Mathematically, it seems the argument is taking place using only one significant figure, so the child must be or 2 or 3, common integers for ages above 18 months. The rules for rounding to the nearest significant figure is is 2.499... or under rounds down to 2, and 2.500... and up round up to 3.
Mathematically, if said youngster is older than 2.5 years, I side with Jeff, regardless of forgetfulness. Which could be an entirely different mathematical theorem and corollary.
BTW, I can't stand it when parents give their child's age in months, so good to both of you. Children are not cheeses, and should not be listed as such. lol
This blog contains many teachable moments in writing fiction and living life, with the hard and real lessons only the joy of failure can so vividly bring.
6 comments:
Jenius, number 3 is 2. Head.to.desk.repeat.
I rounded up.
(And it's spelled S-U-P-E-R-G-E-N-I-U-S)
Souper Jenius. So shall it be on your next t-shirt.
Who rounds ages up half a year on a two year old? Hmm, perhaps a father who can't remember the age of his spawn? ;o)
Dude, he's like 2.7! Rounding up is a perfectly reasonable approach to shortcutting his age into the title of a post.
*smooches*
Mathematically, it seems the argument is taking place using only one significant figure, so the child must be or 2 or 3, common integers for ages above 18 months. The rules for rounding to the nearest significant figure is is 2.499... or under rounds down to 2, and 2.500... and up round up to 3.
Mathematically, if said youngster is older than 2.5 years, I side with Jeff, regardless of forgetfulness. Which could be an entirely different mathematical theorem and corollary.
BTW, I can't stand it when parents give their child's age in months, so good to both of you. Children are not cheeses, and should not be listed as such. lol
I rest my case!
*but no smooches for Dave*
Post a Comment