Alfie Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A. Suffield says: > > > No he didn't. He said that 4 > 3.141592. That is not "rounding". It is > > merely the case that the lowest natural number which equals or is > > greater than 3.141592 is 4. That does not change the value of K in any > > sense. > > Good old 'gdict' says of the adjective 'round': > > 4. Full; complete; not broken; not fractional; approximately > in even units, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc.; -- said of > numbers. > > Pliny put a round number near the truth, rather than > the fraction. --Arbuthnot. > > Something is being rounded, and the resulting quantity enumerates > developers. But is 'K' the number of developers? > > > You keep assuming that K is the number of developers. > > The total number of developers? Not at all. I read in Section > 4.2.2.7 that: > > K <== minimum( 5 , sqrt(Total developers)/2 ) > > However, I think 'K' is used equivocaly at present. Its usage and > meaning should be made exact. > > Consider the usage in Section 4.2.2.3: > > "If the original decision was... then only K Developers need to sponsor > the resolution..."
This is in fact a problem. > A skit: Mr. Smith goes to the Debian Supermarket (their slogan: "where > prices are never rounded") to buy a cake advertised on sale for "Only > $4.50". Smith picks a cake off the shelf, and gives the guy at the > checkout $4.50. The checkout guy says "that'll be five dollars." > Smith shows the CG the ad, and the CG says, "we only give change in > dollars". Smith says "but prices are never rounded...". CG says > "Yes, but we only take dollars." Smith says, "well why not round > down? Your ad says 'only' which means 'not more than', so it should > be 4 dollars." CG says "here at Debian 'only' means 'at least'. > That'll be $5. Thanks for shopping at Debian Sir." There is a big difference between dollar and developers : one can have an half of a dollar, one cannot be a half of a developers. You should try a more meaningful example. -- Rémi Vanicat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
