Talk:Caitlyn/@comment-26539879-20160401030047/@comment-28977071-20160905132056

Oh, necro, let's revive it then:p Anyway, the topic is actually still, well, actual.

Someone give this guy above a cookie, finally someone who calculated it correctly -_-

Btw, in both cases you actually removed the same % sign that was the true culprit. Yes, the ')) % ' part of formula is not technically correct. In the end of the day it shows that we were using that formula by intuition, however being strictly invalid:p Beside the excessive % symbol, there are also missing final braces around entire expression, before finally multiplying by, otherwise you'd sum 'pure' number with AD.

50% truly is 0.5 and 4 000 k is 4 000 000, although that was possibly his typo. I rather won't comment rest of elementary school arithmetics -_-

Yes, the term "bonus critical damage" measured in percents is totally linguistically undue, but what can we do, it's a Rito convention .-.

Percents and decimals do mathematically interact, and actually they do it just fine, just like any other constant or variable, or even better. What Dusk78 wanted to say by 'amount' and 'measurement of amount', can be more appropriately called dimensionless and dimensional quantity, respectively. Their interaction is perfectly legit, they just aren't convertible into each other.

"Cut off 2 inches of string + 50% of string" sounds quite understandable to me actually, athough this is a bad example as he was comparing 2 inches with 50%, not just 2.

The scientific calculator works as intended. % fully interacts with dimensionless quantities as it itself is a dimensionless constant, along with many other physical prefixes (not all constants though):

% = 10-2

‰ = m = 10-3

e = 2.718281828459045…

π = 3.1415926535897932384626433…

k = 103

M = 106

etc.

It's mathematically fully legit to write things like ln(%²) or ‰g instead of mg, but we of course don't do so, simply because firstly there is no preactical need for such obfuscative usage, and secondly because owe have already some conventions. There already are small violations in the system (m is for example simultaneously used in two meanings, both as prefix and as a symbol for 1 meter), that'd lead to confusion by walking out of conventional paths.

Both dimensionless and dimensional quantities interact with mathematical operators, in physical equations the dimensinal equality holds, we just usually omit them during computation to prevent us from delaying the completion of process. There are even physical quantities such as kg m² s-2, but everyone rather calls it simpler- a Joule, or just J.