I never claimed to be a nice guy.
whatsspeed wrote:Metric Miler wrote:No, now you are lying. You DID do personal attacks.
2.269 to 2.s.f is 2.3.
'2.2' is not a range from 2.20 to 2.29!
There is no vagueness. 2.2 = 2.2.
There is no personal attack here, this is just some of the most math illiterate stuff I've ever read.
It is not math illiteracy on my part. I am a professional. The issue here is your mathematical bigotry. 2.2 can certainly be a range from 2.20 to 2.29. You will often see people do this because there is uncertainty in the final digit, or because the previous decimal is the significant precision.
No, 2.269 is only 2.3 if you decide to ROUND UP as well as limiting the number of figures. Other options are to round down, or to just cut the final digit off. These all have their appropriate usage depending on what you are doing.
My original statement was '2.2 or less'.
Any inferences you made about that statement were wrong.
It is as clear as day that '2.2 or less' means 2.2.
I cannot believe that you are a 'professional' engineer.