McClurian math still at work

cofreb

Redshirt
Oct 6, 2009
159
33
28
Could be real

McClurian math, 143/7=20.4; this, I believe, was the same method of computation TM used in arriving at the now infamous McClurian Constant.
 
Nov 17, 2008
1,519
0
0
McClurian math, 143/7=20.4; this, I believe, was the same method of computation TM used in arriving at the now infamous McClurian Constant.

Exactly. She had to have used 143/7. That is the exact method that was used by McClure, who is now a sixpack legend.
 

RocketDawg

All-Conference
Oct 21, 2011
18,916
2,028
113
Fortunately, the author of the article is not one of the semi-finalists cited. The entire article is pretty poorly written.

Not familiar with McClure ... is he still around?

I never understood why so many people have trouble working with percentages. Many, perhaps most, of the populace don't understand that if you take 100 of something, and reduce it by 50% to 50, that you have to increase the result by 100% to get back to where you started. It's a simple concept, but apparently above the heads of many. They would say since you reduced by 50%, you'd only have to increase by 50% to get the original number.
 
Last edited:

cofreb

Redshirt
Oct 6, 2009
159
33
28
Reminds me of one of my

all-time favorite cartoons in Grant's Interest Rate Observer, in which a {seemingly moderately} successful financier is addressing a graduating class and he sums up his accumulated financial wisdom as:

"if you are up by half and then down by half, you have not broken even."
 

RocketDawg

All-Conference
Oct 21, 2011
18,916
2,028
113
Geez .... he's one of those I was referring to who has trouble working with percentages. I assume he wasn't a math or engineering major?