By the way, your math is now correct.
It was always correct, even in Part 1, as I will explain below.
5:95 +349% gain
That is a typo in the table from Part 1. If you had actually taken the time to input the numbers into the equation of Part 1 90 - 5÷r×183÷365 assuming r = 1, then you would have computed:
((((5 + 90 - 2.51) ÷ 200) × 100) - 5) ÷ 5 = 8.249 thus 824.9%
Even if we take r = 0.95 as I incorrectly did in Part 1, then the computation would be:
((((5 + 90 - 2.64) ÷ 200) × 100) - 5) ÷ 5 = 8.236 thus 823.6%
As written in the comments in Part 1, I had been awake about 20 hours when I composed the blog for Part 1, and this had been a whirlwind week of only sleeping a few hours every 24 hours, so I simply made a typo when entering the numbers into the calculator, but my equations were not incorrect.
You didn't even take the time to check the equation and just jumped into making false accusations.
And by extension, Dr. Complexring , and theoretical, and dantheman, all of whose upvotes you explicitly cited as backing your math, they were wrong too. and i was right. just little old me.
You are spoiling the uplifting vibes of community spirit.
So youre saying everything was correct from the beginning.
Except the actual answers.
They were wrong.
But everything else besides the answers was right.
No, i just jumped in and said "your math is off" which it was. That was not a false accusation, it was 100% true.
It could have been off due to a typo or it could have been off due to a brain annuerism. It was off. ANd it caused you to come up with a completely wrong answer. Which i pointed out.
If you would have spent 5 minutes checking over your own work, rather than finding 26 different ways to call me a fuckwit, you would have figured out the error for yourself, when i pointed it out to you.
I told you flat out that i didnt get what you were trying to do. Just that you were coming up with the wrong answer.
The equation is an answer. The numbers were typoed in the calculator. Why try to spin it in a negative light as something other than it was.
Disingenuous. If the equation is correct, and you didn't even check the equation, then you have no grounds to be doing peer review. You would instead note that there is a typo in the numbers that were input into the equation and not false accuse that the underlying math of the equation is incorrect.
It is the equation that matters. The equation determines whether the mathematical concept of Part 1 was incorrect. The final numbers are superfluous. That is why we are required to show our derivations on math exams.
Please I think you know what peer review is and how it is done.