Math Question for Statisticians or Economists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: dareo
Thank you for the clarification. My friend's teacher told him that all statistics above 100% are all wrong. College teachers get it wrong or at least teach it in unclear ways all the time.


I could say that generally the term of 100% is quite overused. Look at the college and pro-athletes and coaches that consistently preach about giving 110% or 120%. That's technically not possible if they are performing at their human body limits of 100%. And I doubt there's a person on earth who has yet to reach the 100% level in either physical or intellectual capacities. So I do chuckle every time I see quotes like that. Maybe that's what the teacher is alluding to. In areas of growth, how else can you represent the increase other than to post numbers of >100%? But, as a coach, I'd be ecstatic to have player performing at 98-99% of their capabilities.

$10 is bigger than $1. How do you represent that as a %? You can take the "retail" way out and call it a 90% gain. If 10 isn't 900% larger than 1, or 1000% of 1, what is it? Pose that to the teacher. Ask them about irrational and imaginary numbers as well. 2.718281828459045... Can these exist if you can't put a precise # on them?
 
Originally Posted By: dareo
Thank you for the clarification. My friend's teacher told him that all statistics above 100% are all wrong. College teachers get it wrong or at least teach it in unclear ways all the time.


It's 350% likely that a statistics student misunderstood their statistics teacher and is quoting them wrong. (joke above)

In trying to parse out what he could've possibly meant, I bet your friend has conflated the terms "probability" and "statistics" together.

Where it's true that a probability over 100% are wrong.
The chances of rain tomorrow cannot be over 100%

Although a comparative probability statement like "350% more likely to rain" could make sense.

I bet if you go and ask that teacher again, they'd laugh at that statement, just as the folks here are because it is so fundamentally off.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 69GTX

I'll buy that. In my professional engineering and financial calculations over the past 45 years, I can't recall this particular usage. Everything I've ever done is related to gains, growth, losses, etc. Well, something I'll be more aware of next time out.


thumbsup2.gif


I understand your world also.

One of the sneakiest ones when I was running a big contract, our standard terms and conditions were Cost plus 10%...the Contractor quoted cost +15%, which had become the industry norm.

Got the order, and he tried invoicing at 15% gross margin...then argued that they were the same thing ... he didn't win, but it was a fractious few days until he accepted that they wrote cost+.
 
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Some industries twist statistics to suit their own needs. In clothing retail last I checked they can never make 100% on any garmet, even if they sold it for 10X cost....lol. How do they do that? A garmet they paid $10 for and sold for $100, is considered a 90% profit ((100-10)/100). The rest of the world would call that 10X gain a +900% profit.


You're conflating two different measures of profitability: markup and margin. Your example would be a 900% markup and a 90% margin. Margin is what's really useful for measuring a business.
 
Originally Posted By: dareo

It groups individuals based on their income in relation to federal poverty level. 350% of poverty level to me sounds like 3.5x poverty level, my friend disagrees. He cites his college credit in a statistics class as why he is right and i am wrong. I do no possess college credit for any math courses.


Of course 350% means 3.5 times. Just like 80% means 0.80 times, 100% means 1.00 times, 120% means 1.20 times, etc.

Your friend better give that "statistics credit" back to the school he got it from - LoL. He's thinking of it wrong and is trapped inside the "statistical box".
 
I'll give you another to use for your friend. I work with a lot of test and control group data. Say the test group had a behavior rate (bought something, did something etc) of 9% and the control was 3%. The test group had 200% increase over control group. This could also be expressed as a 3x roi or a few other ways mentioned earlier
 
Originally Posted By: dareo
Bonus question: Can you average the three income brackets and offer one obesity statistic for an ethnicity? For example White Men 32.2 + 34.8 + 30.1 divide by 3 = 32.366 % obese.


No, not unless each of the income brackets has an equal number of people.

(bracket1 * % of people in bracket1) + (bracket2 * % of people in bracket2) + (bracket3 * % of people in bracket3) = the overall obesity statistic you're looking for.
 
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Look at the college and pro-athletes and coaches that consistently preach about giving 110% or 120%. That's technically not possible if they are performing at their human body limits of 100%. And I doubt there's a person on earth who has yet to reach the 100% level in either physical or intellectual capacities. So I do chuckle every time I see quotes like that.

It's a figure of speech Poindexter, you should have taken more English classes in college
grin.gif
I kid, I kid.

Words, just like numbers, have meaning. Shannow's post on the topic was spot on.

jeff
 
Guys, he still doesn't get it. He says 350% is an improper fraction and therefore cannot be used since it is not a real number. Sigh...
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dareo

It groups individuals based on their income in relation to federal poverty level. 350% of poverty level to me sounds like 3.5x poverty level, my friend disagrees. He cites his college credit in a statistics class as why he is right and i am wrong. I do no possess college credit for any math courses.


Of course 350% means 3.5 times. Just like 80% means 0.80 times, 100% means 1.00 times, 120% means 1.20 times, etc.

Your friend better give that "statistics credit" back to the school he got it from - LoL. He's thinking of it wrong and is trapped inside the "statistical box".



LOL, good advice.
 
The Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for 2015 is $11,770 for an individual. So in the graphic, the rich individual at or above 350% FPL would be someone who makes $41,195 annually.

The reason the graphic doesn't give dollar amounts for income is that it is normalized for persons living in households. Someone living in a 4 person household would be in the "rich" category if the household makes $84,875 annually.
 
Well he is a dope
grin.gif
Percent is an english word derived from the Latin "per centum" which means "by the hundred". It denotes a ratio, not a "real number" whatever that means.

For the purpose of math, X% is indeed equivalent to X/100. ie 350% is 350/100 = 3.5. This is self evident so I'm not sure how to convince your friend that he is incorrect.

jeff
 
Originally Posted By: dareo
Guys, he still doesn't get it. He says 350% is an improper fraction and therefore cannot be used since it is not a real number. Sigh...


Who cares, people are different, let it go. You can lead a horse to water...
I'm still of the mindset he's confused and is thinking about "probability".

Just move on and remember to not take any of his tax or stock advice; or let him figure out the bill when you split a check at a restaurant or anything like that.
 
Last edited:
Give him a scenario where he's selling a car for $5,000, and tell him you will give him 125% of his asking price.

Then he'll probably have to say:
"No, sorry I can't sell you the car for $6,250 because it's an 'improper fraction' and therefore I will have to sell you the car for the 100% asking price of $5,000."
laugh.gif
 
It's part of the continuum of the Dunning Kruger effect...

e.g. when I was in high school, my father absolutely lifted me one afternoon for claiming something as (say) 10 and a half centimeters.

He went off as you can't say half a centimeter, it has to be a "point something" in centimeters...which was funny, because the wooden rules in the day had centimetres marked in mm on one side, and the other was centimetres, with the midpoint marked ... halves.
 
Good grief.

A percent is just a fraction represented in a different form. Saying that 350% is improper would be akin to saying 350/100 is an illegal fraction. Both are valid representations of the same number: 3.5

Tell him to re-attend junior high
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top