On Feb 14, 4:00*pm, Hawke wrote:


You don't trust my memory? Fine, check it out. Get Nader's new book and
see if what I said is true. Then when you see it is it will confirm for
you that my memory is fine. If I am not sure of something I say so. I
specifically remember what Nader said about how many people were working
at low pay jobs. You are the doubting Thomas here. You doubt both me and
Nader. I'd say you ought to do some research on your own. But I know
what you would find and that is what I said is accurate, and I think you
don't want that to be the fact. So don't believe me and don't look it up
for yourself. That way you can keep your present beliefs without really
knowing the truth.

Hawke


I have told you before that I do not trust your memory. But if you
will actually tell me which book and the page number, I will make an
attempt to find it. I certainly am not going to read several books
trying to find something that may not be there. So what is the book?
What is the page? This is about a statement you made, and by any
reasonable standard you are obligated to support your claims. So
sport what is going to be? A claim based on a statement that you
might remember or a statement backed up by a legitimate reference.

You want to be believed, but are unwilling to name the book and at
least the chapter. Maybe asking for the page is too much, but surely
you can say which chapter.


Dan

On 2/14/2012 2:52 PM, wrote:

I have told you before that I do not trust your memory. But if you
will actually tell me which book and the page number, I will make an
attempt to find it. I certainly am not going to read several books
trying to find something that may not be there. So what is the book?
What is the page? This is about a statement you made, and by any
reasonable standard you are obligated to support your claims. So
sport what is going to be? A claim based on a statement that you
might remember or a statement backed up by a legitimate reference.

You want to be believed, but are unwilling to name the book and at
least the chapter. Maybe asking for the page is too much, but surely
you can say which chapter.


I don't really care if you folk believe me or not. You clearly only
allow yourself to believe the few things you want to believe and keep
any information to the contrary out. I'm only doing one thing here and
that's telling things the way they are. I'm not surprised you find so
much of it hard to believe but your ways are set in concrete by now,
aren't they? No one would really call you an open minded person any more
would they?

And this is the last time I'm going to waste my time getting information
for you just because you refuse to believe it. I told you I heard Nader
say 150 million people are working at jobs that pay Walmart level wages,
which are in the 7-10 dollar an hour range. I just went to book TV to
check on it, just like you could have. The show was aired on Jan 30th.
You can still watch it if you or Pimpton want to know the facts for
yourself. So go see it for yourself if you can't trust a ****ing word I
say. So watch it and see what I said is the truth, as always.

Nader's book is called Getting Steamed to Overcome Corporatism: Build it
together to win. You can watch the presentation on booktv.org if you
care to learn something you don't know. You can do all the research on
the book you want too. I have not read it as it is a new book. So there
you are. There is all the information you need to verify everything I
said. I expect you to report back soon to let me know what you found out.

Hawke

On 2/14/2012 5:46 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/14/2012 2:52 PM, wrote:

I have told you before that I do not trust your memory. But if you
will actually tell me which book and the page number, I will make an
attempt to find it. I certainly am not going to read several books
trying to find something that may not be there. So what is the book?
What is the page? This is about a statement you made, and by any
reasonable standard you are obligated to support your claims. So
sport what is going to be? A claim based on a statement that you
might remember or a statement backed up by a legitimate reference.

You want to be believed, but are unwilling to name the book and at
least the chapter. Maybe asking for the page is too much, but surely
you can say which chapter.


I don't really care if you folk believe me or not. You clearly only
allow yourself to believe the few things you want to believe and

You clearly believe only the things left-wing demagogues tell you to
believe.

On Feb 14, 8:46*pm, Hawke wrote:


And this is the last time I'm going to waste my time getting information
for you just because you refuse to believe it. I told you I heard Nader
say 150 million people are working at jobs that pay Walmart level wages,
which are in the 7-10 dollar an hour range. I just went to book TV to
check on it, just like you could have. The show was aired on Jan 30th.
You can still watch it if you or Pimpton want to know the facts for
yourself. So go see it for yourself if you can't trust a ****ing word I
say. So watch it and see what I said is the truth, as always.

Actually you have changed your statement. If I remember correctly you
previously said that Ralph said one third of the work force was paid
$10 an hour or less. Now you are saying 150 million people are
working for wages in the 7 to 10 dollar area. So you see why I do not
trust your memory. You are saying pretty much the same thing, but not
exactly the same thing.

I have checked the county library system and it does not have the
book. Will try to find the TV program and see what Ralph Nader
actually said.

About thirty years ago Ralph Nader spoke in Bremerton, Wa. I am not
sure what time of the year it was, but it was definitely not Aug. It
was a typical cold rainy day,
I think it was on a week end. In Bremerton they have a special word
for a sunny day after two days of rain. They call it Monday. But
anyway....
Ralph talked about how solar energy was going to be used to heat
houses. The audience was amused, but did not buy into that claim.
Not in that area.

Dan



Nader's book is called Getting Steamed to Overcome Corporatism: Build it
together to win. You can watch the presentation on booktv.org if you
care to learn something you don't know. You can do all the research on
the book you want too. I have not read it as it is a new book. So there
you are. There is all the information you need to verify everything I
said. I expect you to report back soon to let me know what you found out.

Hawke

On Feb 14, 8:46*pm, Hawke wrote:



And this is the last time I'm going to waste my time getting information
for you just because you refuse to believe it. I told you I heard Nader
say 150 million people are working at jobs that pay Walmart level wages,
which are in the 7-10 dollar an hour range. I just went to book TV to
check on it, just like you could have. The show was aired on Jan 30th.
You can still watch it if you or Pimpton want to know the facts for
yourself. So go see it for yourself if you can't trust a ****ing word I
say. So watch it and see what I said is the truth, as always.

Nader's book is called Getting Steamed to Overcome Corporatism: Build it
together to win. You can watch the presentation on booktv.org if you
care to learn something you don't know. You can do all the research on
the book you want too. I have not read it as it is a new book. So there
you are. There is all the information you need to verify everything I
said. I expect you to report back soon to let me know what you found out.

Hawke

Well I found BookTV.org and even found the program on Jan 30 with
Ralph Nader. Could you say where in the program you heard that
statement? The show is an hour and twenty four minutes in length. I
spot checked a bunch of places, but to me listening to Ralph for over
an hour ranks as cruel and unusual punishment.

Dan

On Feb 14, 8:46*pm, Hawke wrote:

I told you I heard Nader
say 150 million people are working at jobs that pay Walmart level wages,
which are in the 7-10 dollar an hour range. I just went to book TV to
check on it, just like you could have. The show was aired on Jan 30th.
You can still watch it if you or Pimpton want to know the facts for
yourself. So go see it for yourself if you can't trust a ****ing word I
say. So watch it and see what I said is the truth, as always.


Hawke

Well I went to the BLS and found that in Dec of 2011 the number of non
farm employees was just over 133 million. Which does not agree with
your statement that 150 million are employed at less than $10 / hour.
Now the statistic I say was for non farm employees , but I am under
the impression that farm labor is about 2 % of the total work force.

So how do you reconcile that your figure of 150 million is more that
the total work force? Did Ralph lie or did you not remember
accurately?

Dan

On 2/14/2012 8:40 PM, wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:46 pm, wrote:

I told you I heard Nader
say 150 million people are working at jobs that pay Walmart level wages,
which are in the 7-10 dollar an hour range. I just went to book TV to
check on it, just like you could have. The show was aired on Jan 30th.
You can still watch it if you or Pimpton want to know the facts for
yourself. So go see it for yourself if you can't trust a ****ing word I
say. So watch it and see what I said is the truth, as always.


Hawke

Well I went to the BLS and found that in Dec of 2011 the number of non
farm employees was just over 133 million. Which does not agree with
your statement that 150 million are employed at less than $10 / hour.
Now the statistic I say was for non farm employees , but I am under
the impression that farm labor is about 2 % of the total work force.

So how do you reconcile that your figure of 150 million is more that
the total work force? Did Ralph lie or did you not remember
accurately?

Dan


The problem with extravagantly lying polemicists like Hawke-Ptooey is
they never stop to think if their lies are entirely plausible. He would
know - just barely - not to say that the number of people earning $10 an
hour or less is not 400 million or more, but to expect that he'd know
the size of the workforce, and what a plausible part of it might be to
meet his criterion, is just asking too much.

On 2/14/2012 5:46 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/14/2012 2:52 PM, wrote:

I have told you before that I do not trust your memory. But if you
will actually tell me which book and the page number, I will make an
attempt to find it. I certainly am not going to read several books
trying to find something that may not be there. So what is the book?
What is the page? This is about a statement you made, and by any
reasonable standard you are obligated to support your claims. So
sport what is going to be? A claim based on a statement that you
might remember or a statement backed up by a legitimate reference.

You want to be believed, but are unwilling to name the book and at
least the chapter. Maybe asking for the page is too much, but surely
you can say which chapter.


I don't really care if you folk believe me or not.

You're a liar - you *do* care.

On Feb 15, 2:49*pm, Hawke wrote:



I only saw it once and
can't tell you what he said verbatim. I wasn't taking notes or recording
it. I just saw it the one time so of course I am not going to tell you
what he said exactly the same every time.

Hawke

This is exactly why I do not trust what you say. I said I thought the
numbers looked funny and that I did not believe them. And now you say
you can not say exactly what he said. There is no way to find if
Ralph said what you claimed, if what you claimed is not exactly what
Ralph said.

A suggestion. How about going by the local high school and
volunteering to help the debate club faculty advisor. I think you
could help the debate club and you might learn to be a better
proponent of what you believe.

I used to volunteer at the local high school in Washington State, but
have not made the connection here. It is a bit tougher here as I used
to help the art teacher fixing kilns and such. Here there is much
less emphasis on art.
I am volunteering at a local museum. Volunteering is a good way to
help the community.

Dan

Hawke wrote:

But I also
understand that Nader's statistics are going to be accurate while you
get just about everything wrong.

Hawke
Any one can lie with statistics.
[That's why they are so popular ( at least so a survey says, on a
population of 2 with a +/- 3% margin of error)]
jk

On Feb 15, 2:52*pm, Hawke wrote:


What ignorant dolts like you don't know is that many times people give
round numbers in a presentation. So 145 million might be called 150
million. I understand rounding is beyond your understanding. But I also
understand that Nader's statistics are going to be accurate while you
get just about everything wrong.

Hawke

The general rule when rounding a number ending in 5 is to round to an
even number. So 145 million would be rounded to 140 million. 155
million would be rounded to 160 million. At least that is what is
taught at most grade schools.

Dan

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:56:24 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 15, 2:52*pm, Hawke wrote:


What ignorant dolts like you don't know is that many times people give
round numbers in a presentation. So 145 million might be called 150
million. I understand rounding is beyond your understanding. But I also
understand that Nader's statistics are going to be accurate while you
get just about everything wrong.

Hawke

The general rule when rounding a number ending in 5 is to round to an
even number. So 145 million would be rounded to 140 million. 155
million would be rounded to 160 million. At least that is what is
taught at most grade schools.

Dan

Nope. Not for around 50 years. That could be 45 years, or 54 years...

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/15/2012 11:40 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/14/2012 6:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/14/2012 5:46 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/14/2012 2:52 PM, wrote:

I have told you before that I do not trust your memory. But if you
will actually tell me which book and the page number, I will make an
attempt to find it. I certainly am not going to read several books
trying to find something that may not be there. So what is the book?
What is the page? This is about a statement you made, and by any
reasonable standard you are obligated to support your claims. So
sport what is going to be? A claim based on a statement that you
might remember or a statement backed up by a legitimate reference.

You want to be believed, but are unwilling to name the book and at
least the chapter. Maybe asking for the page is too much, but surely
you can say which chapter.


I don't really care if you folk believe me or not. You clearly only
allow yourself to believe the few things you want to believe and

You clearly believe only the things left-wing demagogues tell you to
believe.


Not quite. I only believe what the facts tell me.

No, because you disregard facts. You substitute ideology for facts.
What you believe is ideological dogma, not facts.

On 2/15/2012 11:52 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/14/2012 8:45 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/14/2012 8:40 PM, wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:46 pm, wrote:

I told you I heard Nader
say 150 million people are working at jobs that pay Walmart level
wages,
which are in the 7-10 dollar an hour range. I just went to book TV to
check on it, just like you could have. The show was aired on Jan 30th.
You can still watch it if you or Pimpton want to know the facts for
yourself. So go see it for yourself if you can't trust a ****ing word I
say. So watch it and see what I said is the truth, as always.


Hawke

Well I went to the BLS and found that in Dec of 2011 the number of non
farm employees was just over 133 million. Which does not agree with
your statement that 150 million are employed at less than $10 / hour.
Now the statistic I say was for non farm employees , but I am under
the impression that farm labor is about 2 % of the total work force.

So how do you reconcile that your figure of 150 million is more that
the total work force? Did Ralph lie or did you not remember
accurately?

Dan


The problem with extravagantly lying polemicists like Hawke-Ptooey is
they never stop to think if their lies are entirely plausible. He would
know - just barely - not to say that the number of people earning $10 an
hour or less is not 400 million or more, but to expect that he'd know
the size of the workforce, and what a plausible part of it might be to
meet his criterion, is just asking too much.



What ignorant dolts like you don't know is that many times people give
round numbers in a presentation. So 145 million might be called 150
million. I understand rounding is beyond your understanding. But I also
understand that Nader's statistics are going to be accurate while you
get just about everything wrong.

You claim that St. Ralph said that 150 million working people earn less
than $10 per hour. Considering that there are only 132 million non-farm
employees *TOTAL*, either Nader is lying, your have misreported what he
said.

Here is the source: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb3.txt
That, by the way, is the correct way to give a source. Learn from it.

On 2/15/2012 1:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:


I don't really care if you folk believe me or not. You clearly only
allow yourself to believe the few things you want to believe and

You clearly believe only the things left-wing demagogues tell you to
believe.


Not quite. I only believe what the facts tell me.

No, because you disregard facts. You substitute ideology for facts. What
you believe is ideological dogma, not facts.

More baseless claims from you again!

Hawke

On 2/15/2012 12:44 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

But I also
understand that Nader's statistics are going to be accurate while you
get just about everything wrong.

Hawke
Any one can lie with statistics.
[That's why they are so popular ( at least so a survey says, on a
population of 2 with a +/- 3% margin of error)]
jk


Anyone can but honest people don't. You won't see me do that. When you
see people lying with statistics just understand they are basically
dishonest people.


Hawke

On 2/15/2012 1:01 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:56:24 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 15, 2:52 pm, wrote:


What ignorant dolts like you don't know is that many times people give
round numbers in a presentation. So 145 million might be called 150
million. I understand rounding is beyond your understanding. But I also
understand that Nader's statistics are going to be accurate while you
get just about everything wrong.

Hawke

The general rule when rounding a number ending in 5 is to round to an
even number. So 145 million would be rounded to 140 million. 155
million would be rounded to 160 million. At least that is what is
taught at most grade schools.

Dan

Nope. Not for around 50 years. That could be 45 years, or 54 years...



He misses the point no matter what I tell him. He did it again here.

Hawke

On 2/15/2012 1:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

You claim that St. Ralph said that 150 million working people earn less
than $10 per hour. Considering that there are only 132 million non-farm
employees *TOTAL*, either Nader is lying, your have misreported what he
said.

Here is the source: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb3.txt That,
by the way, is the correct way to give a source. Learn from it.

Okay, it's possible that I forgot the number he used. I only saw the
program once and it was more than two weeks ago. In my memory he said
150 million. I don't know if that was rounded off or an exact number.
It's possible he said something else. It's possible I didn't get the
figure he used right. But I only said it's possible.

Say I was wrong and he said 130 million and I mistakenly said it was 150
million. What difference would that make? The point he was making was
that a huge number of workers are working at very low paying jobs.
Whether I got the number right is irrelevant to the real point.

I still think he said 150 million. I'm not saying I'm infallible so I
could have made a mistake but the point was about what a huge percentage
of the population is making ten bucks an hour or less and that is
undeniable.

Of course, I'm still waiting for a single one of you to watch the show
and confirm or deny what I reported. Being the lazy bums you are I'm
pretty sure not a damn one of you will really check it out. So until one
of you does then what I say still stands as true.

Hawke

On 2/15/2012 2:20 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/15/2012 1:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:


I don't really care if you folk believe me or not. You clearly only
allow yourself to believe the few things you want to believe and

You clearly believe only the things left-wing demagogues tell you to
believe.


Not quite. I only believe what the facts tell me.

No, because you disregard facts. You substitute ideology for facts. What
you believe is ideological dogma, not facts.

More baseless claims from you again!

Nope. You prove it in every post.

On 2/15/2012 2:21 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/15/2012 12:44 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

But I also
understand that Nader's statistics are going to be accurate while you
get just about everything wrong.

Hawke
Any one can lie with statistics.
[That's why they are so popular ( at least so a survey says, on a
population of 2 with a +/- 3% margin of error)]
jk


Anyone can but honest people don't.

Just how is it that you're saying St. Ralph claimed that more people
than are in the entire civilian labor force earn less than $10 per hour?

Hawke wrote:

On 2/15/2012 1:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

You claim that St. Ralph said that 150 million working people earn less
than $10 per hour. Considering that there are only 132 million non-farm
employees *TOTAL*, either Nader is lying, your have misreported what he
said.

Say I was wrong and he said 130 million and I mistakenly said it was 150
million. What difference would that make? The point he was making was
that a huge number of workers are working at very low paying jobs.
Whether I got the number right is irrelevant to the real point.

No it isn't if he said 130, then he is still saying that something
like 97% of all working people earn less than $10/hr, an UNLIKELY
number.

Either number would indicate that your Sainted Ralph, was wrong.

More than likely you are wrong, and he didn't say what you remember.

jk

On Feb 15, 4:01 pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:56:24 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:
On Feb 15, 2:52 pm, Hawke wrote:

What ignorant dolts like you don't know is that many times people give
round numbers in a presentation. So 145 million might be called 150
million. I understand rounding is beyond your understanding. But I also
understand that Nader's statistics are going to be accurate while you
get just about everything wrong.

Hawke

The general rule when rounding a number ending in 5 is to round to an
even number. So 145 million would be rounded to 140 million. 155
million would be rounded to 160 million. At least that is what is
taught at most grade schools.

Dan

Nope. Not for around 50 years. That could be 45 years, or 54 years...

--
Ed Huntress

From Wiki.

Dan

A tie-breaking rule that is even less biased is round half to even,
namely

* If the fraction of y is 0.5, then q is the even integer nearest
to y.

Thus, for example, +23.5 becomes +24, +22.5 becomes +22, -22.5 becomes
-22, and -23.5 becomes -24.

This method also treats positive and negative values symmetrically,
and therefore is free of overall bias if the original numbers are
positive or negative with equal probability. In addition, for most
reasonable distributions of y values, the expected (average) value of
the rounded numbers is essentially the same as that of the original
numbers, even if the latter are all positive (or all negative).
However, this rule will still introduce a positive bias for even
numbers (including zero), and a negative bias for the odd ones.

This variant of the round-to-nearest method is also called unbiased
rounding, convergent rounding, statistician's rounding, Dutch
rounding, Gaussian rounding, odd-even rounding[2] or bankers'
rounding. This is widely used in bookkeeping.

This is the default rounding mode used in IEEE 754 computing functions
and operators.

On Feb 15, 5:36*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 2/15/2012 1:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

You claim that St. Ralph said that 150 million working people earn less
than $10 per hour. Considering that there are only 132 million non-farm
employees *TOTAL*, either Nader is lying, your have misreported what he
said.

Here is the source:ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb3.txtThat,
by the way, is the correct way to give a source. Learn from it.

Okay, it's possible that I forgot the number he used. I only saw the
program once and it was more than two weeks ago. In my memory he said
150 million. I don't know if that was rounded off or an exact number.
It's possible he said something else. It's possible I didn't get the
figure he used right. But I only said it's possible.

Say I was wrong and he said 130 million and I mistakenly said it was 150
million. What difference would that make? The point he was making was
that a huge number of workers are working at very low paying jobs.
Whether I got the number right is irrelevant to the real point.

I still think he said 150 million. I'm not saying I'm infallible so I
could have made a mistake but the point was about what a huge percentage
of the population is making ten bucks an hour or less and that is
undeniable.

Of course, I'm still waiting for a single one of you to watch the show
and confirm or deny what I reported. Being the lazy bums you are I'm
pretty sure not a damn one of you will really check it out. So until one
of you does then what I say still stands as true.

Hawke



Until you provide a cite that can be checked reasonably the statement
stands as a Hawke statement which is not verified. No way does it
stand as true.

Dan

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:26:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 15, 4:01 pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:56:24 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:
On Feb 15, 2:52 pm, Hawke wrote:

What ignorant dolts like you don't know is that many times people give
round numbers in a presentation. So 145 million might be called 150
million. I understand rounding is beyond your understanding. But I also
understand that Nader's statistics are going to be accurate while you
get just about everything wrong.

Hawke

The general rule when rounding a number ending in 5 is to round to an
even number. So 145 million would be rounded to 140 million. 155
million would be rounded to 160 million. At least that is what is
taught at most grade schools.

Dan

Nope. Not for around 50 years. That could be 45 years, or 54 years...

--
Ed Huntress

From Wiki.

Dan

A tie-breaking rule that is even less biased is round half to even,
namely

* If the fraction of y is 0.5, then q is the even integer nearest
to y.

Thus, for example, +23.5 becomes +24, +22.5 becomes +22, -22.5 becomes
-22, and -23.5 becomes -24.

This method also treats positive and negative values symmetrically,
and therefore is free of overall bias if the original numbers are
positive or negative with equal probability. In addition, for most
reasonable distributions of y values, the expected (average) value of
the rounded numbers is essentially the same as that of the original
numbers, even if the latter are all positive (or all negative).
However, this rule will still introduce a positive bias for even
numbers (including zero), and a negative bias for the odd ones.

This variant of the round-to-nearest method is also called unbiased
rounding, convergent rounding, statistician's rounding, Dutch
rounding, Gaussian rounding, odd-even rounding[2] or bankers'
rounding. This is widely used in bookkeeping.

This is the default rounding mode used in IEEE 754 computing functions
and operators.

Hey, Dan, IEEE isn't "most grade schools." Here's most grade schools:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58970.html

And that's what my wife teaches to her 3rd graders, as do most
elementary teachers in the US...as they have for decades.

--
Ed Huntress

On Feb 15, 8:50*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:26:19 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:01 pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:56:24 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Feb 15, 2:52 pm, Hawke wrote:

What ignorant dolts like you don't know is that many times people give
round numbers in a presentation. So 145 million might be called 150
million. I understand rounding is beyond your understanding. But I also
understand that Nader's statistics are going to be accurate while you
get just about everything wrong.

Hawke

The general rule when rounding a number ending in 5 is to round to an
even number. *So 145 million would be rounded to 140 million. *155
million would be rounded to 160 million. *At least that is what is
taught at most grade schools.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Nope. Not for around 50 years. That could be 45 years, or 54 years...

--
Ed Huntress

From Wiki.

* * * * * * * * * * *Dan

A tie-breaking rule that is even less biased is round half to even,
namely

* ** If the fraction of y is 0.5, then q is the even integer nearest
to y.

Thus, for example, +23.5 becomes +24, +22.5 becomes +22, -22.5 becomes
-22, and -23.5 becomes -24.

This method also treats positive and negative values symmetrically,
and therefore is free of overall bias if the original numbers are
positive or negative with equal probability. In addition, for most
reasonable distributions of y values, the expected (average) value of
the rounded numbers is essentially the same as that of the original
numbers, even if the latter are all positive (or all negative).
However, this rule will still introduce a positive bias for even
numbers (including zero), and a negative bias for the odd ones.

This variant of the round-to-nearest method is also called unbiased
rounding, convergent rounding, statistician's rounding, Dutch
rounding, Gaussian rounding, odd-even rounding[2] or bankers'
rounding. This is widely used in bookkeeping.

This is the default rounding mode used in IEEE 754 computing functions
and operators.

Hey, Dan, IEEE isn't "most grade schools." Here's most grade schools:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58970.html

And that's what my wife teaches to her 3rd graders, as do most
elementary teachers in the US...as they have for decades.

--
Ed Huntress

Maybe that is what they teach in New Jersey. But Wiki says the rule
I quoted is taught in grade schools. It certainly is within the
capability of kids in the fifth grade and is what I learned in grade
school. Do you really think it is that hard an idea to learn?

Dan

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:59:23 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 15, 8:50*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:26:19 -0800 (PST), "



wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:01 pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:56:24 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Feb 15, 2:52 pm, Hawke wrote:

What ignorant dolts like you don't know is that many times people give
round numbers in a presentation. So 145 million might be called 150
million. I understand rounding is beyond your understanding. But I also
understand that Nader's statistics are going to be accurate while you
get just about everything wrong.

Hawke

The general rule when rounding a number ending in 5 is to round to an
even number. *So 145 million would be rounded to 140 million. *155
million would be rounded to 160 million. *At least that is what is
taught at most grade schools.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Nope. Not for around 50 years. That could be 45 years, or 54 years...

--
Ed Huntress

From Wiki.

* * * * * * * * * * *Dan

A tie-breaking rule that is even less biased is round half to even,
namely

* ** If the fraction of y is 0.5, then q is the even integer nearest
to y.

Thus, for example, +23.5 becomes +24, +22.5 becomes +22, -22.5 becomes
-22, and -23.5 becomes -24.

This method also treats positive and negative values symmetrically,
and therefore is free of overall bias if the original numbers are
positive or negative with equal probability. In addition, for most
reasonable distributions of y values, the expected (average) value of
the rounded numbers is essentially the same as that of the original
numbers, even if the latter are all positive (or all negative).
However, this rule will still introduce a positive bias for even
numbers (including zero), and a negative bias for the odd ones.

This variant of the round-to-nearest method is also called unbiased
rounding, convergent rounding, statistician's rounding, Dutch
rounding, Gaussian rounding, odd-even rounding[2] or bankers'
rounding. This is widely used in bookkeeping.

This is the default rounding mode used in IEEE 754 computing functions
and operators.

Hey, Dan, IEEE isn't "most grade schools." Here's most grade schools:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58970.html

And that's what my wife teaches to her 3rd graders, as do most
elementary teachers in the US...as they have for decades.

--
Ed Huntress

Maybe that is what they teach in New Jersey. But Wiki says the rule
I quoted is taught in grade schools.

Yeah? Well, they're wrong. This is how it's really taught:

http://www.myschoolhouse.com/courses/O/1/16.asp
http://www.mathcats.com/grownupcats/...krounding.html
http://mathandreadinghelp.org/elemen...g_numbers.html
http://www.wyzant.com/Help/Math/Elem...g_Numbers.aspx
http://www.aaamath.com/g32_rox1.htm

It certainly is within the
capability of kids in the fifth grade and is what I learned in grade
school. Do you really think it is that hard an idea to learn?

I said nothing about that. I said that what YOU said is incorrect --
they don't teach that in "most grade schools."

--
Ed Huntress


Dan

On Feb 15, 9:27*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


I said nothing about that. I said that what YOU said is incorrect --
they don't teach that in "most grade schools."

--
Ed Huntress

Maybe not, I certainly am not going to try to prove it either way and
doubt if you really know what is taught it most grade schools. But
one of the Wiki authors said it was what was taught in most grade
schools. And it my opinion it is what ought to be taught in grade
school.

Dan

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:09:22 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 15, 9:27*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


I said nothing about that. I said that what YOU said is incorrect --
they don't teach that in "most grade schools."

--
Ed Huntress

Maybe not, I certainly am not going to try to prove it either way and
doubt if you really know what is taught it most grade schools.

I don't care what you doubt, Dan. You're such a contrarion that you'd
question whether the sun rose in the east this morning.

Search Google with these terms in quotes, on one line: ["round half
up" "grade school"]. You'll see how it's done.

Or search ERIC. It's loaded with references to rounding as it's taught
in 3rd grade math. It's round-half-up. That appears to be true, also,
in Canada and in the UK, based on the ERIC references.

Other methods may be taught in advanced classes, but that's not what
you claimed. You said "most."

But
one of the Wiki authors said it was what was taught in most grade
schools.

I didn't see it in the Wikipedia article for "rounding." Where did you
see it?

And it my opinion it is what ought to be taught in grade
school.

shrug Rounding is taught in most elementary school as a way to
understand place value, as an aid to quick problem-solving, and to
help with some other concepts. If you're going to get into other
methods of rounding, you also need to get into an explanation of
rounding biases, or you're not teaching anything.

I was taught that in high school, and in 5th grade, where I was in a
very advanced class, my teacher introduced the subject of rounding
baises and alternate methods of rounding. That was not in NJ. That was
in PA.

As for what should be taught in math, that's a very interesting
subject. If you want to get into it, search ERIC. Searching inside
your head will just lead you in endless loops.

--
Ed Huntress


Dan

On 2/18/2012 3:13 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

shrug Rounding is taught in most elementary school as a way to
understand place value, as an aid to quick problem-solving, and to
help with some other concepts. If you're going to get into other
methods of rounding, you also need to get into an explanation of
rounding biases, or you're not teaching anything.

I was taught that in high school, and in 5th grade, where I was in a
very advanced class, my teacher introduced the subject of rounding
baises and alternate methods of rounding. That was not in NJ. That was
in PA.

As for what should be taught in math, that's a very interesting
subject. If you want to get into it, search ERIC. Searching inside
your head will just lead you in endless loops.

Every CAD system I've used rounded half up when displaying dimensions.
I've never seen an option for changing to another system.

OTOH, I've never specifically looked. :^)

David

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:09:21 -0600, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 2/18/2012 3:13 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

shrug Rounding is taught in most elementary school as a way to
understand place value, as an aid to quick problem-solving, and to
help with some other concepts. If you're going to get into other
methods of rounding, you also need to get into an explanation of
rounding biases, or you're not teaching anything.

I was taught that in high school, and in 5th grade, where I was in a
very advanced class, my teacher introduced the subject of rounding
baises and alternate methods of rounding. That was not in NJ. That was
in PA.

As for what should be taught in math, that's a very interesting
subject. If you want to get into it, search ERIC. Searching inside
your head will just lead you in endless loops.

Every CAD system I've used rounded half up when displaying dimensions.
I've never seen an option for changing to another system.

OTOH, I've never specifically looked. :^)

David

It seems that most of the discussion about it these days concerns
computer programming. That and 3rd-grade math instruction were the two
things that kept popping up when I did a couple of Google searches.

--
Ed Huntress

On Feb 18, 4:13*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:09:22 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Feb 15, 9:27*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

I said nothing about that. I said that what YOU said is incorrect --
they don't teach that in "most grade schools."

--
Ed Huntress

Maybe not, *I certainly am not going to try to prove it either way and
doubt if you really know what is taught it most grade schools.

I don't care what you doubt, Dan. You're such a contrarion that you'd
question whether the sun rose in the east this morning.

Search Google with these terms in quotes, on one line: ["round half
up" "grade school"]. You'll see how it's done.

Or search ERIC. It's loaded with references to rounding as it's taught
in 3rd grade math. It's round-half-up. That appears to be true, also,
in Canada and in the UK, based on the ERIC references.

Other methods may be taught in advanced classes, but that's not what
you claimed. You said "most."

*But
one of the Wiki authors *said it was what was taught in most grade
schools.

I didn't see it in the Wikipedia article for "rounding." Where did you
see it?

*And it my opinion it is what ought to be taught in grade
school.

shrug Rounding is taught in most elementary school as a way to
understand place value, as an aid to quick problem-solving, and to
help with some other concepts. If you're going to get into other
methods of rounding, you also need to get into an explanation of
rounding biases, or you're not teaching anything.

I was taught that in high school, and in 5th grade, where I was in a
very advanced class, my teacher introduced the subject of rounding
baises and alternate methods of rounding. That was not in NJ. That was
in PA.

As for what should be taught in math, that's a very interesting
subject. If you want to get into it, search ERIC. Searching inside
your head will just lead you in endless loops.

--
Ed Huntress



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Sometimes you need to read what I wrote. As I recall I never said
squat about the third grade. I said grade schools. I think that
includes grades up to the seventh grade. Maybe only up to the fifth
grade. They did not have middle schools when I was in school.
Anyway what I was trying to say is they taught rounding in grade
school so one did not get rounding biases. Not in the first grade,
but by the time one graduated from grade school.

You said yourself that you learned this in grade school, but in the
fifth grade in an advanced class. I think they teach how to round
without biasing in somewhere around the fifth to seventh grade.

So do you really know that they do not teach rounding without bias in
most grade schools? Grade school being the first six or eight
grades? I am reasonably sure I learned that before high school.

Dan

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:49:36 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 18, 4:13*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:09:22 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Feb 15, 9:27*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

I said nothing about that. I said that what YOU said is incorrect --
they don't teach that in "most grade schools."

--
Ed Huntress

Maybe not, *I certainly am not going to try to prove it either way and
doubt if you really know what is taught it most grade schools.

I don't care what you doubt, Dan. You're such a contrarion that you'd
question whether the sun rose in the east this morning.

Search Google with these terms in quotes, on one line: ["round half
up" "grade school"]. You'll see how it's done.

Or search ERIC. It's loaded with references to rounding as it's taught
in 3rd grade math. It's round-half-up. That appears to be true, also,
in Canada and in the UK, based on the ERIC references.

Other methods may be taught in advanced classes, but that's not what
you claimed. You said "most."

*But
one of the Wiki authors *said it was what was taught in most grade
schools.

I didn't see it in the Wikipedia article for "rounding." Where did you
see it?

*And it my opinion it is what ought to be taught in grade
school.

shrug Rounding is taught in most elementary school as a way to
understand place value, as an aid to quick problem-solving, and to
help with some other concepts. If you're going to get into other
methods of rounding, you also need to get into an explanation of
rounding biases, or you're not teaching anything.

I was taught that in high school, and in 5th grade, where I was in a
very advanced class, my teacher introduced the subject of rounding
baises and alternate methods of rounding. That was not in NJ. That was
in PA.

As for what should be taught in math, that's a very interesting
subject. If you want to get into it, search ERIC. Searching inside
your head will just lead you in endless loops.

--
Ed Huntress



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Sometimes you need to read what I wrote. As I recall I never said
squat about the third grade. I said grade schools.

Round-half-up is what is taught to most grade-school students.

I think that
includes grades up to the seventh grade. Maybe only up to the fifth
grade. They did not have middle schools when I was in school.
Anyway what I was trying to say is they taught rounding in grade
school so one did not get rounding biases. Not in the first grade,
but by the time one graduated from grade school.

You said yourself that you learned this in grade school, but in the
fifth grade in an advanced class. I think they teach how to round
without biasing in somewhere around the fifth to seventh grade.

They teach round-half-up. Rounding bias and alternative methods of
rounding become issues in computational and numerical methods, in
computer science, in engineering and higher-level science. Not in
grade schools.


So do you really know that they do not teach rounding without bias in
most grade schools?

First, there is no "rounding without bias." It's a question of which
kind of bias is appropriate to the computational problems you're
trying to solve. The method you mentioned earlier, for example,
expands the randomness of individual results in order to achieve a
greater overall statistical accuracy. You don't know if any individual
result is more accurate than it would be if you stuck to
round-half-up. You've intentionally introduced a systematic bias to
compensate for another systematic bias, on the average. You haven't
produced more accurate individual results.

Grade school being the first six or eight
grades? I am reasonably sure I learned that before high school.

You may have. Most students are just taught round-half-up in grade
school.

It's not a big deal today. It's taught as part of the units on
estimating and "mental arithmetic." My son, a graduate student in
mathematics at Georgetown, says he barely remembers rounding bias,
which he was taught in AP math in high school. It probably was related
to computer science. He has taken advanced classes in numerical
methods and he says it never came up.

When I was in 5th grade, I was one of the early victims of "New Math."
I vaguely remember that it was taught when we were learning about
number lines, truncating decimal fractions, and so on. Maybe they
thought we were all going to be computer scientists. g

My wife got her elementary education degree in 1971, in Michigan. She
recently got her masters, in New Jersey. She doesn't recall ever being
taught about rounding bias, nor has it ever come up in her math
education workshops or classes.

I still don't see where you got your reference in Wikipedia. The
section on rounding just identifies round-half-up as one of the "two"
rounding methods taught in elementary school. It doesn't identify the
other one. And Wiki has a note on it that it needs a citation. I think
it's just a screw-up.

--
Ed Huntress


Dan

On Feb 19, 11:21*am, Ed Huntress wrote:

When I was in 5th grade, I was one of the early victims of "New Math."
I vaguely remember that it was taught when we were learning about
number lines, truncating decimal fractions, and so on. Maybe they
thought we were all going to be computer scientists. g


Ed Huntress

It is not important for computer science. It is important for
bankers.

Dan

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:15:52 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 19, 11:21*am, Ed Huntress wrote:

When I was in 5th grade, I was one of the early victims of "New Math."
I vaguely remember that it was taught when we were learning about
number lines, truncating decimal fractions, and so on. Maybe they
thought we were all going to be computer scientists. g


Ed Huntress

It is not important for computer science. It is important for
bankers.

Dan

Maybe my banker needs an upgrade then. That could be the problem here.
d8-)

But rounding is a significant issue in computer science, somewhere.
Maybe it's in programming, or maybe elsewhere. It's not something I
worry about.

--
Ed Huntress