/sci/ - Science & Math

sauce on pic

Hmm, I never tought about that OP.
But as it's rounded upwards on the positive end of 0 I would believe that applies to the negative end too.

>>1974410
i believe the opposite, that it's rounded to the greater absolute value

but belief isn't enough here

this is MATHS

>>1974421
I agree that belief simply is not enough.
Anyone with a deeper understanding of maths that can enlighten me?
Even if a ''deeper understanding'' would not be necessary I dont trust anyone else on such an important subjecvt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding
CTRL-F [Rounding a number y to the nearest integer requires some tie-breaking rule]

i would round 9.35 to 9.4, and -9.35 to - 9.4
you round a 5 away from 0, because it is most likely to be accurate.
for example, if it was - 9.35429023... then to 2dp it is -9.35, but then by re-rounding it to 1 dp, -9.4 is closer to the origional, and this always works if you round away from 0.

>>1974460
Fail. Try actually reading the article. We've had this debate before.

When roundong UP, it is towards positive infinity.

-9.35 rounds UP to -9.3

>>1974493
*rounding

>>1974493
"One reason for rounding up at 0.5 is that only the next digit is looked at to determine rounding direction. Therefore if one has 17.5245345 for example that is closer to 18 than 17. If one did not round up, at 0.5, they may round down to produce a less accurate result."
and i gave a similar example...rounding away from 0 is most accurate, so that is how i would do it. i think it is also the way most people do it, so it fits with tradition or whatever

>>1974506
INB4 butthurt faggot is like "herp derp, there is more important things than being a grammar nazi!"

>>1974523
>>1974460
Fuck off

>>1974534
no u

>>1974523
Except that's not what OP asked. You are wrong, get over it, let this shitty troll thread die.

Seriously, please don't draw this out into a "my kind of rounding is better" shitstorm. We've had enough of them already, thanks.

>>1974532

Uh, dude?
>>1974506
>>1974493
Were both me. I corrected myself. What the fuck kind of reverse meta troll are you?

>>1974552
how was i supposed to know? you posted as anonymous...i guessed wrong. that is all.
>>1974542
fact: my method of rounding is most accurate when considering further decimal places to the number.

round to nearest even