Any Mathematicians Out There?

[miltonbentley]

Hi Everyone

I am going to show my spectacular ignorance of all things mathematical here and would be very grateful if someone could help me solve what should be a simple problem. Ithought I'd put Cm's brightest brains onit.

I have a rectangle 426 wide x 320 high

I want to make the width 233 what should the height be to keep it in proportion?

I am sure it has something to do with 1.33 but i have no idea what.

I would be very grateful to anyone who can give me an immediate answer. Free beer to the first correct response

Thanks from a mathematical dunce

[CalicoConsulting]

Take the target width of 233, divide by the original width of 426, and multiply the resulting fraction by the original 320 height to give you a new height of 175.

[miltonbentley]

Take the target width of 233, divide by the original width of 426, and multiply the resulting fraction by the original 320 height to give you a new height of 175.

Thank CC you are a diamond but I knew that anyway!

The beer is yours

[princealbert]

Hi Everyone

I am going to show my spectacular ignorance of all things mathematical here and would be very grateful if someone could help me solve what should be a simple problem. Ithought I'd put Cm's brightest brains onit.

I have a rectangle 426 wide x 320 high

I want to make the width 233 what should the height be to keep it in proportion?

I am sure it has something to do with 1.33 but i have no idea what.

I would be very grateful to anyone who can give me an immediate answer. Free beer to the first correct response

Thanks from a mathematical dunce

233/426% = 54.694835 so 320/100x54.694835=175.02347

proportion size should be 233 x 175

[princealbert]

Hi Everyone

I am going to show my spectacular ignorance of all things mathematical here and would be very grateful if someone could help me solve what should be a simple problem. Ithought I'd put Cm's brightest brains onit.

I have a rectangle 426 wide x 320 high

I want to make the width 233 what should the height be to keep it in proportion?

I am sure it has something to do with 1.33 but i have no idea what.

I would be very grateful to anyone who can give me an immediate answer. Free beer to the first correct response

Thanks from a mathematical dunce

233/426% = 54.694835 so 320/100x54.694835=175.02347

proportion size should be 233 x 175

As always a little to slow

[CalicoConsulting]

That's because you didn't dump all the decimal places like I did. Either that or you were in a can.

[Maestro]

Take the target width of 233, divide by the original width of 426, and multiply the resulting fraction by the original 320 height to give you a new height of 175.

Correct result, but I would do the multiplication first, then the division, ie 233*320/426 = 175.0235

That’s how I was taught. Always multiply first, then divide. Apparently, this can give a more accurate result in some cases, eg in rocket science.

--

Maestro

[miltonbentley]

Take the target width of 233, divide by the original width of 426, and multiply the resulting fraction by the original 320 height to give you a new height of 175.

Correct result, but I would do the multiplication first, then the division, ie 233*320/426 = 175.0235

That’s how I was taught. Always multiply first, then divide. Apparently, this can give a more accurate result in some cases, eg in rocket science.

--

Maestro

I think it's admirable for mods to check the Boards maths

Thanks all for the assistance I can now put a mini TV on my website

[Maejo Man]

Seeing that you are mathmatically challenged MB why not try a latteral thought process next time. Open Photoshop and create a new blank image of 425 x 320 then go to image size and alter the 425 to 233 and check the "constrain proportions" and you get the resultant proportionate length of the other side. Takes all of 15 seconds and is probably quicker that working it out Just in case you get stuck next time!! Now that has to be worth a G&T

[Maestro]

I think it's admirable for mods to check the Boards maths

Only when it involves rocket science. Can’t have you end up in the wrong galaxy, can we

Thanks all for the assistance I can now put a mini TV on my website

Oh, so that’s what it was about. Pixels. No need for the 4 digits after the decimal point, then.

Is it a webcam you’re setting up? Videoing what? If you think it could be of interest to ThaiVisa members – and if it’s not commercial advertising or pornography – put the link in your member profile and we all can go and check it out.

--

Maestro

[Naam]

That’s how I was taught. Always multiply first, then divide. Apparently, this can give a more accurate result in some cases, eg in rocket science.

--

Maestro

sorry to interfer, no different result in primary school and no different result in rocket science. different results only when using a formula a computer is supposed to calculate and the brackets are set wrongly or in some cases brackets forgotten to set.

example spreadsheet formula:

1000/2*5=2500

1000/(2*5)=100

1000*5/2=2500

(1000*5)/2=2500

more complicated are multiple embedded multiplications combined with divisions. for a Heineken (or two) i am inclined to explain why.

[Plus]

The idea is that if you divide first, you'll get an approximate value in most cases, which you will probably further round up to two decimals. After that, when you multiply, you mulitply that difference, too.

Compare this:

10/3= 3.33

3.33*1000 = 3330

with this:

10*1000 = 10,000

10,000/3 = 3333.33

The difference is 3.33 already.

[tigerbeer]

Seeing that you are mathmatically challenged MB why not try a latteral thought process next time. Open Photoshop and create a new blank image of 425 x 320 then go to image size and alter the 425 to 233 and check the "constrain proportions" and you get the resultant proportionate length of the other side. Takes all of 15 seconds and is probably quicker that working it out Just in case you get stuck next time!! Now that has to be worth a G&T

brilliant mm, thats how i would have answered the OP. dont know why some of these weird people still bother with maths!

[PeaceBlondie]

The idea is that if you divide first, you'll get an approximate value in most cases, which you will probably further round up to two decimals. After that, when you multiply, you mulitply that difference, too.

Compare this:

10/3= 3.33

3.33*1000 = 3330

with this:

10*1000 = 10,000

10,000/3 = 3333.33

The difference is 3.33 already.

Disagreeing: any $6 calculator that divides to 8 decimal points will get you 10/3 = 3.3333333 and will probably remember the rest but not display it. Don't just divide to a few digits and then round off to even fewer. The problem always depends on how many significant digits you're using, and the least number in the chain will dictate how few significant digits you have. Multiplication and division are just inverse methods of exactly the same process. Seventh grade average students now have calculators that do about 55 functions, including all the trig and many of the calculus or exponent functions. The trick is in understanding the functions, and then learning how to punch the calculator buttons.

[Maestro]

...any $6 calculator that divides to 8 decimal points will get you 10/3 = 3.3333333 and will probably remember the rest but not display it.

I was talking about the time of first-generation electronic calculators, the cheaper models of which rounded every intermediate result off to two digits after the decimal point. That made, for example, 31/9*7 = 24.08 and 32*7/9 = 24.11. One has to go to a museum now to see that type of calculator. And before that, there were the mechanical calculators. I worked with that in Manila in 1967 and wish I had kept one of them. Nobody now believes me when I try to explain how they worked. You wouldn’t want to go to 8 decimals with those.

That’s why I still multiply first. Old habit. Another old habit I finally weaned myself off this year is double-clutching when changing gears down in a motor-car. I still catch myself doing it sometimes when changing from second to first gear.

--

Maestro

[CalicoConsulting]

Calico Consulting

• Will Edit For Food
  
• Will Cipher For Beer
  

[percy2]

That’s how I was taught. Always multiply first, then divide. Apparently, this can give a more accurate result in some cases, eg in rocket science.

--

Maestro

sorry to interfer, no different result in primary school and no different result in rocket science. different results only when using a formula a computer is supposed to calculate and the brackets are set wrongly or in some cases brackets forgotten to set.

example spreadsheet formula:

1000/2*5=2500

1000/(2*5)=100

1000*5/2=2500

(1000*5)/2=2500

more complicated are multiple embedded multiplications combined with divisions. for a Heineken (or two) i am inclined to explain why.

for a Heineken (or two) i am prepared to listen why.

Cheers

[Naam]

The idea is that if you divide first, you'll get an approximate value in most cases, which you will probably further round up to two decimals. After that, when you multiply, you mulitply that difference, too.

The difference is 3.33 already.

that's right but that's... ahmm... i don't know what it is but it's definitely not maths

[Naam]

for a Heineken (or two) i am prepared to listen why.

Cheers

bring a case of Heineken and you'll know each and everything about quantum physics once we are through with it

[Awk]

...any $6 calculator that divides to 8 decimal points will get you 10/3 = 3.3333333 and will probably remember the rest but not display it.

I was talking about the time of first-generation electronic calculators, the cheaper models of which rounded every intermediate result off to two digits after the decimal point. That made, for example, 31/9*7 = 24.08 and 32*7/9 = 24.11. One has to go to a museum now to see that type of calculator. And before that, there were the mechanical calculators. I worked with that in Manila in 1967 and wish I had kept one of them. Nobody now believes me when I try to explain how they worked. You wouldn’t want to go to 8 decimals with those.

That’s why I still multiply first. Old habit.

And a good habit it is. ;-)

Plus's example, and your habit, is just as good today as in that time.

No mater what calculator or supercomputer you use, it will have a finite precision in it's

internal representation of floating point numbers (numbers with decimal points).*

When the numbers get large enough, the same problem as Plus shows in his example,

will occur on any computer, so it's actually a pretty good example of what really

happens in a computer today; the order of evalation can have a very significant

impact on the accuracy of the result.

* Yes, the precision is finite for any other number too, but for integer ("whole numbers")

arithmetic, where the result is also an integer, you don't have to worry about loosing precision,

but rather about the integer "overflowing", i.e becoming too large/small to be represented

on the computer you are using.

[Dr. G]

[Cheers

bring a case of Heineken and you'll know each and everything about quantum physics once we are through with it

Everything ???

g

[Naam]

Everything ???

i meant of course the lectures in quantum physics and not the case of Heineken