From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: 100% Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:56:19 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <20070621030622.GD8477@spearce.org> <20070621131915.GD4487@coredump.intra.peff.net> <467B777D.C47BFE0E@eudaptics.com> <86ps3oi7ma.fsf_-_@lola.quinscape.zz> <86abusi1fw.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <467CF380.6060603@lsrfire.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323584-619945066-1182596010=:4059" Cc: David Kastrup , git@vger.kernel.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Scharfe?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 23 12:56:33 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1I23I5-0003kF-HV for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:56:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753743AbXFWK42 (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:56:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753834AbXFWK42 (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:56:28 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:53564 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753653AbXFWK41 (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:56:27 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2007 10:56:26 -0000 Received: from wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO localhost) [132.187.25.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp029) with SMTP; 23 Jun 2007 12:56:26 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+mhnd7gaumfgbURGpHOr2MiJ7JuzFkPxoXGKUk4O mNAeEPBsRhdY7Y X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <467CF380.6060603@lsrfire.ath.cx> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323584-619945066-1182596010=:4059 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Hi, On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, René Scharfe wrote: > Johannes Schindelin schrieb: > > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, David Kastrup wrote: > >> The people I know will expect "100% identical" or even "100.0% > >> identical" to mean identical, period. They will be quite surprised to > >> hear that "99.95%" is supposed to be included. > > > > Granted, 100.0% means as close as you can get to "completely" with 4 > > digits. But if you have an integer, you better use the complete range, > > rather than arbitrarily make one number more important than others. > > > > For if you see an integer, you usually assume a rounded value. If you > > don't, you're hopeless. > > Why hopeless? It's a useful convention to define "100%" as "complete > (not rounded)". By the same reasoning, you could say "never round down to 0%, because I want to know when there is no similarity". You cannot be exact when you have to cut off fractions, so why try for _exactly_ one number? Ciao, Dscho --8323584-619945066-1182596010=:4059--