https://www.econologie.com/forums/post233788.html#233788
jlt22 wrote:dedeleco wrote:I am 2,5 times closer, nonagenarians than young at 20 years, and a good step older than plasmanu, him old as one of my beautiful girls!
Well, I'm wrong, but I did a little math
Between a nonagenarian (90 years) and a young 20 years, there are 70 years.
I divide this number by 2,5 and get 28.
Dede would have 62 years (90 - 28 = 62)
For my part, I was born in 1946
but, 2 pages later, he writes the reverse after that, (the case 1er) without a comma we have 62 years!
jlt22 wrote:The 25 may 2012 to 22h19, Dede wrote:I am 2,5 times closer to the nonagenarians than the young at 20 years, and a good step older than plasmanu, him old like one of my beautiful girls who does not do enough intense exercise in jogging or cycling, much less intense than me !!
The 26 may 2012 to 18h31, he wrote:dedeleco wrote:
I am 2,5 times closer, nonagenarians than young at 20 years, and a good step older than plasmanu, him old as one of my beautiful girls!
In the case 1er, he has 62 years
In the 2ème, it has 70 years, the comma added at the beginning of the sentence changes everything.
Plasmanu reacted well on the last data, while Indy and I always had the first one in mind.
So, you have to be consistent and avoid lacking rigor in quick reactions.
Gaston saw clearly in posing the problem and comma or not, does not change anything, as for:
Paris is 3 times closer to Lille than Marseille !!
or with comma:
Paris is 3 times closer, Lille than Marseille
We are not going to differentiate between Paris and Lille to divide by 3 and then subtract from Lille, like jt22 !!!