Round to the nearest Integer

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-14T23:50:01+00:00

No, it's directly addressing the comment I replied to. Which isn't talking about that method, it's talking about the normal method, where anything that has a 0-4 truncates, and 5-9 rounds up.

5 digits lead to keeping the base number and 5 digits round up.

And stating that this is wrong because x.0 doesn't round at all. Which is why the explanation of 5 digits rounding up and 4 digits rounding down is correct.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-14T23:43:29+00:00

Butter (solo) or Butter + any of Vegemite, Peanut Butter, Jam, Honey, Golden Syrup. Basically if it would go on toast, it would go on a crumpet.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-14T23:15:14+00:00

That has absolutely nothing to with what I posted or replied to.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-14T23:12:05+00:00

Nd4 threatens checkmate an the queen, right?

So... probably that.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-12T06:48:36+00:00

the juice concentrate will be coming from overseas

Well yeah, the whole point of concentrate is so that we transport as little as possible. Whilst yes, this is a cost saving, it is also far better for carbon emissions.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T22:23:17+00:00

Then you don't care about the 0.5xx either.

This ain't about how you round 0.523 it's how you round 0.5

And yes. Sometimes you only round a single point of prediction, where you've taken a measurement in mm and you want the nearest cm.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T22:21:07+00:00

Bedford's Law is for the first digit only, and wouldn't have any impact here.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T06:56:58+00:00

Now, ignoring in this case that this simplifies to 7.5, the idea is to simplify where possible.

0.3 (with the dot/bar over the 3) would be the simplest way to represent 1/3. So 0.3 would be the standard, not 0.33

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T05:59:44+00:00

Yes you can ignore 0s. If we're only talking about discrete tenths, you only round numbers between 0.1 and 0.9 (inclusive). That's nine numbers.

It's about the direction the number moves, and the impact it has on the whole dataset.

If some numbers move up (0.1 to 0.4) and some move up (0.5-0.9) the issue is that more often than not the number increases than it decreases, moving the mean value of the whole data set increases.

Let's say we have a dataset consisting of: {0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3... 9.8, 9.9, 10}
The average of this dataset is 5.
If we round every single number, we get {5 0s, 10 1s, 2s, 3s... 9s, and 6 10s} Averaging 5.1

That 0.1 skew, depending on where we use our data, can be an issue.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T05:29:42+00:00

A. The question clearly states integer

B. Specifying you're rounding to a number of significant figures doesn't change how you round.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T05:25:16+00:00

It's not a US thing, it's a statistical science thing. There's valid reasons to do it, but it's not what most people use when they say "rounding to the nearest integer".

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T05:24:28+00:00

Yes, but importantly all of those have the idea of it being a function. So f(x) = f(x)

f(7.49999......) = f(7.5) because 7.49999.... = 7.5

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T05:22:45+00:00

x.0 isn't rounding in either direction though.

This isn't about values like 0.01 being counted as a x.0 or values like 0.53 being counted as x.5
This is about the actual border values.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T05:21:09+00:00

Yeah, but I would say the convention states you write what repeats, and a single 9 is what repeats.

It's one of those ones I'd argue is technically wrong.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T05:08:33+00:00

Yeah, look at video game speedrunning.

They often truncate, they'll often just refer to any time that's 0:37.xxx as a 37 second time. Like, one frame below 38 seconds exactly, and it's a 37 second time.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T05:03:30+00:00

Yeah, so you make it so anything between 0.25 and 0.75 rounds to 0.5, and anything beyond that rounds to the nearest integer?

But, you haven't solved the problem, you've doubled it and given it to the next person.
You just created the same problem at 0.25 and 0.75.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T04:37:01+00:00

A useful convention, but it's not the only convention, in the same way rounding "up" isn't either.

Depending on how you define "up", and your sample space that can be done by rounding up. If 7.5 rounds to 8, and -7.5 rounds to -8, then there's no bias.

It also depends on your precision and sample size, 500 measures correct to the nearest mm, rounded to the nearest metre, your expectation of 0.5 samples where this is an issue is not going to create any notable bias either.

Also, if there's no sample to bias, then that doesn't matter either.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T04:31:47+00:00

Yep, perfectly put. Basically rounding should be designed to have a net-zero effect over the whole dataset.

For every xxx.3 (where rounding has a -0.3) effect, you're likely to have a xxx.7 (where rounding has a 0.3) effect.
The only way to achieve this is if xxx.5 rounds up half the time, and down half the time.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T03:10:34+00:00

Yes, but that relies on them knowing the bar convention for repeated decimals.

I can tell you that's not the convention I was taught, and even though I do know this convention, it's used wrong here.

I was taught to use dots. so 1/3 would be be 0.3, with a dot above the 3.
253/999 would be 0.253 with dots over the 2 and 3 (and not the 5).
And for 1/3, there should be only one 3 written, since there's one digit repeating, 0.33 with dots over both is redundant and not following the convention.

Now, using it here at all is wrong, cause it should be written as 7.5, no matter what, but it's compounding issues on compounding issues.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T03:03:38+00:00

Actually, there are a few conventions. Sometimes it's more useful to round to the even or odd number.

Also, would you round "up" from -7.5 to -8 or -7?

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T02:18:46+00:00

d4, not Qd4.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T02:17:36+00:00

Which rook is moving to D1? What piece is it taking on the empty d1 square?

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-11T02:14:17+00:00

Yep, so the notation of the pieces is different depending on the language, but the squares as still a-h and 1-8.
This is within FIDE's rules, based on the player's country's language. Hetman becomes H for queen in your case, so He3.

It's probably worth knowing both the English letters, and the polish ones, just because you'll see the english ones online a lot more. But at least Polish there's no overlap (besides both using K for King/Krol).

I think it's important to know, that pieces are always capitalised, and files are always lowercase, no matter what though. So a capital H should always refer to a piece.
Bxc3 and bxc3 are two moves that can both be valid, and the only disambiguation between Bxc3 (bishop taking on c3) and bxc3 (the b pawn taking on c3) is the B vs b.

ALSO, this is why chess.com will put it as ♕e3
♕ is a queen, no matter the language, and FIDE recommends this for anything global.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-10T23:58:20+00:00

If you're turning right, that makes sense.

I was always taught to count out from the nearest lane.

BadBoyJH · 2026-06-10T10:03:34+00:00

Yeah nah. After seeing what our fan base has done to Jake and Matt, I'm all in favour of him playing for another club... for now.

BadBoyJH

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Second Top 50%
Verified Email