Page 2 of 6

That is because it is. He never got past 2nd grade math or even first grade logic when you look at this.

grade

math is not your strong point, is it ?

Obviously more so than yours. The numbers that you are using are already percentages so multiplying the result by 100 makes the result a percentage of a percentage which is at best fuzzy meaningless math and at worst, a complete failure in comprehension and meaningful logic.

0.03 / 0.02 = 1.5

think about it

This is meaningless math because those numbers stand for nothing at all.

truth

Now I see that it is your logic that is failing you. Both of them show the total amount of dirt that enters the engine or rather, the percentage of volume that gets by. The difference is that the 3% is baselined on the total volume of dirt (what you claim that you want to know) while the 150% is baselined on the efficiency of the other filter which really means nothing..

the

150%

That is what I'm talking about Miles.

I guess that where you live that may be required but I have yet to ever do that and have yet to have an engine fail prematurely.

How does the filter determine the amount of oil in your engine?

My entire point in this discussion is the usage of the "%" symbol. I don't have a K&N and have no interest in defending the product's reputation. I don't really care about the pennies either.

3 is 50% more than 2. I've never claimed otherwise. 3% is 1% more than 2%. 3% is NOT 50% more than 2%. 52% is 50% more than 2%.

Notice where the "%" symbol is (and is not) used. That is the only point I am arguing.

nope

while 0.02 + 0.01 = 0.03, the phrase 'more than' implies that the larger is divided by the smaller, to give a ratio

not fuzzy math, fuzzy definitions

wrong again

3 is 50% more than 2....so far so good

now divide the 3 by 100 to get 3 % and the 2 by 100 to get 2 %

since you have divided both by hte same number, the ratio remains the same

2%

that makes three wrongs

"just as wrong as saying that three cents is fifty cents more than two cents"

incorrect interpretation

you sued 'fifty cents' instead of '50 per cent'

#### Site Timeline

- posted on April 18, 2005, 8:32 am

TranSurgeon wrote:

I still say 3% is only 1% more than 2%. ;^)

I still say 3% is only 1% more than 2%. ;^)

- posted on April 18, 2005, 12:51 pm

That is because it is. He never got past 2nd grade math or even first grade logic when you look at this.

--

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

- posted on April 18, 2005, 1:08 pm

grade

math is not your strong point, is it ?

- posted on April 18, 2005, 2:55 pm

Obviously more so than yours. The numbers that you are using are already percentages so multiplying the result by 100 makes the result a percentage of a percentage which is at best fuzzy meaningless math and at worst, a complete failure in comprehension and meaningful logic.

--

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

- posted on April 18, 2005, 1:08 pm

0.03 / 0.02 = 1.5

think about it

- posted on April 18, 2005, 3:06 pm

This is meaningless math because those numbers stand for nothing at all.

--

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

- posted on April 18, 2005, 10:52 pm

wrote:

What you need to do is measure number of "bits" of dirt getting through. If .03% of 1,000,000 pits pass through the filter,300 bits got through. If the stock filter only allowed .02% to pass, 200 bits got through., so yes, the K&N (if that is what is being compared) passed half again as much, or 50% more dirt than the stock filter. Put a different way, the stock filter is 33% better. - Assuming the numbers are correct - which I doubt.

What you need to do is measure number of "bits" of dirt getting through. If .03% of 1,000,000 pits pass through the filter,300 bits got through. If the stock filter only allowed .02% to pass, 200 bits got through., so yes, the K&N (if that is what is being compared) passed half again as much, or 50% more dirt than the stock filter. Put a different way, the stock filter is 33% better. - Assuming the numbers are correct - which I doubt.

- posted on April 18, 2005, 4:11 pm

TranSurgeon wrote:

I didn't intend to stir it up again, it was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek reminder. At least it's in a K&N thread again. I believe we agreed to disagree on this one the last time around.

I didn't intend to stir it up again, it was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek reminder. At least it's in a K&N thread again. I believe we agreed to disagree on this one the last time around.

- posted on April 20, 2005, 4:07 am

TranSurgeon wrote:

Your still wrong.

Look at the equation another way:

2 *X = 3

X would equal 1.5, or 2 x 150%=3

try both of these on your calculator and you will see that TranSurgeon was right all along.

Your still wrong.

Look at the equation another way:

2 *X = 3

X would equal 1.5, or 2 x 150%=3

try both of these on your calculator and you will see that TranSurgeon was right all along.

- posted on April 20, 2005, 4:14 am

They are both right. It is just a matter of which one reflects the truth
more.

--

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

"Steve" < snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net> wrote in message

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

"Steve" < snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net> wrote in message

Click to see the full signature.

- posted on April 20, 2005, 1:21 pm

TBone wrote:

It depends on what you use for your baseline. I measure the amount of dirt in my engine and use that as the baseline. Your assumption that this isn't the truth is false.

It depends on what you use for your baseline. I measure the amount of dirt in my engine and use that as the baseline. Your assumption that this isn't the truth is false.

- posted on April 20, 2005, 2:11 pm

truth

Now I see that it is your logic that is failing you. Both of them show the total amount of dirt that enters the engine or rather, the percentage of volume that gets by. The difference is that the 3% is baselined on the total volume of dirt (what you claim that you want to know) while the 150% is baselined on the efficiency of the other filter which really means nothing..

--

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

- posted on April 21, 2005, 12:09 am

TBone wrote:

No, I don't want to know the total volume of dirt. I want to know how much is in my engine over a set amount of time. I don't have an easy for to measure how much dirt I drive through. But I can run tests on oil and find out how much dirt is in my engine. Thats what I compare, thats my baseline.

It is very common to compare two items by using one of them as a baseline for comparison. You are hung up on this 3 vs. 2 thing. I'm not. My concern is amount of oil in my engine so thats what I'll use as my baseline and it is certainly the truth.

No, I don't want to know the total volume of dirt. I want to know how much is in my engine over a set amount of time. I don't have an easy for to measure how much dirt I drive through. But I can run tests on oil and find out how much dirt is in my engine. Thats what I compare, thats my baseline.

It is very common to compare two items by using one of them as a baseline for comparison. You are hung up on this 3 vs. 2 thing. I'm not. My concern is amount of oil in my engine so thats what I'll use as my baseline and it is certainly the truth.

- posted on April 21, 2005, 1:13 am

the

150%

That is what I'm talking about Miles.

I guess that where you live that may be required but I have yet to ever do that and have yet to have an engine fail prematurely.

How does the filter determine the amount of oil in your engine?

--

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

- posted on April 20, 2005, 7:11 am

Steve wrote:

3% is 1% more than 2%. Prove it on your own calculator. 0.02 + 0.01 = 0.03 3 is 50% more than 2, but 3% is only 1% more than 2%. See the difference? A percent is an expression of "per 100". Saying that 3% is 50% more than 2% is just as wrong as saying that three cents is fifty cents more than two cents.

3% is 1% more than 2%. Prove it on your own calculator. 0.02 + 0.01 = 0.03 3 is 50% more than 2, but 3% is only 1% more than 2%. See the difference? A percent is an expression of "per 100". Saying that 3% is 50% more than 2% is just as wrong as saying that three cents is fifty cents more than two cents.

- posted on April 20, 2005, 1:25 pm

Nosey wrote:

You have 2 cents and I have 3 cents. I certainly do have 50% more than you. You're trying to compare the two based on total pennies neither one of us has. I don't care about pennies or dust that I don't have or isn't in my engine.

You have 2 cents and I have 3 cents. I certainly do have 50% more than you. You're trying to compare the two based on total pennies neither one of us has. I don't care about pennies or dust that I don't have or isn't in my engine.

- posted on April 20, 2005, 7:12 pm

My entire point in this discussion is the usage of the "%" symbol. I don't have a K&N and have no interest in defending the product's reputation. I don't really care about the pennies either.

3 is 50% more than 2. I've never claimed otherwise. 3% is 1% more than 2%. 3% is NOT 50% more than 2%. 52% is 50% more than 2%.

Notice where the "%" symbol is (and is not) used. That is the only point I am arguing.

- posted on April 21, 2005, 12:53 am

nope

while 0.02 + 0.01 = 0.03, the phrase 'more than' implies that the larger is divided by the smaller, to give a ratio

not fuzzy math, fuzzy definitions

wrong again

3 is 50% more than 2....so far so good

now divide the 3 by 100 to get 3 % and the 2 by 100 to get 2 %

since you have divided both by hte same number, the ratio remains the same

2%

that makes three wrongs

"just as wrong as saying that three cents is fifty cents more than two cents"

incorrect interpretation

you sued 'fifty cents' instead of '50 per cent'

- posted on April 21, 2005, 6:58 am

I disagree with you, and you disagree with me. No matter what either of us
say I doubt either of us will change our minds. Again.

- posted on April 21, 2005, 4:24 pm

Nosey wrote:

but you wouldn't say that you would say 3 cents is 50% more than 2 cents

but you wouldn't say that you would say 3 cents is 50% more than 2 cents

- All Chrome Quality Xklusive Bumper and Grille
- - next thread in Dodge Trucks Forum

- What did dealer break - Cruise not working after front end work
- - previous thread in Dodge Trucks Forum

- NHTSA investigating Ram 1500 models for rear differential failure
- - newest thread in Dodge Trucks Forum

- 2000 Dodge Ram 1500 Front Wheel Hub Assy.
- - last updated thread in Dodge Trucks Forum

- Lesabre 2002 dome light flashing and staying on
- - the site's newest thread. Posted in Automotive Technologies