[R] [FORGED] Re: How to correct documentation?

[Duncan Murdoch]

On 25/10/2015 7:44 PM, Boris Steipe wrote:
> Ming is right. I can't imagine other discipline's standards are substantially different from ours, but e.g. the ACS style manual is very explicit to require ...
> 
>    "Label each axis with the parameter or variable being measured and the units of measure in parentheses."
> 
> The _units_ are not lb/1000. 1/1000 is a _transformation_ of the value, the unit is lb, or in that case (1000 lb). Writing lb/1000 is just as nonsensical as writing g/k instead of (kg). 1000 is simply a numerical prefix to the unit, like kilo.
> 
> It gets worse: According to the UK metric association:
>    "The symbol for "per" (meaning "divided by") is “/” (slash)."

How is that relevant?  We aren't trying to represent "per" here, we are
trying to represent "divided by".

The only valid argument I've heard so far is that we should use what the
cited paper used.  That was "1000 lbs", so I'll change it.

Duncan Murdoch

> 
> Accordingly, "lb/1000" is to be read "pounds per 1000" which is actually wrong by six orders of magnitude. 
> 
> I don't think there is ambiguity here nor occasion for sophistry: as written, the label is wrong. It would be more than appropriate for a community that is passionate about data to correct this.
> 
> 
> :-)
> Boris
> 
> (Good Lord! https://xkcd.com/386/)
> 
> On Oct 24, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Rolf Turner <r.turner at auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> 
>> On 24/10/15 21:10, Jim Lemon wrote:
>>> Hi Ming,
>>> In fact, the notation lb/1000 is correct, as the values represent the
>>> weight of the cars in pounds (lb) divided by 1000. I am not sure why this
>>> particular transformation of the measured values was used, but I'm sure it
>>> has caused confusion previously.
>>
>> I disagree --- and agree with Ming.  The notation is incorrect.  Surely
>> "lb/1000" means thousandths of pounds.  E.g. 12345 lb/1000 is equal to
>> 12.345 lb.
>>
>> I'm sure that others will come up with all sorts of convoluted lawyerish arguments that the case is otherwise, but as far as I am concerned, any *sane* person would interpret "lb/1000" to mean thousandths of pounds.
>>
>> If in the unlikely event that the documentation for some data set said "Weight (gm/1000)", I'm pretty sure that this would be interpreted to mean milligrams and *not* kilograms!
>>
>> Since the description of the data was presumably taken from that given in the original source ("Motor Trend" magazine) it would probably be inappropriate to "correct" it.  However a note/warning should be added to the mtcars help file indicating that Motor Trend got things upside-down.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Rolf
>>
>> -- 
>> Technical Editor ANZJS
>> Department of Statistics
>> University of Auckland
>> Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Ming-Lun Ho <minglho at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>     I used "?mtcars" to read the documentation for the dataset. I found a
>>>> mistake in how unit is listed, namely, that for the variable "wt," the unit
>>>> should be listed as "1000 lb," not "lb/1000." However, I don't know whom to
>>>> contact exactly for the correction. Please point me to the right place.
>>>>     Thanks.
>>>>           --Ming
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>