Editing Talk:2292: Thermometer

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 52: Line 52:
 
Well, it has Fahrenheit after a fashion. Just substract 460 from Rankine. It's even easier than converting Kelvin to Celsius!
 
Well, it has Fahrenheit after a fashion. Just substract 460 from Rankine. It's even easier than converting Kelvin to Celsius!
 
:I find it much quicker to subtract 0.01C° 27,315 times than to subtract 0.01F° 45,967 times, personally. I think you're quite barmy to suggest otherwise, Unsigned... :P  [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.222|162.158.34.222]] 16:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 
:I find it much quicker to subtract 0.01C° 27,315 times than to subtract 0.01F° 45,967 times, personally. I think you're quite barmy to suggest otherwise, Unsigned... :P  [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.222|162.158.34.222]] 16:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
::Now that I, the formerly Unsigned, think of it, I must agree with you - but for an entirely different reason. 273.15 in binary is a nice, round 100010001.001(00101) with 3 1's in the integer and 4+2n 1's for every 3+5n fractional digits, whereas 459.67 is much messier: 111001011.10110001111110... , with 6 1's in the integer alone. The more 1's there are in a number, the more operations you have to do for each addition or subtraction. So in binary, Kelvin-to-Celsius is much easier to convert than Rankine-to-Fahrenheit. Yet another point in favor of the glorious metric master system, da? [[User:Osato|Osato]] ([[User talk:Osato|talk]]) 19:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
+
::Now that I think of it, I must agree with you, but for an entirely different reason. 273.15 in binary is a nice, round 100010001.001(00101) with 3 1's in the integer and 4+2n 1's for every 3+5n fractional digits, whereas 459.67 is much messier: 111001011.10110001111110... , with 6 1's in the integer alone. The more 1's there are in a number, the more operations you have to do for each addition or subtraction. So in binary, Kelvin-to-Celsius is much easier to convert than Rankine-to-Fahrenheit. Yet another point in favor of the metric system, eh? [[User:Osato|Osato]] ([[User talk:Osato|talk]]) 19:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  
 
I removed the weasel words, indicating that Fahrenheit is "generally appreciated" because 0 means very cold and 100 very hot. I adjusted it to "some claim" and adjusted the text to fit.
 
I removed the weasel words, indicating that Fahrenheit is "generally appreciated" because 0 means very cold and 100 very hot. I adjusted it to "some claim" and adjusted the text to fit.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Templates used on this page: