At 15:44 01/09/2020, Paul Marchant wrote:
>I would not wish to seem over-pedantic but 2.2
>is nearer the mark for the conversion (2.20462
>is more acute). However perhaps as Tom Lehrer
>put it in his song ˜The New Math"… the idea is the important thing.
Very true, on both counts. However, John's
incorrect conversion factor becomes a lot less
important (certainly beyond the first couple of
decimal places - for any credible human weight)
when one is going to round the answer to the nearest integer!
Kind Regards,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|