Your example of 199 rounded to 25 doesn't make sense - if the number was rounded to the nearest 25 then it couldn't have been 199 could it? Say you have a ruler that has 1 cm graduations. Then when you measure something you would say that its 45 cm rounded to the nearest 1 cm. That means the actual value of the item you measured could be between 45 + (1/2) and 45 - (1/2) which is 44.5 and 45.5 cm. The above methods are just showing what these two upper/lower bounds are.
Your example of 199 rounded to 25 doesn't make sense - if the number was rounded to the nearest 25 then it couldn't have been 199 could it?
Say you have a ruler that has 1 cm graduations. Then when you measure something you would say that its 45 cm rounded to the nearest 1 cm. That means the actual value of the item you measured could be between 45 + (1/2) and 45 - (1/2) which is 44.5 and 45.5 cm. The above methods are just showing what these two upper/lower bounds are.
I considered that explanation of the function's purpose -- it gives you the upper and lower bounds of the range that rounds to the given number -- but it doesn't do that either. 150 and 250 can't both round to 200.
I've also never had a need to get the limits for the range that rounds to a particular number, so I'm curious what it's used for.
I don't particularly care whether you think this is useful or not to you. To some other people this may be. I have spent some time creating an algorithm and this thread to help other people out that may actually find this helpful. So having you disrespecting me after I have spent some of my free time to help out others is totally unacceptable.
I don't particularly care whether you think this is useful or not to you. To some other people this may be. I have spent some time creating an algorithm and this thread to help other people out that may actually find this helpful. So having you disrespecting me after I have spent some of my free time to help out others is totally unacceptable.
Grow a pair. This was hardly worth being reported.