• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

New math

MoodyBlues

MoodyBlues

Compassion is cool!
VIP Member
It looks like there's some kind of new math around these days, math I definitely missed in five college math courses.

I was sitting here minding my own business when I became aware of it. This bottle of "Orange Creme" flavored water I'm drinking is sitting on my nightstand. Its back was toward me as I reached for it, and this is where I saw...it...new math!

1554755298034.jpg


See it? The calories?

Anyone know when this new law involving zero came along?
 
It's most likely just an oversight with the label manufacturer(poor quality control). This even happens to big brand names, especially when not everything is made in-house and they need to outsource. Labels are very commonly outsourced.

Some overworked and underpaid person made a boo boo.

So they either meant to label 0 cals per container or 5 cals per serving.

I bet if you contact them about this they'll have some snazzy explanation that doesn't involve admitting to a mistake.
 
GameTheory said:
It's most likely just an oversight with the label manufacturer(poor quality control). This even happens to big brand names, especially when not everything is made in-house and they need to outsource. Labels are very commonly outsourced.

Some overworked and underpaid person made a boo boo.

So they either meant to label 0 cals per container or 5 cals per serving.

I bet if you contact them about this they'll have some snazzy explanation that doesn't involve admitting to a mistake.
Click to expand...
Thanks, you're probably spot-on.

But you know what? It's more fun trying to figure out how this new math works. :p :D
 
Well my old math agrees with GT's calculation. If there are 3 servings per container, and the whole container is 15 calories, then a serving is 5 calories, not 0.

And further consultation with the Internet, which never lies :) informs me that 1g of carbohydrate contains 4 calories, and the bottle says that a serving has 1g of carbs. This kind of ties in with the 15 calories per container (3g carbs).
So I conclude that the 0 calories per serving is the error, and should be 5 calories.
 
LV426 said:
Well my old math agrees with GT's calculation. If there are 3 servings per container, and the whole container is 15 calories, then a serving is 5 calories, not 0.

And further consultation with the Internet, which never lies :) informs me that 1g of carbohydrate contains 4 calories, and the bottle says that a serving has 1g of carbs. This kind of ties in with the 15 calories per container (3g carbs).
So I conclude that the 0 calories per serving is the error, and should be 5 calories.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good, my friend, but our problem involves multiplying the stated 3 servings by 0 calories, and ending up with 15. Hence, the 'new math' title. We must throw standard logic out the window! ;)

So far, I think the 'bottle itself contains calories' and the 'calories sink to the bottom' theories are most promising, but they still don't prove that 3 x 0 = 15
 
The 0 actually represents an unknown quantity for we do not actually know the serving size. About three is what we have to go on. 15 calories per container is the given. Two gulps per container would make 0 = 7.5 calories. Three gulps and 0 would equal 5 calories. Four gulps 3.5 etc.
 
MoodyBlues said:
It looks like there's some kind of new math around these days, math I definitely missed in five college math courses.

I was sitting here minding my own business when I became aware of it. This bottle of 'Orange Creme' flavored water I'm drinking is sitting on my nightstand. Its back was toward me as I reached for it, and this is where I saw...it...new math!

View attachment 141033

See it? The calories?

Anyone know when this new law involving zero came along?
Click to expand...

Ooh I know.. part of 'common core' math. AKA: only makes sense to the ppl 'making up' the answers when writing the label, Lmao
 
LV426 said:
Could be. In other words they're saying that the calorie intake per serving is negligible.
Click to expand...

Yes, when doing stuff like labels.. I think the general practice is $$/per character and the single digit '0' is effectively a much cheaper cost than the 10 digit 'negligible'.. then multiply it by like a million times. Drastic cost savings = faulty label..??
 
i think the rounding of numbers is most LIKELY answer.

rounding to nearest 15...0, 15, 30, 45....etc...

example:
bottle has 21 calories... round to 15
21/3 = 7 .. round it to 0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom