Do you round up or down?

Options
2

Replies

  • Calliope610
    Calliope610 Posts: 3,775 Member
    Options
    Science rounds to nearest even number...

    I think you mean "nearest WHOLE number".
  • HealthyBodySickMind
    HealthyBodySickMind Posts: 1,207 Member
    Options
    Science rounds to nearest even number...

    I am a scientist and I disagree. 4.5 rounds to 5 not 4.
  • baneboy
    baneboy Posts: 65
    Options
    iam 5.6 1/2ft but always say 5.7, but I think most guys would rnd up! lol
  • jdad1
    jdad1 Posts: 1,899 Member
    Options
    Who cares. It is so unimportant. Move on to more relevant matters.

    Actually it can be, so I care! For example, 1/2 inch meant the difference between my BMI being healthy vs. overweight. If I just rounded down to 5' 7" like I usually do I wouldn't have received my healthy weight bonus ($$$) at work. So, it can be relevant :tongue:


    in that case it makes all the difference in the world. lol.....can i bum some money?
  • bethlaf
    bethlaf Posts: 954 Member
    Options
    5 ft 5 , cuz lets face it that makes you the bigger person :D lol
    calorie wise , we are looking at maybe , 10-15cal difference
  • bumblebums
    bumblebums Posts: 2,181 Member
    Options
    Science rounds to nearest even number...

    I am a scientist and I disagree. 4.5 rounds to 5 not 4.

    I couldn't even interpret the post you're quoting :) I think that person must mean "even = whole", and there is also ambiguity as to whether "rounds to" means "rounds up to" or "rounds down to". I've never seen any convention in science of rounding to an even number as opposed to odd--though who knows, maybe that happens. In typical scientific usage, .5 is rounded up, not down.
  • baneboy
    baneboy Posts: 65
    Options
    :laugh: could somebody plz tell me how u reply to another's post! iam have'in no luck! lol thanx
  • HealthyBodySickMind
    HealthyBodySickMind Posts: 1,207 Member
    Options
    Science rounds to nearest even number...

    I am a scientist and I disagree. 4.5 rounds to 5 not 4.

    I couldn't even interpret the post you're quoting :) I think that person must mean "even = whole", and there is also ambiguity as to whether "rounds to" means "rounds up to" or "rounds down to". I've never seen any convention in science of rounding to an even number as opposed to odd--though who knows, maybe that happens. In typical scientific usage, .5 is rounded up, not down.

    It actually may be some obscure convention. Where I work, all the older chemists (like didn't even have computers when they got their degrees old) have some odd conventions they adhere to that are completely different from what I was taught. I don't remember an "even" number convention being one of them, but that doesn't mean that some odd discipline doesn't use it. It's wrong to say that "science" does it though, as the wider scientific community would round .5 up.
  • HealthyBodySickMind
    HealthyBodySickMind Posts: 1,207 Member
    Options
    :laugh: could somebody plz tell me how u reply to another's post! iam have'in no luck! lol thanx

    Hit the quote button instead of reply.
  • bumblebums
    bumblebums Posts: 2,181 Member
    Options
    Science rounds to nearest even number...

    I am a scientist and I disagree. 4.5 rounds to 5 not 4.

    I couldn't even interpret the post you're quoting :) I think that person must mean "even = whole", and there is also ambiguity as to whether "rounds to" means "rounds up to" or "rounds down to". I've never seen any convention in science of rounding to an even number as opposed to odd--though who knows, maybe that happens. In typical scientific usage, .5 is rounded up, not down.

    It actually may be some obscure convention. Where I work, all the older chemists (like didn't even have computers when they got their degrees old) have some odd conventions they adhere to that are completely different from what I was taught. I don't remember an "even" number convention being one of them, but that doesn't mean that some odd discipline doesn't use it. It's wrong to say that "science" does it though, as the wider scientific community would round .5 up.

    Totally agree. If there is such a convention, it is not in wide use. Normal refereed journals will have you round up from .5 if you are not reporting to, say, two decimal pts (which is more likely anyway).
  • HealthyBodySickMind
    HealthyBodySickMind Posts: 1,207 Member
    Options
    Science rounds to nearest even number...

    I am a scientist and I disagree. 4.5 rounds to 5 not 4.

    I couldn't even interpret the post you're quoting :) I think that person must mean "even = whole", and there is also ambiguity as to whether "rounds to" means "rounds up to" or "rounds down to". I've never seen any convention in science of rounding to an even number as opposed to odd--though who knows, maybe that happens. In typical scientific usage, .5 is rounded up, not down.

    It actually may be some obscure convention. Where I work, all the older chemists (like didn't even have computers when they got their degrees old) have some odd conventions they adhere to that are completely different from what I was taught. I don't remember an "even" number convention being one of them, but that doesn't mean that some odd discipline doesn't use it. It's wrong to say that "science" does it though, as the wider scientific community would round .5 up.

    Totally agree. If there is such a convention, it is not in wide use. Normal refereed journals will have you round up from .5 if you are not reporting to, say, two decimal pts (which is more likely anyway).

    Indeed. It would depend on the precision of the measuring tool, but any 5 rounds up.
  • crista_b
    crista_b Posts: 1,192 Member
    Options
    Can't you change the settings to cm, which is a more accurate measurement?
    This seems like the best option posted here.
    I'm about 5'9.5" but I've said 5'9" for years; being 69" tall just entertains me more.
    I'm 5'9" and I love entering 69" as my height because I can be quite immature at times. :laugh:
  • greenmonstergirl
    greenmonstergirl Posts: 619 Member
    Options
    Who cares. It is so unimportant. Move on to more relevant matters.

    Can you please tell me what is more relevant that I should move on to? I didn't say it was a big deal. That's why I posted in "Chit-Chat, Fun and Games" not the "General Diet and Weight Loss" forum. But hey thanks for taking time out of your day to comment on such an unimportant question to tell me it's unimportant.

    This is when I wish we had a "LIKE" button to push! You tell em!
  • SpeSHul_SnoflEHk
    SpeSHul_SnoflEHk Posts: 6,256 Member
    Options
    Can't you change the settings to cm, which is a more accurate measurement?

    Blasphemy!! metric system.. ha!!
  • MizTerry
    MizTerry Posts: 3,763 Member
    Options
    I round up, unless it comes to calories burned, then I try to keep it to the nearest whole number possible. If I burn 128.2 calories, I say I burned 128. If it says 183.6, I say I burned 184.
  • freebirdjones
    freebirdjones Posts: 237
    Options
    :laugh: could somebody plz tell me how u reply to another's post! iam have'in no luck! lol thanx

    Hit the quote button instead of reply.

    lol, thanx
  • baneboy
    baneboy Posts: 65
    Options
    :laugh: could somebody plz tell me how u reply to another's post! iam have'in no luck! lol thanx

    Hit the quote button instead of reply.


    thanx
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    Options
    As far as I'm aware, I'm 5 feet and three quarters of an inch tall. I'm 154cm according to the height measuring thing in the hospital. I say I'm 5'1" because "five foot one" is three syllables, while "five feet and three quarters of an inch" is 9 syllables and I really can't be bothered. Honestly if anyone considers me or anyone else rounding up half or a quarter of an inch to be lying, I'd want to know why they care so very much about how tall someone is to be so pedantic about it.

    Mathematically speaking, if it's exactly half or more than half, you round up, if it's less than half you round down. So mathematically speaking 5'4.5" should be rounded up to 5'5" and not down.

    It can get silly though, because at 154cm, I could in theory round my height up to 2m to the nearest metre. That would be failing to use the correct degree of accuracy and would be a science fail rather than a maths fail.
  • JenAndSome
    JenAndSome Posts: 1,893 Member
    Options
    Can't you change the settings to cm, which is a more accurate measurement?

    Blasphemy!! metric system.. ha!!

    That's the first thing that popped into my head. :laugh:

    I suppose I could, but then I would have to work out all of the conversions for the rest of my measurements and weight.
    This could be fun! :bigsmile:
  • jdad1
    jdad1 Posts: 1,899 Member
    Options
    Who cares. It is so unimportant. Move on to more relevant matters.

    Can you please tell me what is more relevant that I should move on to? I didn't say it was a big deal. That's why I posted in "Chit-Chat, Fun and Games" not the "General Diet and Weight Loss" forum. But hey thanks for taking time out of your day to comment on such an unimportant question to tell me it's unimportant.

    This is when I wish we had a "LIKE" button to push! You tell em!


    yeah right...I was ignoring this but heck. It is unimportant because the difference in calories is less then about 30. It makes no significant impact on a persons weight loss in the long run. Just say you are taller so you can feel better and move on, or go with shorter and get a lower calorie calculation. Thinking about this subject is just showing insecurities in height. It is not a big deal either way. This is why I commented. To try and help.......help the OP to move on to more important issues. (I was assuming that this was considered important to her or she would not have made the post. Clearly I thought she was more serious then she actually was.) Man you are all giants compared to my wife anyway (4'10'') so don't worry about a half of an inch.

Categories