Thursday, April 12, 2007

Value of Decimal Digits

Doesn't Ranjit Fernando know that there is no value in the ending zero when mentioning decimal numbers?

For example, Ranjit would express a run rate of 3.20 as "three point two naught." This is not a one-off incident, he's been doing this on a consistent basis.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I generally mute it when he comes on

nouhad said...

Finding this blog and knowing that I'm not the only one that questions Ranjits commentating is destiny. Seriously, this is a good find.

Anonymous said...

Very few people use the word naught for zero in the modern world. It may not even be understood by many. Zero would be much preferable whenever it needs to be used. The old man must go.

Sophist said...

All our efforts will come to naught in the end....heh heh.

Anonymous said...

I'm not defending Mr. Fernando(or anybody), but what I can see is there's some serious mud-slinging going on targetting a single person. He may have a lot of weeknesses as a commentaor (I also do agree), but that's a common case for all the Sri Lankan commentators (including the ones suggested under "Who Should Replace Ranjit? "). But when you make any harsh comments on someone, you ought to be rational/logical. Making any such comments without having any rational/logical/proven(eg. this is what I came to know from someone in 2005... etc.) is absolutely ridiculous & doesn't make any good.One thing to mention: Expressing a run rate of 3.20 as "three point two naught" or "three point two zero" is perfectly Okay & that's what you call double-precision in mathematics. Anyone having a basic mathematical knowledge would know that.Then have you noticed some other Sinhala commentators pronouncing (say) 3.5 overs as "overs 3i dashama 5i" ??? What does "DASHAMA" mean here ??? 1/6 (or 1/8 before 1930's)??? This is only a single scenario. Generally all the commentators here (whether their medium being either Sinhala or English) have such weeknesses...Better not talking about their analytical knowledge on the game...Some of the people who have put comments in this blog do lack that part too...

Anonymous said...

You said:
What does "DASHAMA" mean here ??? 1/6 (or 1/8 before 1930's)???

Dude, why are you referring to something that was used in the 1930's?? Are you off your mind? Are you trying to be like Ranjit?? :)

Anonymous said...

If you are atleast good in the basics of Sinhala (I suspect?)you must have understood what I've meant.The word (DASHAMA) relates to the numerical base 10 in Sinhala, not to any other base. So it makes sense only in the context of decimal base/numbers/points. So you call 3 5/10 as "3i dashama 5i". How can you call overs 3.5 (base 6 => overs 3 5/6) as "overs 3i dashama 5i" ?????. As I said earlier this is only one scanario I've noticed quite frequently. What I wanted to prove was these weeknesses are common to most of the 'so called' commentators here...

Anonymous said...

So what are you saying? Decimal means the same in English as well.
Are you saying that using the term "point" should be stopped when talking about overs in either language?

Anonymous said...

Ok. I KNOW I'M DEVIATING FROM THE MAIN TOPIC, BUT I HAVE TO CLARIFY...I had just taken an example & you had completely misunderstood the point I made...You CAN call overs 3.5 as "3 point 5 overs" in English, as the word "Point" applicable to the bases other than 10 also (in English). What I clearly mentioned was refering 3.5 overs as "overs 3i dashama 5i" in Sinhala is incorrect. DASHAMA is not the exact counterpart of POINT, instead it's the counterpart of DECIMAL (base 10) POINT. So you can't use the word DASHAMA when refering to the fractions based on other bases.
So 3.5 overs (=>3 5/6 overs)CAN be called as "3 point 5 overs" in English, but CAN'T be called as "overs 3i DASHAMA 5i" in Sinhala. Okay ...JUST FORGET ABOUT THIS LOGIC without deviating from the main topic here... I just wanted to show there are such misusages here among the commentators & gave you an example...But even worse scenario is this. If you can just listen to the match analysis given by some experts/commentators (now for this tournament,in (Rupavahini) Channel Eye, but applicable to other media as well
) you can easily see how poor their analytical knowledge (on the game) is.In most of the cases, what they say is mere nonsence & lacks any analytical worth. It's quite pathetic to see some of the past international players participating as expert commentators falling into that category. That broacast time seems to be a pure wastage & could have been utilized better to give a better analysis on the game. First, please understand that there is definitely a common problem in (sports/cricket) commentries. THE QUALITY IS DEFINITELY LACKING AMONG ALMOST ALL THE COMMETATORS HERE ... It doesn't mean that all other foreign commentators are perfect. Absolutely NOT. What I said was comparatively. I'm a pure Sinhalese & don't have any personal hatred/prejudice with any of them. Replacing Ranjith Fernando with another (as mentioned under "Who Should Replace Ranjit? ") would not solve this, as most of them are just the same or cab be EVEN WORSE.

Anonymous said...

The original posting said : "For example, Ranjit would express a run rate of 3.20 as "three point two naught." This is not a one-off incident, he's been doing this on a consistent basis.
"
This seems to be rubbish. Expressing a run rate of 3.20 as "three point two naught" or "three point two zero" is perfectly Okay.

Thiru said...

You Srilankans always support Sri Lnkan team and you are criticising Ranjit for not siding with your team.I consider him as the most biased commentator who always support Sri Lnak and not any one.