In a message dated 8/1/02 2:50:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< If you want a technical definition: if X is precisely N orders of 
magnitude 
greater than Y, then X = (10^N)Y.  Thus 110 million, being between 80 million 
and 800 million, is between one and two orders of magnitude greater than 8 
million.  A more exact figure, if we want to get logarithmical, is that 110 
million is 1.14 orders of magnitude greater than 8 million.
To say that 110 million is two orders of magnitude greater than 8 million is 
probably to play somewhat fast and loose with the definition of an "order of 
magnitude;" David was likely thinking in terms of how many more digits the 
one has than the other.  Myself, I'd tend to say that a number would have to 
be at least 253 million (it is 1.5 orders of magnitude greater than 8 
million, which rounds to two) before I'd call it two orders of magnitude 
greater than 8 million.
Perhaps there is an accepted definition of "order of magnitude" which is 
defined solely by how many digits are in a number; if so, then this sense is 
far less precise, defining 1000 to be an order of magnitude greater than 999 
(for example).  If such a definition exists, it would fit with David's 
statement.

--Brian >>

The $8 billion figure refers to a 10-year estimate of the original cost, 
whereas the $110 figure refers to the current annual cost (or the annual cost 
during the vicious debates over reigning-in entitlement costs which took 
place during the Clinton administration when concern over the deficit brought 
uncontrolled entitlement spending to the center of public policy debate when 
the news media treated us to daily harangues against cold-hearted Republicans 
who wanted to force poor elderly people to die from horrible untreated 
illnesses because some Republicans wanted to reduce the annual growth rate of 
Medicare from 11% to 8%).  Thus the $8 billion figure comes to $0.8 billion 
annually, more than two orders of magnitude smaller than the $110 annual 
figure from the 1990s.  Since I'm relying on old memory for the figures 
anyway I thought I'd be generous and round down to two orders of magnitude.

Sincerely,

David Levenstam

Reply via email to