comment by Benji Veniamin (U19953)
posted 5 minutes ago
I give up. You win haha

In my head I know what I'm saying but I think I need a whiteboard to get this across

I understand how you guys are looking at it but I'm looking at it from a purely functional point of view

Twice the performance to me, means double output in half the time

That's not quadruple increase that's double
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I understand you buddy but as conor said above you are measuring the same thing twice

comment by Benji Veniamin (U19953)
posted 4 seconds ago
TOOR

Whatever you say bud

I get your angle, I haven't said I don't

I am just saying in my opinion twice the player does it in half the time with twice as many goals

If you think different, that's fine

It's a debate


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately for you Benji, this isn't a matter of opinion. Maths has a right and wrong answer. You are wrong. You are essentially squaring a number, rather than doubling it.

comment by conormcgrace (U4307)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
Toor, is there any brackets in your equation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That doesn't need to be specified Melton
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly.

comment by conormcgrace (U4307)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by Benji Veniamin (U19953)
posted 4 seconds ago
TOOR

Whatever you say bud

I get your angle, I haven't said I don't

I am just saying in my opinion twice the player does it in half the time with twice as many goals

If you think different, that's fine

It's a debate


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately for you Benji, this isn't a matter of opinion. Maths has a right and wrong answer. You are wrong. You are essentially squaring a number, rather than doubling it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conor

Exactly as I said above, I think Benji is getting confused between multiplying and squaring.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
"Twice the performance to me, means double output in half the time

That's not quadruple increase that's double"

I've got a feeling you are wumming...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

01001001 01110100 00100111 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101100 01110111 01100001 01111001 01110011 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01110100 01101000 00100000 01110011 01100101 01100101 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101000 01101111 01110111 00100000 01110011 01110100 01110101 01110000 01101001 01100100 00100000 01110000 01100101 01101111 01110000 01101100 01100101 00100000 01100001 01100011 01110100 01110101 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01101110 01101011 00100000 01101111 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101

comment by Benji Veniamin (U19953)
posted 2 minutes ago
TOOR

Whatever you say bud

I get your angle, I haven't said I don't

I am just saying in my opinion twice the player does it in half the time with twice as many goals

If you think different, that's fine

It's a debate


----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a debate. It's fact. There's nothing to debate. Maths isn't debatable, at least not at this level!

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
No I think that too Conor, as I thought six. I just asked people in the office it though and oddly, the older generation all said eight. Wondered if it was just a coincidence that they were all thickos!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Most people get it wrong, but not because they don't know how to do it, but because they don't really think about it. Plus if you say it out loud: "two plus two times 2" you logically do the "2+2" first.

Just say bodmas or bidmas to people and then they'll get it.

Benji, is this correct by your logic?

So if I was twice the worker as my colleague & I generated £200 a day, my colleague would earn £50 a day as I earn twice as much in half the time?

By your maths, my boss would have to replace me with 4 people to earn £200 a day, not 2?

Anyway, to be double the player you need to double your output. So in effect if Falcao scores twice as many goals in a whole season than Costa, he can be considered twice the player.

I cannot believe I've just spent the last 20 minutes debating the answer to 2x7.

comment by conormcgrace (U4307)
posted 6 seconds ago
I cannot believe I've just spent the last 20 minutes debating the answer to 2x7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been great!

comment by conormcgrace (U4307)
posted 10 seconds ago
I cannot believe I've just spent the last 20 minutes debating the answer to 2x7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I think Benji is trying to overcomplicate things. I can see what he is saying, but it isn't relevant. The relevance, as you say, is quite simply 2 x 7.

comment by Arctic Monkey (U14534)
posted 3 minutes ago
Benji, is this correct by your logic?

So if I was twice the worker as my colleague & I generated £200 a day, my colleague would earn £50 a day as I earn twice as much in half the time?

By your maths, my boss would have to replace me with 4 people to earn £200 a day, not 2?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic

I don't work in sales but if someone generated $100 a day, and there was someone who was twice the salesperson as him I would "assume" he could do twice that number in half the time.

He would be twice as productive in both output and speed

comment by Benji Veniamin (U19953)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Arctic Monkey (U14534)
posted 3 minutes ago
Benji, is this correct by your logic?

So if I was twice the worker as my colleague & I generated £200 a day, my colleague would earn £50 a day as I earn twice as much in half the time?

By your maths, my boss would have to replace me with 4 people to earn £200 a day, not 2?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic

I don't work in sales but if someone generated $100 a day, and there was someone who was twice the salesperson as him I would "assume" he could do twice that number in half the time.

He would be twice as productive in both output and speed

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh. My. God.

He is already twice as productive in speed, because he's producing DOUBLE the amount in the SAME time. In other words, in half the time, he produces the same amount!

How are you not getting this?

comment by Benji Veniamin (U19953)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Arctic Monkey (U14534)
posted 3 minutes ago
Benji, is this correct by your logic?

So if I was twice the worker as my colleague & I generated £200 a day, my colleague would earn £50 a day as I earn twice as much in half the time?

By your maths, my boss would have to replace me with 4 people to earn £200 a day, not 2?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic

I don't work in sales but if someone generated $100 a day, and there was someone who was twice the salesperson as him I would "assume" he could do twice that number in half the time.

He would be twice as productive in both output and speed

----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by Benji Veniamin (U19953)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Arctic Monkey (U14534)
posted 3 minutes ago
Benji, is this correct by your logic?

So if I was twice the worker as my colleague & I generated £200 a day, my colleague would earn £50 a day as I earn twice as much in half the time?

By your maths, my boss would have to replace me with 4 people to earn £200 a day, not 2?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic

I don't work in sales but if someone generated $100 a day, and there was someone who was twice the salesperson as him I would "assume" he could do twice that number in half the time.

He would be twice as productive in both output and speed

----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you do think replacing 1 salesman with 4 salesman makes salesman 1 only twice the salesman, despite doing the same job as 4 people?

If I sold £100 in a day, and another person sold £200 in a day he would be twice as productive.

If another person came in and sold £400 in a day, he would be 4 times as productive as me, and twice as productive as the £200 a day guy.

Going back to the square example

You say a 10m square is 4 times the size of 5m square

Which it is in terms of area (both factors combined)

But it's twice the length (speed) and twice the width (output)

Does that help you?

This is hilarious.

One final time: the speed is already factored into the equation.

If you said man X ears 100 and man Y earns 200, that means nothing as you don't know how long it took them each. As soon as you say they did it in the SAME TIME, that makes man Y TWICE as productive.

comment by Benji Veniamin (U19953)
posted 21 seconds ago
Going back to the square example

You say a 10m square is 4 times the size of 5m square

Which it is in terms of area (both factors combined)

But it's twice the length (speed) and twice the width (output)

Does that help you?


----------------------------------------------------------------------

You've just argued against yourself. Read you comment back slowly and you might get it.

comment by Benji Veniamin (U19953)
posted 37 seconds ago
Going back to the square example

You say a 10m square is 4 times the size of 5m square

Which it is in terms of area (both factors combined)

But it's twice the length (speed) and twice the width (output)

Does that help you?


----------------------------------------------------------------------

If I made a 5x5 square using apples, I would have 25 apples. If you made a 10x10 square using apples, you would have 100 apples. That is 4 times as many apples, not twice as many apples.

Yes but 4 is 2 squared

comment by Benji Veniamin (U19953)
posted 16 seconds ago
Yes but 4 is 2 squared
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eureka!! So you see, you are squaring instead of doubling.

comment by Benji Veniamin (U19953)
posted 9 seconds ago
Yes but 4 is 2 squared
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What the feck are you blabbering on about?

comment by conormcgrace (U4307)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Benji Veniamin (U19953)
posted 9 seconds ago
Yes but 4 is 2 squared
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What the feck are you blabbering on about?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He gets it now. He has realised that he is squaring not doubling.