Math time!

In case anyone cares about this: I proposed truncation at the first decimal point. Ex responded that that could lead to a situation in which the two halves of the ratio summed to 99.9%, and what did I propose to do about that? I will suggest that in that case we each agree to pay on one half of one tenth of one percent of S7 expenses, which will amount to somewhat less than four dollars per year. I will source these funds from the change compartment in my car. This is just surreal.
 
^^^
Some other sources of revenue:

Deep creases in sofa
bottom of washing machine
inner pockets of best suit ... :)
 
stripes said:
Rioe, in previous years when I've calculated the ratio, it's always been whole numbers and it hasn't been an issue with him. However, because our divorce order does not say explicitly "the income ratio shall be expressed in whole numbers and no fractions", ex now believes it may be expressed in whatever fraction might gain him an extra ten bucks or so.
Click to expand...

I can't let this go. I'm too math nerdy I guess.

The numbers provided: 64.4152% to 35.5842%

In your original question, you said your ex wanted to go to the nearest half percentage and you were arguing over what that was.

Later, you said that your math produced 64.5 and 35.5 and your ex's math produced 64.0 and 36.0.

Your math IS going to the nearest half percentage, and your ex is going to the whole numbers. So really, your problem is that your ex can't do math.

I would just go with your ex's calculation here, not because he's 'right' because he's clearly an idiot, but because it's consistent with your past history of using whole numbers. The fact that he doesn't realize he's not rounding to the nearest half percentage is irrelevant. Just keep building on the whole number precedent (no matter what he wants to call it), and then some future year when whole numbers happens to run in your favour, he will have a harder time switching methods.
 
Rioe said:
I can't let this go. I'm too math nerdy I guess.

I would just go with your ex's calculation here, not because he's 'right' because he's clearly an idiot, but because it's consistent with your past history of using whole numbers. The fact that he doesn't realize he's not rounding to the nearest half percentage is irrelevant. Just keep building on the whole number precedent (no matter what he wants to call it), and then some future year when whole numbers happens to run in your favour, he will have a harder time switching methods.
Click to expand...

Hear! Hear!

Whole numbers rule! Boy will it ever burn his butt the years when the rounding goes in your favour and not his!!

LMAO!
 
stripes said:
What still gets me is how unnecessary these things are - I calculated the ratio one way, using reasonable assumptions, and got a valid result; he calculated it another way, also using reasonable assumptions, and got a different but not invalid result.
Click to expand...

What do your orders say about rounding?
If it is to the nearest .5%, then there can only be one right answer and ex is just calculating wrong.
If it doesn't say, then keep rounding to whole number. Since you wanted it that way regardless, and ex's math is off, just let your ex think that you're giving in on this issue.
 
For anyone who's still interested in this saga, the last email from the ex informed me that I was "too f---ing stupid to do math". Then it appears he wrote to the director of Kid's out-of-school programme and informed her that because I was too f---ing stupid to do math, he would not be submitting payments along the agreed-on breakdown of cost but would be calculating his payments on his own. Or something like that. (I've already given the director my cheques for the summer).

The director caught up with me as I was picking up Kid today and told me she'd gotten a loooong email (making that hand gesture that indicates something going on and on and on) from the ex about his payments and it wasn't clear to her how much money was coming from where. I said that I didn't know how much he intended to pay, but if there was a shortfall to let me know and I would cover it, and offered to give her a blank cheque. She said "you know, you are really so much easier to deal with than [ex]. You must get tired of this stuff. Oops, I wasn't supposed to say that, was I?".

I know this is petty, but it's always gratifying when an outside observer notes that the ex is acting whacko. It's not just me.
 
Not that the question hasn't already been answered but it is 64.5% and 35.5%.

Very simply:

.75 through .24999999 rounds to .0
.25 through .74999999 rounds to .5




If you want to debate the appropriateness of using gross incomes to determine the percentage that is another conversation all together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top