>> /me spent approximately 9.34934 seconds wondering what these guys >> would classify as an "exact" number. > I was roughly 34.742% certainly you would say that.
Jokes aside, "exact" can refer to either accuracy or precision. I suspect that the difference between the two is what's causing trouble here. (What is the difference? Accuracy is how close a number is to reality; precision is how small a number's error estimate is. For example, I could say that there are 3,418,029,600 plus-or-minus 10 humans on our planet at the moment. This is a very _precise_ number, the error estimate being about three parts per billion, but it is a wildly _inaccurate_ number, being about half the actual figure.) I suspect their "approximately" really meant "this is the exact number we have in hand, but we're not all that confident that it truly reflects the reality". /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
