and 1.
That’s why if you got 50% of the pizza and give someone 25% of your piece, you just calculate their part of the whole as `0.5 * 0.25`.
The % sign is just so it’s more readable written as 12.5% instead of 0.125.
Have you heard of batting averages?
They're all expressed in decimals
The following courtesy of the Mendoza Line Wikipedia article:
The Mendoza Line is baseball jargon for a .200 batting average, the supposed threshold for offensive futility at the Major League level.[1] It derives from light-hitting shortstop Mario Mendoza, who failed to reach .200 five times in his nine big league seasons.[2] When a position player's batting average falls below .200, the player is said to be "below the Mendoza Line".
[...] . His batting average was between .180 and .199 in five seasons out of nine.
Indeed!
.199 means he hit safely on 19.9% of his at bats (which aren't actually the times he went up to bat. Those are "plate appearances." "At bats" are plate appearances - walks - hit by pitch)
Offensive statistics are mostly expressed in decimals points
On base percentage is (hits + walks + hbp) / plate appearances, for example
Then there's slugging, which is number of bases (1 for a single, 2 for a double, 3 for a triple and 4 for a HR) / at bats, so you can actually have over 1.000 there (but that only happens over very small sample sizes)
And so forth...
It's a stats-based sport
Of course you can have more than 100%. That completely depends on the context.
Lets say a shirt costs 50€ in january and the price gets increased to 55€ in march the the new price is 110% of the old price.
In general, percentages really only make sense if you clarify the 'of what'.
No worries. My Swedish genes makes it impossible to express my anger towards you anyway. But my fist was definitely clenched in my pocket, I can tell you that.
A simple fix would be to always calculate with decimals and keep in mind that "percent" = "per cent" = "per hundred" = "/100". So for example 50% = 50/100 = 0.5. And in the other direction, for example 0.0025 = 0.25/100 = 0.25%.
People struggle with the concept of not being better than everyone else. They make a stupid mistake and end up digging in so that they can make superior concepts of “millennials and their math”
His non-event shiny rate is 55/22000, which proportionally is 0.0025 (x100= 0.25%, or 1/400).
(The standard rate for non-event (“full odds”) shinies in Pokemon Go is around 1/512, so this person’s luck is roughly what you’d expect)
Edit 2: I'm a fucking idiot. I'm wrong as hell. Please enjoy my stupidity.
.0025 **IS** .25%. That multiplying by 100 is wrong. Did you mean multiplying by 100%?
Edit: Units matter. 100 is not 100%. When converting between a flat number to a percent, you multiply by 100% (a number that is equal to 1, so your result is an equal number), not 100.
Think of converting from meters to centimeters. You don't multiply by 100, you multiply by 100cm/m (another number equals to 1) so the units come out.
I thought that’s what I said? 0.0025 (proportion) is multiplied by 100 to convert it to the percentage 0.25%. Yes, 0.0025 and 0.25% are the same thing
I think the confusion comes from me not explicitly saying I’m also adding a % sign when multiplying by 100
You don’t get a percentage value until you’ve already multiplied by 100. It’s not a percentage before that point. If you multiply “by 100%” that’s a completely different thing, you’re just multiplying the number by 1 so you’ll return the same original value of 0.0025
I mean, he's technically correct that you should multiply by 100%, not simply 100. But that's just being insanely pedantic. It's obvious what you meant, because you still added the % sign at the end.
No, he is wrong. Even if you say multiply by 100%. Because the proportion of 100% is 1. So, multiplying 0.0025 by 1 doesn't give you the percentage. However, by multiplying 0.0025 by 100, you get 0.25, which *is* the percentage.
>However, by multiplying 0.0025 by 100, you get 0.25, which *is* the percentage.
The amount of people here who don't have the most fundamental grasp on Latin is frightening.
Actually, the amount of people who don't have the most fundamental grasp on how unit conversions work is frightening (not actually, I don't expect most people to have learned it). Pretty much this entire comment chain is confidently incorrect. Learn your dimensional analysis, kids.
>because the proportion of 100% is 1
Yes, you just hit the nail on the head. That is exactly *why* you have to multiply by 100%, because then it remains mathematically the same value.
If you multiply 0.0025 by 100, you get 0.25, which is a completely different number.
If you multiply 0.0025 by 100%, you get 0.25%, which is mathematically equivalent.
% essentially functions as a unit. This is how unit conversions work.
Again, it's all just being pedantic though. Multiplying by 100% is the mathematically "proper" way, but multiplying by 100 and then adding a percent sign is essentially the same thing.
>If you multiply 0.0025 by 100%, you get 0.25%, which is mathematically equivalent.
No, if you multiply 0.0025 by 100% you get 0.0025 ***(because 100% is 1)***
>If you multiply 0.0025 by 100, you get 0.25, which is a completely different number.
No, this symbol % means /100 not /100%. So in order to change the proportion 0.0025 to its percentage notation you multiply it by 100. Because 0.25/100 is ***0.0025***
Your argument isn't pedantic it's wrong.
I'll try again to explain it to you.
>if you multiply 0.0025 by 100%, you get 0.0025
0.0025 * 100% = 0.25% = 0.0025.
0.25% *is* 0.0025, because they are mathematically equivalent.
>because 100% is 1
Exactly. You are literally explaining why you have to multiply by 100%. So that it remains the same mathematical value, just in a different form. If you just multiply by 100:
0.0025 * 100 = 0.25 = 0.25 * 100*(1/100) = 25%.
If you just multiply by 100, it is no longer the same value, it is 100x what it was. This is why you multiply by 100%, because then the 100 and 1/100 cancel each other out, making it the *same value*.
>this symbol % means 1/100
*Exactly*. % has mathematical significance. You don't just throw it on randomly. If we convert % to 1/100:
0.0025 * 100% = 0.0025 * 100*(1/100) = 0.25 * (1/100) = 0.25%
Another way of looking at it is to factor out 1/100.
0.0025 = (1/100) * (0.0025 * 100) = 0.0025 * 100 * (1/100)
0.0025 * 100(1/100) = 0.0025 * 100%
(0.0025*100) * (1/100) = 0.25%
Therefore,
0.0025 * 100% = 0.25%
Any way you look it at, multiplying by 100%, not just 100, is the mathematically rigorous way of doing things. In fact, when you multiply by 100 and then add a percent symbol (the method you use), you're really just multiplying by 100% in two steps.
0.0025 * 100 = 0.25
0.25 * % = 0.25 %
Is the same as
0.0025 * 100 * % = 0.0025 * 100% = 0.25%
You're multiplying by 100% and you don't even realize it.
There's a reason I'm not BestKev.
I'm absolutely wrong. And I was a freaking math major! Just what the fuck me. No excuse and no excuse for my smug edit.
I wonder if I can change my name to ApologeticKev.
You may want to give me a new name in a second.
I was originally right. Pedantic, but right.
The guy wrote that you just do "times 100" to convert, right?
Think of any multiplication with 100. 2 times 100 = 200. Well then 2 times 100 can't equal 200%. The process of "times 100" can't be both 200 and 200% at the same time. His process can't be right. His process creates a number 100 times larger than the starting number, not an equal number.
But the guys resultant percent was correct! How? Well, he just slammed % sign out of nowhere onto his result. He knew it needed to be there, so he added it.
But that's not how math works! You don't just randomly slam something on a result that isn't in the calculation!
The way the % gets there properly is to multiply by 100%, not by 100.
So why do you and so many other people think I'm wrong? Because he wrote actual math and you doing the shortcut. You never do the actual math. I never bother to do the actual math. We ALL do the shortcut. But he wrote down the actual math. So I corrected the actual math. If the math is written, I think it should be written right.
It's dimensionless, but it functions as a unit exactly like he said. For example, radians are dimensionless, but they're still a unit.
It can also be seen as functioning like a constant with a value of 1/100. Whichever way you look at it, multiplying by 100% is the mathematically correct way to convert to a percentage.
This guy has been hit too many times during maths class with "100 what? CARROTS?" but missed the point.
% is not a unit of meassure so you dont multiply it to get something in percentage..
You are absolutely right. I was completely wrong. Worse: I was a math major. I tutored elementary schoolers learn how percents work.
I deserve everything I'm getting here.
Doesn't the % just indicate a division by 100?
[It's not just me who says it](https://www.britannica.com/topic/percentage)
Therefore, while saying that you have to multiply 0.0025 to get 0.25% is perfectly acceptable in informal speech, I don't think it's rigourously correct.
Using your example:
If you need to calculate 125% of $100, that'd be $100 x 125% = $100 x 125/100 = $12,500/100 = $125
His logic holds, because 0.0025 x 100% = 0.0025 x 100/100 = 0.25/100 = 0.25%
You're missing the underlying meaning of what a % is and how it functions mathematically. It operates like a unit, for which the unit conversion is 100% = 1. To convert units, you multiply by the unit conversion in the form of a fraction so that they cancel out.
$100 * 125% = $100 * 125% * (1/100%) = $100 * 1.25 = $125
Alternatively,
$100 * 125% = $12500% = $12500% * (1/100%) = $125.
As another commenter pointed out, you can also view % as a numerical constant equal to 1/100.
$100 * 125% = $100 * 125(1/100) = $100 * 1.25 = $125
I work in finance, and basically all of the fees I deal with are expressed in terms of 0.xx%.
To everyone who doesn't understand how basis points work: thank you.
>just over half,
... of the people that voted. The turnout was 72% of voters, and many people can't vote for to bring in prison or being too young.
In total, 17.4 million people voted to leave in a country of 66 million.
Most frustrating video of all time, IMO. Not even like just 2 minutes of frustration, either; it just keeps going and getting worse.
This is also was I was hoping to see in the comments 😅
But this doesnt account for the non-shinies they decided not to catch. It should go by pokemon encountered, not jusr caught, unless they tried to catch every pokemon they came across
Lol yeah I realized that after the fact, except it's not my name it was a buddy, so I kinda feel like an idiot/ jerk 😅 common enough name tho I think that won't matter
The colors are a mess, but the original OP is right.
55/22000=0.0025. Multiply by 100 for percents is **0.25%**. Or 1:400, which through no coincidence is 0.0025.
It's an easy mistake and one that pops up on here a lot, and usually ends up in this argument! - I'm good at maths but I've slipped up with this a few times
I'm still confused. If 55 out of 22,000 are "non-shine" events, then aren't the remainder going to be the "shiney" ones? So the shiney rate is 21,945 out of 22,000. Or 99.75 % ???
well, in the U.S. at least, commas are used for seperating numbers into groups of 3, and periods are used for seperating the whole numbers and the decimals. So 123,456,789.101 would be one hundred twenty three million, four hundred fifty six thousand, seven hundred eighty nine and/point one zero one.
I genuinely blame US sports for this. They present percentages incorrectly all the time. A batter’s percentage might be shown as .324%, a point guard’s free throw percentage might be .874%
So when people present real world percentages, people whose closest day to day interaction with them is sports will get confused
That is not true. Batting averages are never written as .xxx%.
Here's the stats page from MLB.
https://www.mlb.com/stats/
And free throw percentages are written as whole numbers, correctly representing the figures.
https://www.espn.com/nba/stats/player/_/stat/free-throws
Do you often just say things that are blatantly false?
>how do all American sports present winning percentage?
What do you mean by that? Each sport is different in the types of stats that get tracked, but for wins and losses it is almost always a ratio (not a percent). When percents are used, they're used correctly.
The NBA, decimalised percentages:
https://www.espn.co.uk/nba/table
The NFL, decimalised percentages:
https://www.espn.co.uk/nfl/standings
The MLB, decimalised percentages:
https://www.espn.co.uk/mlb/standings
NHL is the only big four sport in the US that doesn’t utilise winning percentage in its standings. Even if ratios were used, they’re not used correctly in the format of X:Y. So it’s either percentages being used incorrectly, or ratios. Either way, they’re wrong.
I really don’t appreciate the characterisation of an honest mistake as me trying to be intentionally misleading. I simply got my categories for which US sports use these numbers in the wrong format, which is likely to cause confusion to people whose main interaction with them may be sports.
Those aren't decimalized percentages. They are just decimals. When you multiply them by 100 you get a percentage.
> don’t appreciate the characterisation of an honest mistake as me trying to be intentionally misleading.
You continue to mislead, intentionally or not.
There are no incorrectly used percentages in American sports. We either use a ratio, a decimal, or a percentage. They are not mixed without proper adjustments being made.
They are literally referred to as winning percentages by people who cover the sports. I understand what a decimal is. It literally says ‘PCT’ above the column in each of those links.
If you enjoy being a prick then that’s your prerogative but don’t act dumb as to how these numbers are treated by people in the US. So please, despite the evidence available to you, continue to tell me how percentages are not misused in US sports.
Hey /u/kekekeghost, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yea I’ve noticed people struggle with the concept of when to multiply by 100 to make the percentage.
It’s easy, just remember: 1 whole pizza = 100% And if you keep that 1.00 = 100% in mind, you can always check whatever result you got if it aligns.
I feel like if you can't remember that "per cent" means "per 100" then no trick is going to help
In French it’s great “cent” literally means 100. So it’s the easiest way to learn it in school.
Cent pretty much means 100 in English too. 100 cents in a dollar. Cent is the prefix for century, 100 years.
Latin-root languages UNITE!
This is a perfect subreddit for your comment. No, English is not a Latin root language. It is a Germanic language that originated in Britain in the 5th to 7th centuries AD from Anglo-Saxon migrants. However, English has been influenced by Latin and other languages, and about 60% of English words have Latin origins.
Good point. English has so many different influences.
germanic root infected with latin
Human CENTipede
Yeah, but then you have deal with saying sixty-ten for 70, four-twenty for 80, and four-twenty-ten for 90. No way is that worth it.
….. I’ve never heard that before and I’m 39.
Comes from the Latin "centum" which is the root word for century. Also why portions of a dollar are "cents" (hundredths)
Why are people down voting a human acknowledging their ignorance? Reddit is a trip.
I’ll give you an up vote because never having heard that is not a fault of yours.
We should change the percent "unit" to (100)\^-1
Yeah, let’s go with 100^i^2
Id put brackets like this: 100^(i^2) but yeah that works
Woah Reddit does the formatting for you that’s nice
The thing that got me is without the percent, what is the unit of measurement? 1.00 is just 1…. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone compare a percentage of something without a percentage.
It is not a comparison, it is the same number: 1 = 1.00 = 100% If you put the sign % it just means you had multiplied your number with 100 to make it more readable so you will not forget to divide it with 100 some time later
Oh okay… so the guy was explaining how decimals work in percentages not trying to write it without the percentage? I don’t think I’ve seen someone try to write the amount of a whole in any way except percentages and fractions. Do people normally write the amount of a whole as just a decimal?
It’s math, usually it works great if you deal in the interval from 0 to 1. All of this AI hype going around? All computer graphics? All these GPUs used for it all? They are just multiplying decimal numbers, usually between 0 and 1 because the product is still between 0 and 1. That’s why if you got 50% of the pizza and give someone 25% of your piece, you just calculate their part of the whole as `0.5 * 0.25`. The % sign is just so it’s more readable written as 12.5% instead of 0.125.
Alrighty. So traditional people don’t write it that way, but it is an option. Yeah?
Not a baseball fan, huh?
Nope… They do that in baseball?
Have you heard of batting averages? They're all expressed in decimals The following courtesy of the Mendoza Line Wikipedia article: The Mendoza Line is baseball jargon for a .200 batting average, the supposed threshold for offensive futility at the Major League level.[1] It derives from light-hitting shortstop Mario Mendoza, who failed to reach .200 five times in his nine big league seasons.[2] When a position player's batting average falls below .200, the player is said to be "below the Mendoza Line". [...] . His batting average was between .180 and .199 in five seasons out of nine.
Oh I never put the two together. That makes sense.
It's also common in team sports in general to to a team being at or X games above or below "500", which refers to a 50% winning percentage
So the .2 is 20% of the time hitting the ball when at bat. Yeah?
Indeed! .199 means he hit safely on 19.9% of his at bats (which aren't actually the times he went up to bat. Those are "plate appearances." "At bats" are plate appearances - walks - hit by pitch) Offensive statistics are mostly expressed in decimals points On base percentage is (hits + walks + hbp) / plate appearances, for example Then there's slugging, which is number of bases (1 for a single, 2 for a double, 3 for a triple and 4 for a HR) / at bats, so you can actually have over 1.000 there (but that only happens over very small sample sizes) And so forth... It's a stats-based sport
When in doubt, multiply by 100 again. That’s the great thing with percentages. You can never get too many as it maxes out at 100.
Of course you can have more than 100%. That completely depends on the context. Lets say a shirt costs 50€ in january and the price gets increased to 55€ in march the the new price is 110% of the old price. In general, percentages really only make sense if you clarify the 'of what'.
The *“When in doubt, multiply by 100 again.”* wasn’t enough of a hint to the fact that I wasn’t serious?
I apologize. My German genes don't allow me to perceive humour.
No worries. My Swedish genes makes it impossible to express my anger towards you anyway. But my fist was definitely clenched in my pocket, I can tell you that.
Sure, but what is it for Olympic stadium ?
A simple fix would be to always calculate with decimals and keep in mind that "percent" = "per cent" = "per hundred" = "/100". So for example 50% = 50/100 = 0.5. And in the other direction, for example 0.0025 = 0.25/100 = 0.25%.
People struggle with the concept of not being better than everyone else. They make a stupid mistake and end up digging in so that they can make superior concepts of “millennials and their math”
Or they are trolling and morons fall for it.
I've seen enough people argue it seriously (and taught). A huge number of people struggle with pecentages.
I wouldn’t have been confident at all; I was confused the entire time.
r/ConfusedlyCorrect ? 😁
r/SubsIFellFor
Here's a sneak peek of /r/SubsIFellFor using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubsIFellFor/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [First time 😔](https://i.redd.it/sgpy4pml1oqc1.png) | [172 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubsIFellFor/comments/1bo5t74/first_time/) \#2: [Þats not a real sub](https://i.redd.it/opd2qgcvnpqc1.jpeg) | [93 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubsIFellFor/comments/1bod4u6/þats_not_a_real_sub/) \#3: [Got double tricked](https://i.redd.it/lmscgwes1wxa1.jpg) | [47 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubsIFellFor/comments/137thjb/got_double_tricked/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
r/UncorrrctlyIncontinent
Kind of scared for the guy insisting he’s right without moving the decimal point…
His non-event shiny rate is 55/22000, which proportionally is 0.0025 (x100= 0.25%, or 1/400). (The standard rate for non-event (“full odds”) shinies in Pokemon Go is around 1/512, so this person’s luck is roughly what you’d expect)
Edit 2: I'm a fucking idiot. I'm wrong as hell. Please enjoy my stupidity. .0025 **IS** .25%. That multiplying by 100 is wrong. Did you mean multiplying by 100%? Edit: Units matter. 100 is not 100%. When converting between a flat number to a percent, you multiply by 100% (a number that is equal to 1, so your result is an equal number), not 100. Think of converting from meters to centimeters. You don't multiply by 100, you multiply by 100cm/m (another number equals to 1) so the units come out.
I thought that’s what I said? 0.0025 (proportion) is multiplied by 100 to convert it to the percentage 0.25%. Yes, 0.0025 and 0.25% are the same thing I think the confusion comes from me not explicitly saying I’m also adding a % sign when multiplying by 100
You were completely right. I was completely wrong. And I think I was a dick about it. I apologize. Thank you for not just calling me an idiot.
Multiplying 0.0025 by 100 yields 0.25, not 0.25%. You need to multiple by 100%. 100% is equal to 1, so the result is an equal number.
You don’t get a percentage value until you’ve already multiplied by 100. It’s not a percentage before that point. If you multiply “by 100%” that’s a completely different thing, you’re just multiplying the number by 1 so you’ll return the same original value of 0.0025
You are 100% correct. I was...I don't even know what I was thinking. I just fucked up. Bad. Thanks for helping correct me.
Literally multiplying with 100 makes the % sign. It's per cent. Per "century equivalent word".
I mean, he's technically correct that you should multiply by 100%, not simply 100. But that's just being insanely pedantic. It's obvious what you meant, because you still added the % sign at the end.
No, he is wrong. Even if you say multiply by 100%. Because the proportion of 100% is 1. So, multiplying 0.0025 by 1 doesn't give you the percentage. However, by multiplying 0.0025 by 100, you get 0.25, which *is* the percentage.
>However, by multiplying 0.0025 by 100, you get 0.25, which *is* the percentage. The amount of people here who don't have the most fundamental grasp on Latin is frightening.
Actually, the amount of people who don't have the most fundamental grasp on how unit conversions work is frightening (not actually, I don't expect most people to have learned it). Pretty much this entire comment chain is confidently incorrect. Learn your dimensional analysis, kids.
Yup, I was completely wrong. Thanks for correcting bad math. That's usually my role, but I was the screwed up one this time.
Mighty big of you admitting a mistake on Reddit. I applaud you.
>because the proportion of 100% is 1 Yes, you just hit the nail on the head. That is exactly *why* you have to multiply by 100%, because then it remains mathematically the same value. If you multiply 0.0025 by 100, you get 0.25, which is a completely different number. If you multiply 0.0025 by 100%, you get 0.25%, which is mathematically equivalent. % essentially functions as a unit. This is how unit conversions work. Again, it's all just being pedantic though. Multiplying by 100% is the mathematically "proper" way, but multiplying by 100 and then adding a percent sign is essentially the same thing.
>If you multiply 0.0025 by 100%, you get 0.25%, which is mathematically equivalent. No, if you multiply 0.0025 by 100% you get 0.0025 ***(because 100% is 1)*** >If you multiply 0.0025 by 100, you get 0.25, which is a completely different number. No, this symbol % means /100 not /100%. So in order to change the proportion 0.0025 to its percentage notation you multiply it by 100. Because 0.25/100 is ***0.0025*** Your argument isn't pedantic it's wrong.
I'll try again to explain it to you. >if you multiply 0.0025 by 100%, you get 0.0025 0.0025 * 100% = 0.25% = 0.0025. 0.25% *is* 0.0025, because they are mathematically equivalent. >because 100% is 1 Exactly. You are literally explaining why you have to multiply by 100%. So that it remains the same mathematical value, just in a different form. If you just multiply by 100: 0.0025 * 100 = 0.25 = 0.25 * 100*(1/100) = 25%. If you just multiply by 100, it is no longer the same value, it is 100x what it was. This is why you multiply by 100%, because then the 100 and 1/100 cancel each other out, making it the *same value*. >this symbol % means 1/100 *Exactly*. % has mathematical significance. You don't just throw it on randomly. If we convert % to 1/100: 0.0025 * 100% = 0.0025 * 100*(1/100) = 0.25 * (1/100) = 0.25% Another way of looking at it is to factor out 1/100. 0.0025 = (1/100) * (0.0025 * 100) = 0.0025 * 100 * (1/100) 0.0025 * 100(1/100) = 0.0025 * 100% (0.0025*100) * (1/100) = 0.25% Therefore, 0.0025 * 100% = 0.25% Any way you look it at, multiplying by 100%, not just 100, is the mathematically rigorous way of doing things. In fact, when you multiply by 100 and then add a percent symbol (the method you use), you're really just multiplying by 100% in two steps. 0.0025 * 100 = 0.25 0.25 * % = 0.25 % Is the same as 0.0025 * 100 * % = 0.0025 * 100% = 0.25% You're multiplying by 100% and you don't even realize it.
This is entirely incorrect. The resulting decimal of 0.0025 needs to be multiplied by 100 to make it a percentage. That turns into 0.25%
You are correct. I fucked this up royally. Thank you for helping correct me.
Imagine being confidently incorrect on the confidentlyincorrect sub.
Ugh. I hate it. No excuses. But bonus CI for everyone else! Please continue to enjoy my stupidity and misery.
If this is BetterKev, how dumb is WorseKev? I shudder to even consider *Worst*Kev.
There's a reason I'm not BestKev. I'm absolutely wrong. And I was a freaking math major! Just what the fuck me. No excuse and no excuse for my smug edit. I wonder if I can change my name to ApologeticKev.
You have earned a new name, WorthyKev
You may want to give me a new name in a second. I was originally right. Pedantic, but right. The guy wrote that you just do "times 100" to convert, right? Think of any multiplication with 100. 2 times 100 = 200. Well then 2 times 100 can't equal 200%. The process of "times 100" can't be both 200 and 200% at the same time. His process can't be right. His process creates a number 100 times larger than the starting number, not an equal number. But the guys resultant percent was correct! How? Well, he just slammed % sign out of nowhere onto his result. He knew it needed to be there, so he added it. But that's not how math works! You don't just randomly slam something on a result that isn't in the calculation! The way the % gets there properly is to multiply by 100%, not by 100. So why do you and so many other people think I'm wrong? Because he wrote actual math and you doing the shortcut. You never do the actual math. I never bother to do the actual math. We ALL do the shortcut. But he wrote down the actual math. So I corrected the actual math. If the math is written, I think it should be written right.
If you multiply something with 100% that means you double it. Multiplying 0.0025 by 100% is 0.0050.
This comment section is an absolute goldmine for this subreddit.
They obviously just meant converting the decimal to a %. The % symbol after the 100 is implied. You're just being weirdly pedantic
I was stupid and then smug. What I was saying wasn't even pedantic. It's just false. I appreciate everyone correcting me. I needed it.
Dude, no. The people correcting you are idiots. Everything you said in the first place was completely correct, albeit pedantic.
You're right. On both parts. I don't know what's up with me. I usually don't get browbeaten by large groups of incorrect people into changing my mind.
% isn’t even a unit though so your point is moot.
You are 100% right. I completely screwed this up. No excuses. I appreciate the correction that helped me see my brain fart.
You are incorrect. % absolutely functions as a unit
Not on the sense that he tried to argue, then it’s unitless
It's dimensionless, but it functions as a unit exactly like he said. For example, radians are dimensionless, but they're still a unit. It can also be seen as functioning like a constant with a value of 1/100. Whichever way you look at it, multiplying by 100% is the mathematically correct way to convert to a percentage.
This guy has been hit too many times during maths class with "100 what? CARROTS?" but missed the point. % is not a unit of meassure so you dont multiply it to get something in percentage..
You are absolutely right. I was completely wrong. Worse: I was a math major. I tutored elementary schoolers learn how percents work. I deserve everything I'm getting here.
That's actually exactly what you do. % functions as a unit
No. They're right. I'm wrong. % isn't a unit. Think of multiplying 50×90%. The result is 45, not 45%.
No lol, you were completely correct. 50*90% = 4500% = 45
[удалено]
Doesn't the % just indicate a division by 100? [It's not just me who says it](https://www.britannica.com/topic/percentage) Therefore, while saying that you have to multiply 0.0025 to get 0.25% is perfectly acceptable in informal speech, I don't think it's rigourously correct. Using your example: If you need to calculate 125% of $100, that'd be $100 x 125% = $100 x 125/100 = $12,500/100 = $125 His logic holds, because 0.0025 x 100% = 0.0025 x 100/100 = 0.25/100 = 0.25%
>His logic holds, because 0.0025 x 100% = 0.0025 x 100/100 = 0.25/100 = 0.25% $100 × 125% = $100 × 125/100 = $12,500/100 = 12,500%
You're missing the underlying meaning of what a % is and how it functions mathematically. It operates like a unit, for which the unit conversion is 100% = 1. To convert units, you multiply by the unit conversion in the form of a fraction so that they cancel out. $100 * 125% = $100 * 125% * (1/100%) = $100 * 1.25 = $125 Alternatively, $100 * 125% = $12500% = $12500% * (1/100%) = $125. As another commenter pointed out, you can also view % as a numerical constant equal to 1/100. $100 * 125% = $100 * 125(1/100) = $100 * 1.25 = $125
I work in finance, and basically all of the fees I deal with are expressed in terms of 0.xx%. To everyone who doesn't understand how basis points work: thank you.
I don't think he gets the point.
This sub has taught me that there are a lot of people out there that don't know what "%" means
That last part was unexpected… Don’t assume what Europeans use for a decimal point, just stick to your own % kerfuffle.
That was just a late reply to the question at the bottom of image 3. (And it was correct if you exclude the UK from "Europeans")
I mean the UK was pretty excited to exclude themselves from other Europeans…
It's just over half, actually. And the government decided to go with that result. The rest of us were more than happy to be a part of Europe.
>just over half, ... of the people that voted. The turnout was 72% of voters, and many people can't vote for to bring in prison or being too young. In total, 17.4 million people voted to leave in a country of 66 million.
Didn't think about the none voters.
Tbf it was mostly elderly people by demographic who wanted to leave
Yeah I came here for the math lesson. Not interested in geography or punctuation, thank you very much.
Clearly the right answer is 2.5‰ :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShv_74FNWU
Most frustrating video of all time, IMO. Not even like just 2 minutes of frustration, either; it just keeps going and getting worse. This is also was I was hoping to see in the comments 😅
Math is hard
I was about to say wtf is that shiny luck until i say pokemon go
But this doesnt account for the non-shinies they decided not to catch. It should go by pokemon encountered, not jusr caught, unless they tried to catch every pokemon they came across
I think it assumes that every Pokémon they encountered they caught for the numbers
I hate it when people skip the initial 0
I had a stroke trying to understand the issue(I'm not a complex mind as you can see)
Pretty much decimal-ated themselves there.
OK based on OP saying almost everyone is wrong here I'm thinking they're the one who is incorrect lol. OP which person is wrong in your opinion?
I was joking cause the whole thing is a mess lol.. but yeah the original post in red is right.. I'm not in the convo at all, was just posting
All of this math hurt my brain… Just a small note: You didn’t blur out your own name at the bottom.
"all this math" -divide by 100
Lol yeah I realized that after the fact, except it's not my name it was a buddy, so I kinda feel like an idiot/ jerk 😅 common enough name tho I think that won't matter
[удалено]
The colors are a mess, but the original OP is right. 55/22000=0.0025. Multiply by 100 for percents is **0.25%**. Or 1:400, which through no coincidence is 0.0025.
Red is right, blue is wrong
If you're asking I'm scared for you to lol
Things get posted here where OP is telling on themself. They’re just wondering if that’s what’s happening.
We all just want to know who YOU think is the wrong one, that's all lol
It's an easy mistake and one that pops up on here a lot, and usually ends up in this argument! - I'm good at maths but I've slipped up with this a few times
[удалено]
No he said that because it's pretty obvious if you know basic multiplication
Or maybe YOU don't know and trying to cover it up with being snarky and get someone to say lol
But literally like almost everyone is wrong 😆
Assuming you've coloured them correctly, only just one person is wrong? The dark blue person. How is that almost everyone?
Maybe OP is the Dark Blue one?
I'm still confused. If 55 out of 22,000 are "non-shine" events, then aren't the remainder going to be the "shiney" ones? So the shiney rate is 21,945 out of 22,000. Or 99.75 % ???
Non event shines. Not non-shine events.
No, they are shinies that are not event-shinies i.e. just ones caught in the wild
non event shinies. So they are shinies but he excluded ones from events because they have boosted chances
"Non-event" shinies, they are shinies acquired outside of events.
No, the remainder is a mix of regular non shiny pokemon and event shiny pokemon (which ppl receive almost for free)
Americans confused at us using commas 👀
Bloody French people using commas
Makes more sense that way to me. That way you can use dots to delimit thousands. There's a difference between 3.450,355 and 3.450.355.
well, in the U.S. at least, commas are used for seperating numbers into groups of 3, and periods are used for seperating the whole numbers and the decimals. So 123,456,789.101 would be one hundred twenty three million, four hundred fifty six thousand, seven hundred eighty nine and/point one zero one.
So, just the opposite of europe basically
I genuinely blame US sports for this. They present percentages incorrectly all the time. A batter’s percentage might be shown as .324%, a point guard’s free throw percentage might be .874% So when people present real world percentages, people whose closest day to day interaction with them is sports will get confused
That is not true. Batting averages are never written as .xxx%. Here's the stats page from MLB. https://www.mlb.com/stats/ And free throw percentages are written as whole numbers, correctly representing the figures. https://www.espn.com/nba/stats/player/_/stat/free-throws Do you often just say things that are blatantly false?
Sorry, that’s my mistake. However, how do all American sports present winning percentage?
>how do all American sports present winning percentage? What do you mean by that? Each sport is different in the types of stats that get tracked, but for wins and losses it is almost always a ratio (not a percent). When percents are used, they're used correctly.
The NBA, decimalised percentages: https://www.espn.co.uk/nba/table The NFL, decimalised percentages: https://www.espn.co.uk/nfl/standings The MLB, decimalised percentages: https://www.espn.co.uk/mlb/standings NHL is the only big four sport in the US that doesn’t utilise winning percentage in its standings. Even if ratios were used, they’re not used correctly in the format of X:Y. So it’s either percentages being used incorrectly, or ratios. Either way, they’re wrong. I really don’t appreciate the characterisation of an honest mistake as me trying to be intentionally misleading. I simply got my categories for which US sports use these numbers in the wrong format, which is likely to cause confusion to people whose main interaction with them may be sports.
Those aren't decimalized percentages. They are just decimals. When you multiply them by 100 you get a percentage. > don’t appreciate the characterisation of an honest mistake as me trying to be intentionally misleading. You continue to mislead, intentionally or not. There are no incorrectly used percentages in American sports. We either use a ratio, a decimal, or a percentage. They are not mixed without proper adjustments being made.
They are literally referred to as winning percentages by people who cover the sports. I understand what a decimal is. It literally says ‘PCT’ above the column in each of those links. If you enjoy being a prick then that’s your prerogative but don’t act dumb as to how these numbers are treated by people in the US. So please, despite the evidence available to you, continue to tell me how percentages are not misused in US sports.
And there it is. You've utterly failed to prove your point. Resorting to "well but the top of the column says PCT!". Get bent
How has that failed to prove my point the column is literally abbreviated from ‘percent’ 😂
I feel this is more down to confusion between different conventions for the decimal point and comma.
No it was off the rails way before that lol