MHB Compound bar chart - to round or not to round? (percentages)

  • Thread starter Thread starter 3vo
  • Start date Start date
3vo
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi guys,

I'm currently drawing a compound bar chart.
As I understand, this is type of bar chart which involves sub data within each grouping. The sub data is incorporated into each of their grouping bar as a percentage out of 100% of that bar. So basically the bar is 100% in total and the sub data is drawn into the bar, as their respective percentage of the bar. (I could of prob explained that a lot better).

Anyway... I've drawn up my chart and worked the percentages of each sub data within each grouping out of a 100%. However for some of the groups, the sub data are NOT integers.

Do I round these figures up to a whole number? or a specific number of dp or sf? What do I do if after rounding the total doesn't add up to 100%?

Or is it better to leave them as they are and try to best incorporate them into the graph?

An example of my data: Imagine a table below (dont know how to do one here)
First number is freq, 2nd is %
Monday | Tuesday |
Red 7 30.'43% 3 18.75%
Blue 10 43.'47% 7 43.75%
Black 6 26.08% 6 36.5%
Totals 23 100% 16 100%
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
3vo said:
Do I round these figures up to a whole number? or a specific number of dp or sf? What do I do if after rounding the total doesn't add up to 100%?

Or is it better to leave them as they are and try to best incorporate them into the graph?

Hi 3vo! :)

Yep. Leave them as they are, or round them to some significant number of digits.
Up to you basically. What you think looks best and is most informative.

But if you do round them, don't round up, but round normally.
0.5 goes up, 0.4999 goes down.

And if they don't add up to 100%, don't worry about it.
That's normal - the result of rounding errors.
This is known and accepted.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top