You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date

sMT:

Not necessarily - depending on the time of year and time of day.

AoD

Not necessarily - depending on the time of year and time of day.

AoD

taal, got your point, but there is no such thing asX is 4 times smaller than B. I don't know why people keep saying things like that. When A is 25% the size of B, we say A is 75% smaller than B, not 4 times smaller, which would result in A being a negative size.

Hi there! Math teacher here, just wondering how taking a dimension (necessarily positive) and multiplying by a fraction (1/4 in this case) yields a negative number? And who is this "we" you speak of that calls things 75% smaller? I think I'd break out the red sharpie if I saw that written on a test.

sMT:

Not necessarily - depending on the time of year and time of day.

AoD

Whaaa? Which post are you referring to?

sMT: Sorry was referring to innsertnamehere's post.

AoD

AoD

So this building will be rental and not condos? As much as I want it to go ahead at this height, I'm positive the city will come back with shadowing rubbish. Oh, and there's always the need to have a tapering skyline since organically formed skylines are cancerous and (apparently) less pleasant to view from Etobicoke.

This should probably clear the shadowing problem on NPS and the tapering policy shouldn't affect it either. I get the shadowing policy on parks, prominent public spaces & such but the tapered skyline policy is ridiculous IMO. I think this is a great place for a proposal like this, and I'm liking that more apartment rentals are being built and proposed in the past few years given the obvious shortage downtown.

Hi there! Math teacher here, just wondering how taking a dimension (necessarily positive) and multiplying by a fraction (1/4 in this case) yields a negative number? And who is this "we" you speak of that calls things 75% smaller? I think I'd break out the red sharpie if I saw that written on a test.

4 times = 400%. 4 times smaller = 400% smaller

X is 4 times smaller than B = X is 400% smaller than B

Which means A = B * (1-400%) = B * (-300%)= -3B

Keep in mind you are wrong in multiplying by 1/4. Being 4 times smaller means being 400% smaller. You are a math teacher, you should know better

Just like when you said X is 50% smaller than Y, X = Y *(1-50%)= 0.5Y.

It is a common mistake people make. Your being a math teacher didn't much. It is probably precisely why kids say senseless things like this.

Fortunately I didn't learn math in Canada.

way off the topic but I thought I should explain. Math education in Canada is simply subpar.

http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/12/numbo-jumbo.html

It's a language issue, not a math one. Not sure where you learned your language though because clearly the superior math education didn't help.

AoD

It's a language issue, not a math one. Not sure where you learned your language though because clearly the superior math education didn't help.

AoD

Last edited:

4 times = 400%.4 times smaller = 400% smaller

X is 4 times smaller than B = X is 400% smaller than B

4 times = 300%

1 time does not equal 100%... 1 time equals 1. Something is 2 times when it equals 100%. For example, when something is 100% more, it is double (or 2x or 2 times). So when something is 4 times, it is 300%, NOT 400%.

It is a common mistake people make.Your being a math teacher didn't much. It is probably precisely why kids say senseless things like this.

Fortunately I didn't learn math in Canada.

Yep. I did.

Circa 1972

Now

Interesting to note of that portion of 2 Queen W north of the corner portion- the windows look a bit different, but is it a remnant of Eaton's?

Keep in mind you are wrong in multiplying by 1/4. Being 4 times smaller means being 400% smaller. You are a math teacher, you should know better

Ah, I understand now. If X is n times the size of Y it logically follows that Y is 1/n times the size of X. I'm quite correct in pointing out that the inverse of 4 is 1/4, and you are simultaneously doing terrible, awful things to math, English, and logic. You've just demonstrated the foolishness of combining comparative adjectives with percentages.

But this is off-topic, I desist.

Otherwise on more pressing matter, recent Zeidler renditions would define rather tolerable but RCMI-level humdrum-ness.

Interesting to note of that portion of 2 Queen W north of the corner portion- the windows look a bit different, but is it a remnant of Eaton's?

It's an addition to the structure, Eaton's main store was further north.

I see it now, it would also be interesting to see how that extension once looked like- POMO?