# If station gets 0 calls one day and 1 call the next, what percentage of an increase mathematically **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 28, 2019, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-station-gets-0-calls-one-day-and-1-call-the-next-what-percentage-of-an-increase-mathematically/831678 "2019-03-28T19:47:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2019, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-station-gets-0-calls-one-day-and-1-call-the-next-what-percentage-of-an-increase-mathematically/831678/21 "2019-03-29T15:11:16Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > In the OP it is clearly stated that the percentage is for an increase from 0. The base is unequivocally 0. Everything else that follows in your post is a non sequitur. I thought **sbunny8** ’s response was excellent. I applaud it and fully endorse its main point: > [@sbunny8](#): > > The key to dealing with percentages is to clarify _ **percent of what? What is the base?** _. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Giving 110% has one and only one meaning: a superlative effort. It’s not math, strictly speaking, but an idiom. The idiom depends on 100% being a maximum. Any other interpretation turns the phrase into gibberish. Yeah, you’re right: “giving 110%” is an idiom, not to be taken literally, and [no one can give 110%](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfcTcSbGMmo) in the sense that the phrase is meant. But some people draw the mistaken conclusion that you can never have more than 100% of anything; and **sbunny8** is also correct to point out that there are situations in which “110%” makes perfect literal sense. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2019, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-station-gets-0-calls-one-day-and-1-call-the-next-what-percentage-of-an-increase-mathematically/831678/22 "2019-03-29T15:28:30Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > It’s quite dangerous. Nobody has ever done it and lived to tell about it. On the contrary. Many have tried this and lived to tell about it. It’s just that what they tell is gibberish. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I thought **sbunny8** ’s response was excellent. I applaud it and fully endorse its main point: As did I, explicitly. > [@](#): > > Yeah, you’re right: “giving 110%” is an idiom, not to be taken literally, and [no one can give 110%](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfcTcSbGMmo) in the sense that the phrase is meant. But some people draw the mistaken conclusion that you can never have more than 100% of anything; and **sbunny8** is also correct to point out that there are situations in which “110%” makes perfect literal sense. Of course there are such situations. He later gave examples of proper usages. It’s just the one he used originally wasn’t one of them. Percentages are a vast topic. Pulling out examples at random are likely to be irrelevant to any given problem. Irrelevant examples confuse at best. Why pollute a discussion with them? And why this? > [@sbunny8](#): > > That’s where you lost me. > > #1 You’re assuming that the OP in this thread has accurately relayed to us what was actually said on the radio. And why the hell not? First, many people don’t understand percentages and may indeed say something like that erroneously. Second, much more likely is that the announcer \*understood \*percentages and was making a joke! ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2019, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-station-gets-0-calls-one-day-and-1-call-the-next-what-percentage-of-an-increase-mathematically/831678/23 "2019-03-29T15:44:30Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I thought **sbunny8** ’s response was excellent. I applaud it and fully endorse its main point: That point–determine your base–was absolutely correct. But the rest of the post wandered off into territory that did not address the question in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2019, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-station-gets-0-calls-one-day-and-1-call-the-next-what-percentage-of-an-increase-mathematically/831678/24 "2019-03-29T15:49:11Z")
I need to clarify what I said in my last post about this post. > [@sbunny8](#): > > Tell that to NASA. [“Main engines at 108 percent, attitude nominal.”](https://spaceflightnow.com/2014/10/29/orbital-sciences-rocket-station-cargo-ship-lost-in-spectacular-launch-mishap/) > > Or [The Engineering Digest, Volume 3, page 642](https://books.google.com/books?id=hktRAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA642&lpg=PA642&dq=110%25+of+a+normal+voltage&source=bl&ots=c9OFG4_Oqd&sig=ACfU3U0jCV_UyHBOlFQe_4S7jKyjFHnA6A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjK1cHQxafhAhUT3lQKHQR0C6sQ6AEwEnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=110%25%20of%20a%20normal%20voltage&f=false). > “At 110% of normal voltage, the per cent. of resistance to that at normal is 99.81 with a carbon lamp, 102.5 with a tantalum lamp, and 104 with a tungsten lamp.” > > Or the Russians in The Hunt for Red October. > “Captain, Engineer reports [105% on the reactor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZB3ZclZtZg) possible… but not recommended.” > > Or Economist Stephen Shmanske, who wrote a paper in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports titled “[Dynamic Effort, Sustainability, Myopia, and 110% Effort](http://web.holycross.edu/RePEc/spe/Shmanske_SustainabilityMyopiaEffort.pdf)”, where he defines 100% as the level of effort that can be consistently sustained, and points out 110% can be done for short periods of time, it just can’t be sustained consistently. > > Or the Toyota corporation in 2011. > “Automotive News reported that Toyota will run its North American plants [at 110% of their capacity](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtAlkxG94U8) later this month.” > > Or Jack Lemmon in The China Syndrome. > “Wait a minute. We’re at the top of the scale!” > “I got a technician in the diesel engine room. He’s got it rigged to [go to 110](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zATD5Gchx5I).” There are scientific usages of more than 100% when the 100% mark is not a maximum possible, but the maximum safe running level beyond which trouble is almost certain, especially if run for long periods. Rocketry uses those numbers regularly. Other ways of exceeding a nominal maximum also exist, as in the Toyota example. None of those are equivalent to the 110% of effort idiom - including the example stating 110% of effort because even in the quote supplied it’s obvious that the author is talking yet again about maximum possible and maximum sustained efforts. But if movie quotes are allowable, let me offer one. “These go to eleven.” Checkmate. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2019, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-station-gets-0-calls-one-day-and-1-call-the-next-what-percentage-of-an-increase-mathematically/831678/25 "2019-03-29T19:37:23Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I need to clarify what I said in my last post about this post. > > There are scientific usages of more than 100% when the 100% mark is not a maximum possible, but the maximum safe running level beyond which trouble is almost certain, especially if run for long periods. Rocketry uses those numbers regularly. Other ways of exceeding a nominal maximum also exist, as in the Toyota example. > > None of those are equivalent to the 110% of effort idiom - including the example stating 110% of effort because even in the quote supplied it’s obvious that the author is talking yet again about maximum possible and maximum sustained efforts. > > But if movie quotes are allowable, let me offer one. > > “These go to eleven.” > > Checkmate. I remember watching a movie about the first sub vs. sub battle, during the Civil War. During the battle, the Confederate sub (I think it was the H.L. Hunley) got stuck on a sandbar, and was a sitting duck, so the captain ordered the Engineer to make the hottest fire he could, burning anything flammable they had. That increased the steam production past 100%, and tripped the safety valves, so the captain ordered them to be tied shut (!). That takes some faith in the over-design of the boiler… ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2019, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-station-gets-0-calls-one-day-and-1-call-the-next-what-percentage-of-an-increase-mathematically/831678/26 "2019-03-29T19:50:08Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > It’s quite dangerous. Nobody has ever done it and lived to tell about it. I read somewhere that mathematicians tried dividing by zero during WWII as part of some top secret project. They started dividing by 1 and then began to divide by ever decreasing numbers, slowly approaching zero, but never quite got there. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2019, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-station-gets-0-calls-one-day-and-1-call-the-next-what-percentage-of-an-increase-mathematically/831678/27 "2019-03-30T01:47:20Z")
> [@don\_t\_ask](#): > > I read somewhere that mathematicians tried dividing by zero during WWII as part of some top secret project. They started dividing by 1 and then began to divide by ever decreasing numbers, slowly approaching zero, but never quite got there. Zeno died from that. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2019, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-station-gets-0-calls-one-day-and-1-call-the-next-what-percentage-of-an-increase-mathematically/831678/28 "2019-03-30T15:27:36Z")
I remember listening to Alan Watts decades ago discussing Zen Buddhism and such. One word he expounded upon was “mu”. He described it as sort of having the side meaning “Unask the question.” So … “Have you stopped beating your wife?” “Mu.” It seems to be the appropriate response to the question in the OP. Certain questions just need to be withdrawn. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-station-gets-0-calls-one-day-and-1-call-the-next-what-percentage-of-an-increase-mathematically/831678.md?page=1)