Ping Alycidon

[Part Timer]

What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 19:19:28 UTC, Part Timer wrote:
> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE

Interesting - He always said that I was killing myself with sub 5% stuff, but I know that 30 paracetamol tablets in 12 hrs is fatal, but 30 in a week is no problem.

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE

=====Quote=====
Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
- a reduction of 11%.
=====/Quote=====

Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%

[Nige Danton[_2_]]

Tom Crispin > wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
>
> =====Quote=====
> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
> - a reduction of 11%.
> =====/Quote=====
>
> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%

1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
--
Nige Danton - Replace the obvious with g.m.a.i.l

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
> >> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
> >
> > =====Quote=====
> > Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
> > - a reduction of 11%.
> > =====/Quote=====
> >
> > Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
>
> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.

1% of 9% is 0.09%.

122% of 9% is ~ 11%.

[jnugent]

On 15/03/2016 20:07, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:

>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE

> =====Quote=====
> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
> - a reduction of 11%.
> =====/Quote=====

> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%

Are you even *trying* to be serious?

[Nige Danton[_2_]]

Tom Crispin > wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
>>>
>>> =====Quote=====
>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
>>> - a reduction of 11%.
>>> =====/Quote=====
>>>
>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
>>
>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
>
> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
>
> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.

As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
reduction.
--
Nige Danton - Replace the obvious with g.m.a.i.l

[jnugent]

On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:

> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:

>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
>
>>>> =====Quote=====
>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
>>>> =====/Quote=====
>
>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
>
>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
>
>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
>
>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
>
> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
> reduction.

Indeed.

11.25% to be precise, but rounding to whole numbers seems more than
reasonable.

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
>
> > Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
> >>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
>
> >>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
> >>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
> >
> >>>> =====Quote=====
> >>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
> >>>> - a reduction of 11%.
> >>>> =====/Quote=====
> >
> >>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
> >
> >>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
> >
> >> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
> >
> >> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
> >
> > As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
> > reduction.
>
> Indeed.
>
> 11.25% to be precise,

It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9 you wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.

> but rounding to whole numbers seems more than
> reasonable.

[jnugent]

On 16/03/2016 14:35, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
>>>
>>>>>> =====Quote=====
>>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
>>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
>>>>>> =====/Quote=====
>>>
>>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
>>>
>>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
>>>
>>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
>>>
>>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
>>>
>>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
>>> reduction.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> 11.25% to be precise,
>
> It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9 you wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.
>
>> but rounding to whole numbers seems more than
>> reasonable.

9 (the old value) divided by 8 (the new value).

He was getting 9/9ths and is now getting 8/9ths.

9/8 - 1.125.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:59:28 -0000, JNugent >
wrote:

> On 16/03/2016 14:35, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
>>>>
>>>>>>> =====Quote=====
>>>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
>>>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
>>>>>>> =====/Quote=====
>>>>
>>>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
>>>>
>>>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
>>>>
>>>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
>>>>
>>>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
>>>>
>>>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
>>>> reduction.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> 11.25% to be precise,
>>
>> It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9
>> you wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.
>>
>>> but rounding to whole numbers seems more than
>>> reasonable.
>
> 9 (the old value) divided by 8 (the new value).
>
> He was getting 9/9ths and is now getting 8/9ths.
>
> 9/8 - 1.125.
>
Riiight, so you obviously must multiply that figure by 10 to get a
percent? Gwad.


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Nige Danton[_2_]]

Tom Crispin > wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
>>>
>>>>>> =====Quote=====
>>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
>>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
>>>>>> =====/Quote=====
>>>
>>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
>>>
>>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
>>>
>>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
>>>
>>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
>>>
>>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
>>> reduction.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> 11.25% to be precise,
>
> It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9 you
> wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.

But you now agree it's ~ 11% reduction?

--
Nige Danton - Replace the obvious with g.m.a.i.l

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 2:59:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 16/03/2016 14:35, Tom Crispin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
> >>
> >>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
> >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
> >>>
> >>>>>> =====Quote=====
> >>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
> >>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
> >>>>>> =====/Quote=====
> >>>
> >>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
> >>>
> >>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
> >>>
> >>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
> >>>
> >>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
> >>>
> >>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
> >>> reduction.
> >>
> >> Indeed.
> >>
> >> 11.25% to be precise,
> >
> > It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9 you wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.
> >
> >> but rounding to whole numbers seems more than
> >> reasonable.
>
> 9 (the old value) divided by 8 (the new value).
>
> He was getting 9/9ths and is now getting 8/9ths.
>
> 9/8 - 1.125.

Very good! You clearly went to the Plankwit school of mathematics.

If you want to do it that way, you need to use a different methodology.

He was getting 9/100ths of pure alcohol, he is now getting 8/100ths of pure alcohol.

9/100ths - 8/100ths = 1/100th (or 1%).

[jnugent]

On 16/03/2016 15:19, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:59:28 -0000, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 16/03/2016 14:35, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> =====Quote=====
>>>>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
>>>>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
>>>>>>>> =====/Quote=====
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
>>>>> reduction.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> 11.25% to be precise,
>>>
>>> It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9
>>> you wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.
>>>
>>>> but rounding to whole numbers seems more than
>>>> reasonable.
>>
>> 9 (the old value) divided by 8 (the new value).
>>
>> He was getting 9/9ths and is now getting 8/9ths.
>>
>> 9/8 - 1.125.
>>
> Riiight, so you obviously must multiply that figure by 10 to get a
> percent? Gwad.

Is there a problem?

[jnugent]

On 16/03/2016 15:36, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 2:59:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 16/03/2016 14:35, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> =====Quote=====
>>>>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
>>>>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
>>>>>>>> =====/Quote=====
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
>>>>> reduction.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> 11.25% to be precise,
>>>
>>> It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9 you wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.
>>>
>>>> but rounding to whole numbers seems more than
>>>> reasonable.
>>
>> 9 (the old value) divided by 8 (the new value).
>>
>> He was getting 9/9ths and is now getting 8/9ths.
>>
>> 9/8 - 1.125.
>
> Very good! You clearly went to the Plankwit school of mathematics.
>
> If you want to do it that way, you need to use a different methodology.
>
> He was getting 9/100ths of pure alcohol, he is now getting 8/100ths of pure alcohol.
>
> 9/100ths - 8/100ths = 1/100th (or 1%).

It doesn't matter what the unit is. He was getting nine of them, now
he's getting eight.

[jnugent]

On 16/03/2016 15:36, Nige Danton wrote:
> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
>>>>
>>>>>>> =====Quote=====
>>>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
>>>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
>>>>>>> =====/Quote=====
>>>>
>>>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
>>>>
>>>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
>>>>
>>>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
>>>>
>>>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
>>>>
>>>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
>>>> reduction.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> 11.25% to be precise,
>>
>> It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9 you
>> wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.
>
> But you now agree it's ~ 11% reduction?

Presumably.

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 20:02:40 UTC, Alycidon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 19:19:28 UTC, Part Timer wrote:
> > What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
>
> Interesting - He always said that I was killing myself with sub 5% stuff, but I know that 30 paracetamol tablets in 12 hrs is fatal, but 30 in a week is no problem.

However, since I now make my own beer and have no access to gas chromatography analysis, I don't know how strong mine is anymore.

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 3:39:20 PM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
> >>
> >>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
> >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
> >>>
> >>>>>> =====Quote=====
> >>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
> >>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
> >>>>>> =====/Quote=====
> >>>
> >>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
> >>>
> >>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
> >>>
> >>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
> >>>
> >>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
> >>>
> >>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
> >>> reduction.
> >>
> >> Indeed.
> >>
> >> 11.25% to be precise,
> >
> > It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9 you
> > wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.
>
> But you now agree it's ~ 11% reduction?

9% - 11% = -2%

i.e. a beer which absorbs alcohol.

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 2:59:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

> 9 (the old value) divided by 8 (the new value).
>
> He was getting 9/9ths and is now getting 8/9ths.
>
> 9/8 - 1.125.

Beautiful! I always enjoy a bit of mathematics from the Plankwit school of percentages.

[Nige Danton[_2_]]

Tom Crispin > wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 3:39:20 PM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> =====Quote=====
>>>>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
>>>>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
>>>>>>>> =====/Quote=====
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
>>>>> reduction.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> 11.25% to be precise,
>>>
>>> It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9 you
>>> wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.
>>
>> But you now agree it's ~ 11% reduction?
>
> 9% - 11% = -2%
>
> i.e. a beer which absorbs alcohol.

You can't bring yourself to say yes?
--
Nige Danton - Replace the obvious with g.m.a.i.l

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:11:47 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 3:39:20 PM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
> >> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
> >>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
> >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> =====Quote=====
> >>>>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
> >>>>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
> >>>>>>>> =====/Quote=====
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
> >>>>> reduction.
> >>>>
> >>>> Indeed.
> >>>>
> >>>> 11.25% to be precise,
> >>>
> >>> It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9 you
> >>> wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.
> >>
> >> But you now agree it's ~ 11% reduction?
> >
> > 9% - 11% = -2%
> >
> > i.e. a beer which absorbs alcohol.
>
> You can't bring yourself to say yes?

Because yes is not the correct answer.

If an inflation forecast drops from 2.6% to 2% has it fallen by 0.6% or has it fallen by 30%?

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 7:20:58 AM UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:11:47 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
> > Tom Crispin > wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 3:39:20 PM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
> > >> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> > >>>> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
> > >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> =====Quote=====
> > >>>>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
> > >>>>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
> > >>>>>>>> =====/Quote=====
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
> > >>>>> reduction.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Indeed.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 11.25% to be precise,
> > >>>
> > >>> It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9 you
> > >>> wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.
> > >>
> > >> But you now agree it's ~ 11% reduction?
> > >
> > > 9% - 11% = -2%
> > >
> > > i.e. a beer which absorbs alcohol.
> >
> > You can't bring yourself to say yes?
>
> Because yes is not the correct answer.
>
> If an inflation forecast drops from 2.6% to 2% has it fallen by 0.6% or has it fallen by 30%?

Or even by ~23%?

[jnugent]

On 17/03/2016 07:20, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:11:47 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 3:39:20 PM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> =====Quote=====
>>>>>>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
>>>>>>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
>>>>>>>>>> =====/Quote=====
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
>>>>>>> reduction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 11.25% to be precise,
>>>>>
>>>>> It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9 you
>>>>> wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.
>>>>
>>>> But you now agree it's ~ 11% reduction?
>>>
>>> 9% - 11% = -2%
>>>
>>> i.e. a beer which absorbs alcohol.
>>
>> You can't bring yourself to say yes?
>
> Because yes is not the correct answer.
>
> If an inflation forecast drops from 2.6% to 2% has it fallen by 0.6% or has it fallen by 30%?

The first one ("0.6%") is a correct answer. But as you know, there isn't
only one.

The second one is incorrect but only because of the working out. A 30%
reduction from 2.6 would be (2.6 x 0.7) would give 1.82, so the
calculation is a bit off.

As you know, a reduction from 2.6 to 2 is a reduction of just over 23%.

2.6 x 0.77 = 2.002.

So it would be fair to recast your question:

"If an inflation forecast drops from 2.6% to 2% has it fallen by 0.6% or
has it fallen by circa 23%?"

And the only correct and complete answer to that is "Both".

[jnugent]

On 17/03/2016 09:24, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 7:20:58 AM UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:11:47 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 3:39:20 PM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> =====Quote=====
>>>>>>>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
>>>>>>>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
>>>>>>>>>>> =====/Quote=====
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
>>>>>>>> reduction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 11.25% to be precise,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9 you
>>>>>> wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you now agree it's ~ 11% reduction?
>>>>
>>>> 9% - 11% = -2%
>>>>
>>>> i.e. a beer which absorbs alcohol.
>>>
>>> You can't bring yourself to say yes?
>>
>> Because yes is not the correct answer.
>>
>> If an inflation forecast drops from 2.6% to 2% has it fallen by 0.6% or has it fallen by 30%?
>
> Or even by ~23%?

Ah...

The answer, of course, is "both".

I prefer the second, since it arguably uses percentages more correctly
than the first.

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:31:02 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/03/2016 09:24, Tom Crispin wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 7:20:58 AM UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:
> >> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:11:47 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
> >>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 3:39:20 PM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> =====Quote=====
> >>>>>>>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
> >>>>>>>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
> >>>>>>>>>>> =====/Quote=====
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
> >>>>>>>> reduction.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Indeed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 11.25% to be precise,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9 you
> >>>>>> wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But you now agree it's ~ 11% reduction?
> >>>>
> >>>> 9% - 11% = -2%
> >>>>
> >>>> i.e. a beer which absorbs alcohol.
> >>>
> >>> You can't bring yourself to say yes?
> >>
> >> Because yes is not the correct answer.
> >>
> >> If an inflation forecast drops from 2.6% to 2% has it fallen by 0.6% or has it fallen by 30%?
> >
> > Or even by ~23%?
>
> Ah...
>
> The answer, of course, is "both".
>
> I prefer the second, since it arguably uses percentages more correctly
> than the first.

So, if a speed limit is reduced from 30mph to 20 mph it is more correct to say that it has been reduced by ~33.3% than by 10mph?

What about a speed limit given in mach?

If a speed limit is reduced from 0.0391 mach to 0.0261 mach it is more correct to say that it has been reduced by ~33.2% than 0.013 mach?

[jnugent]

On 17/03/2016 14:01, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:31:02 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 17/03/2016 09:24, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 7:20:58 AM UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:11:47 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 3:39:20 PM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 1:11:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 16/03/2016 13:03, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 7:04:04 AM UTC, Nige Danton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Crispin > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC, Part Timer wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE

>>>>>>>>>>>>> =====Quote=====
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8%
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - a reduction of 11%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> =====/Quote=====

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maths never was his strong point: 9% - 8% = 1%

>>>>>>>>>>>> 1% of 9% is ~ 11%. He's talking about the reduction.

>>>>>>>>>>> 1% of 9% is 0.09%.

>>>>>>>>>>> 122% of 9% is ~ 11%.

>>>>>>>>>> As I said, he's talking about the reduction from 9% to 8%. It's an 11%
>>>>>>>>>> reduction.

>>>>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>>>> 11.25% to be precise,

>>>>>>>> It is certainly not 11.25%. Even if you were calculating (9% - 8%)/9 you
>>>>>>>> wouldn't end up with precisely 11.25%. You are precisely 5%/36 out.

>>>>>>> But you now agree it's ~ 11% reduction?

>>>>>> 9% - 11% = -2%
>>>>>> i.e. a beer which absorbs alcohol.

>>>>> You can't bring yourself to say yes?

>>>> Because yes is not the correct answer.

>>>> If an inflation forecast drops from 2.6% to 2% has it fallen by 0.6% or has it fallen by 30%?

>>> Or even by ~23%?

>> Ah...
>> The answer, of course, is "both".
>> I prefer the second, since it arguably uses percentages more correctly
>> than the first.

> So, if a speed limit is reduced from 30mph to 20 mph it is more correct to say that it has been reduced by ~33.3% than by 10mph?

That isn't a comparison between two uses of percentages, is it?

When it comes to everyday measures and measurements, it's best to go
with what's best recognised and most-easily understood. It is not normal
discourse to talk of speed changes in percentage terms, pace the habit
of some news media to report speeding cases as so many miles over (or so
many times) the limit.

For speed limits, it's normal to quote the actual values rather than to
quote changes in percentage terms.

> What about a speed limit given in mach?
> If a speed limit is reduced from 0.0391 mach to 0.0261 mach it is more correct to say that it has been reduced by ~33.2% than 0.013 mach?

It's years - decades, in fact - since I read that edition of "The Eagle".

So I'm not going to attempt that one, save to point out that measuring
speed in such terms is not an everyday activity, meaning that those who
need to do it are free to do it in whatever way they prefer.

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 2:24:03 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

> >>>> Because yes is not the correct answer.
>
> >>>> If an inflation forecast drops from 2.6% to 2% has it fallen by 0.6% or has it fallen by 30%?
>
> >>> Or even by ~23%?
>
> >> Ah...
> >> The answer, of course, is "both".
> >> I prefer the second, since it arguably uses percentages more correctly
> >> than the first.
>
> > So, if a speed limit is reduced from 30mph to 20 mph it is more correct to say that it has been reduced by ~33.3% than by 10mph?
>
> That isn't a comparison between two uses of percentages, is it?
>
> When it comes to everyday measures and measurements, it's best to go
> with what's best recognised and most-easily understood. It is not normal
> discourse to talk of speed changes in percentage terms, pace the habit
> of some news media to report speeding cases as so many miles over (or so
> many times) the limit.
>
> For speed limits, it's normal to quote the actual values rather than to
> quote changes in percentage terms.
>
> > What about a speed limit given in mach?
> > If a speed limit is reduced from 0.0391 mach to 0.0261 mach it is more correct to say that it has been reduced by ~33.2% than 0.013 mach?
>
> It's years - decades, in fact - since I read that edition of "The Eagle".
>
> So I'm not going to attempt that one, save to point out that measuring
> speed in such terms is not an everyday activity, meaning that those who
> need to do it are free to do it in whatever way they prefer.

I am glad you said all that - it is more or less what I had expected you to say.

Plankwit was comparing two ratios of alcohol by volume (ABV), showing the ratio as a percentage. He then switched to a ratio of two percentages, also shown as a percentage, but dropping the unit of measure.

So, showing a drop from 9% ABV to 8% ABV as 11% is akin to showing a drop from 30 MPH to 20 MPH as 33% - not in itself wrong. But Plankwit was more plankwitted than that. He stated, "Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8% - a reduction of 11%". This is clearly wrong. A reduction from 9% to 8% is a reduction of 1%, just as a reduction from 30 MPH to 20 MPH is a reduction of 10 MPH. To be right, Plankwit should have shown that he was changing from a ratio of alcohol to non alcohol in a beverage to the ratio between those two ratios, the fact that he didn't is a further demonstration of his plankwittedness or plankwittary (I really do not know which is the more correct expression).

[jnugent]

On 17/03/2016 18:26, Tom Crispin wrote:

[ ... ]

> Plankwit was comparing two ratios of alcohol by volume (ABV), showing the ratio as a percentage. He then switched to a ratio of two percentages, also shown as a percentage, but dropping the unit of measure.
>
> So, showing a drop from 9% ABV to 8% ABV as 11% is akin to showing a drop from 30 MPH to 20 MPH as 33% - not in itself wrong.

That's what I said, though I was a little more bullish: it was not only
"not wrong"; it was right.

> But Plankwit was more plankwitted than that. He stated, "Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8% - a reduction of 11%". This is clearly wrong.

Is it?

> A reduction from 9% to 8% is a reduction of 1%, just as a reduction from 30 MPH to 20 MPH is a reduction of 10 MPH.

Ah... I now see where you're getting that from.

Your error (and it is an error) is to leave the percentage sign in. You
are talking about numbers, not percentages.

So it should be "A reduction from 9 to 8 is a reduction of 1".

That is unassailably correct.

But saying "A reduction from 9% to 8% is a reduction of 1%" is not
unassailably correct, since there is a large and important sense in
which it is not true.

> To be right, Plankwit should have shown that he was changing from a ratio of alcohol to non alcohol in a beverage to the ratio between those two ratios, the fact that he didn't is a further demonstration of his plankwittedness or plankwittary (I really do not know which is the more correct expression).

I really don't know why you're persisting with this.

8 is around 89% of 9 and a reduction from 9 to 8 is therefore a
reduction of about 11% (the exact figures, as you know, are slightly
different - see below - but 11% is the nearest whole number).

He was right (and definitely not wrong).

You are not wrong but (not definitely right).

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 7:00:11 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/03/2016 18:26, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > Plankwit was comparing two ratios of alcohol by volume (ABV), showing the ratio as a percentage. He then switched to a ratio of two percentages, also shown as a percentage, but dropping the unit of measure.
> >
> > So, showing a drop from 9% ABV to 8% ABV as 11% is akin to showing a drop from 30 MPH to 20 MPH as 33% - not in itself wrong.
>
> That's what I said, though I was a little more bullish: it was not only
> "not wrong"; it was right.
>
> > But Plankwit was more plankwitted than that. He stated, "Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8% - a reduction of 11%". This is clearly wrong.
>
> Is it?
>
> > A reduction from 9% to 8% is a reduction of 1%, just as a reduction from 30 MPH to 20 MPH is a reduction of 10 MPH.
>
> Ah... I now see where you're getting that from.
>
> Your error (and it is an error) is to leave the percentage sign in. You
> are talking about numbers, not percentages.
>
> So it should be "A reduction from 9 to 8 is a reduction of 1".
>
> That is unassailably correct.
>
> But saying "A reduction from 9% to 8% is a reduction of 1%" is not
> unassailably correct, since there is a large and important sense in
> which it is not true.

How about, "A reduction from 9% ABV to 8% ABV is a reduction of 1% ABV"?

Or, "A reduction from 9% to 8% is a reduction of 1% (ABV)"?

Or even, "A reduction from 9% to 8% is a reduction of 1%"?

It was clear from the context of Plankwit's remark that he was talking about ABV.

> > To be right, Plankwit should have shown that he was changing from a ratio of alcohol to non alcohol in a beverage to the ratio between those two ratios, the fact that he didn't is a further demonstration of his plankwittedness or plankwittary (I really do not know which is the more correct expression).
>
> I really don't know why you're persisting with this.
>
> 8 is around 89% of 9 and a reduction from 9 to 8 is therefore a
> reduction of about 11% (the exact figures, as you know, are slightly
> different - see below - but 11% is the nearest whole number).

But Plankwit didn't mention 9 and 8. He specifically mentioned 9% and 8% implicitly referring to ABV.

> He was right (and definitely not wrong).

No he wasn't.

> You are not wrong but (not definitely right).

[jnugent]

On 18/03/2016 00:00, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 7:00:11 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 17/03/2016 18:26, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> [ ... ]
>
>>> Plankwit was comparing two ratios of alcohol by volume (ABV), showing the ratio as a percentage. He then switched to a ratio of two percentages, also shown as a percentage, but dropping the unit of measure.
>
>>> So, showing a drop from 9% ABV to 8% ABV as 11% is akin to showing a drop from 30 MPH to 20 MPH as 33% - not in itself wrong.
>
>> That's what I said, though I was a little more bullish: it was not only
>> "not wrong"; it was right.
>
>>> But Plankwit was more plankwitted than that. He stated, "Carlsberg and Tennants have both reduced their 9% lager to 8% - a reduction of 11%". This is clearly wrong.

>> Is it?

>>> A reduction from 9% to 8% is a reduction of 1%, just as a reduction from 30 MPH to 20 MPH is a reduction of 10 MPH.

>> Ah... I now see where you're getting that from.
>> Your error (and it is an error) is to leave the percentage sign in. You
>> are talking about numbers, not percentages.
>> So it should be "A reduction from 9 to 8 is a reduction of 1".
>> That is unassailably correct.
>> But saying "A reduction from 9% to 8% is a reduction of 1%" is not
>> unassailably correct, since there is a large and important sense in
>> which it is not true.

> How about, "A reduction from 9% ABV to 8% ABV is a reduction of 1% ABV"?

That would be accurate, though hardly elegant. And like "How now, brown
cow", hardly likely to come up in conversation all that often.

> Or, "A reduction from 9% to 8% is a reduction of 1% (ABV)"?

It's not sounding right. It smacks of desperation.

Why not just speak The English As She Is Spoken?

> Or even, "A reduction from 9% to 8% is a reduction of 1%"?

That's what you said last time and it has already been responded to:

"... saying "A reduction from 9% to 8% is a reduction of 1%" is not
unassailably correct, since there is a large and important sense in
which it is not true".

> It was clear from the context of Plankwit's remark that he was talking about ABV.

Why are you so bothered?

It was already clear that you regard yourself as his social and
educational superior (whether that is true is not something on which I
am even likely to comment).

But you seem to believe it - why are you now so insecure about it?

>>> To be right, Plankwit should have shown that he was changing from a ratio of alcohol to non alcohol in a beverage to the ratio between those two ratios, the fact that he didn't is a further demonstration of his plankwittedness or plankwittary (I really do not know which is the more correct expression).
>
>> I really don't know why you're persisting with this.
>> 8 is around 89% of 9 and a reduction from 9 to 8 is therefore a
>> reduction of about 11% (the exact figures, as you know, are slightly
>> different - see below - but 11% is the nearest whole number).

> But Plankwit didn't mention 9 and 8. He specifically mentioned 9% and 8% implicitly referring to ABV.

Indeed.

But he still got the percentage change right (to the nearest whole
number) and could not be charged with being wrong in *any* sense,
whereas your position is less secure, as has been demonstrated.

You aren't in a winning position on this. You aren't going to be able to
make a sometimes-incorrect statement into an always-correct one by
philosophy and definitely not by sophistry.

>> He was right (and definitely not wrong).

> No he wasn't.

We'll have to disagree on that, which as you know, breaks my heart.

>> You are not wrong but (not definitely right).

Hmmm...

That ought to have been: "You are not wrong (but not definitely right)",
of course.

Why didn't I pay more attention on that one week typing course all those
years ago?

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 2:02:37 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

> But he still got the percentage change right (to the nearest whole
> number) and could not be charged with being wrong in *any* sense,
> whereas your position is less secure, as has been demonstrated.

Says the man who worked out 9% - 8% as (9/8)*10.

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 2:02:37 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

> > How about, "A reduction from 9% ABV to 8% ABV is a reduction of 1% ABV"?
>
> That would be accurate, though hardly elegant. And like "How now, brown
> cow", hardly likely to come up in conversation all that often.

Exactly - which is why Plankwit left off the ABV in his erroneous statement.

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 2:02:37 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

> It was already clear that you regard yourself as his social and
> educational superior (whether that is true is not something on which I
> am even likely to comment).

That is a little misleading.

I regard everyone as being Plankwit's "social and educational superior". In as much as I am included in "everyone", your statement is true, but by a margin of everyone minus one, incomplete.

[jnugent]

On 18/03/2016 07:25, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 2:02:37 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>
>> But he still got the percentage change right (to the nearest whole
>> number) and could not be charged with being wrong in *any* sense,
>> whereas your position is less secure, as has been demonstrated.
>
> Says the man who worked out 9% - 8% as (9/8)*10.

We don't always take as much time over these things as we ought to.

And if you don't believe me, ask the man who worked out 20% of 2.6 as 0.6.

[jnugent]

On 18/03/2016 07:29, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 2:02:37 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

>>> How about, "A reduction from 9% ABV to 8% ABV is a reduction of 1% ABV"?

>> That would be accurate, though hardly elegant. And like "How now, brown
>> cow", hardly likely to come up in conversation all that often.

> Exactly - which is why Plankwit left off the ABV in his erroneous statement.

A. His statement was in no way erroneous. That has been established.

B. Using phrases like "ABV" does not aid understanding. We are all
familiar with percentage strengths listed for alcoholic drinks and do
not need to have that acronym quoted.

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 16 March 2016 16:48:41 UTC, Alycidon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 20:02:40 UTC, Alycidon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 19:19:28 UTC, Part Timer wrote:
> > > What do you reckon to your old adversary's confession?
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topic/uk.d-i-y/gGbkt6u7gKE
> >
> > Interesting - He always said that I was killing myself with sub 5% stuff, but I know that 30 paracetamol tablets in 12 hrs is fatal, but 30 in a week is no problem.
>
> However, since I now make my own beer and have no access to gas chromatography analysis, I don't know how strong mine is anymore.

The evidence.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Crhfpp8WcAA2W5_.jpg