# Truncate to the Nearest?



## Now3852 (Sep 20, 2016)

So recently I was reading along the WCA regulations and I came across _Article: 9, Section: f, Number: 1_ - So regulation *9f1.*
The exact wording is such:

_"All timed results under 10 minutes are measured and *truncated to the nearest* hundredth of a second."_

Now, I know that the thousandths place is simply truncated, but the wording of this rule is very confusing.
How can you truncate to the nearest? All you can do is either simply truncate, or round to the nearest. There is no such thing as 'truncating to the nearest'.
Is there a reason this specific wording is used, or is it just an oversight on the WCA's part?
The 'nearest' really should be removed, since as it is now, if you don't know any better, it seems to imply rounding. Not truncating. Which is what actually happens.


----------



## 1973486 (Sep 20, 2016)

Looks like it was an error in the 2014 changes. You should post an issue there.


----------



## Smiles (Sep 20, 2016)

i think it should be truncated to the *farthest* hundredth of a second


----------



## Kit Clement (Sep 20, 2016)

Smiles said:


> i think it should be truncated to the *farthest* hundredth of a second



So what would 7.511 become? 7.52, maybe 7.59?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Sep 20, 2016)

1973486 said:


> Looks like it was an error in the 2014 changes. You should post an issue there.



Specifically, this one.



Now3852 said:


> There is no such thing as 'truncating to the nearest'.



Depends whom you ask. There are over 7000 results for the phrase.

There was some disagreement over this phrase on the Delegate list, and I just made the simplest change that seemed clear enough. As you can see, I also added Guideline 9f1+) to avoid any doubt.

If you feel strongly, would you mind filing an issue directly against the Regulations?


----------



## Smiles (Sep 20, 2016)

well here we have a hundredths number line, so what you want to do is find 0.511 and then go to the farthest point away from it:
but everybody knows a number line actually goes on forever, so there is no farthest hundredth and your 7.511 becomes a DNF (did not find [farthest hundredth])


----------



## Kit Clement (Sep 20, 2016)

Smiles said:


> View attachment 6912
> well here we have a hundredths number line, so what you want to do is find 0.511 and then go to the farthest point away from it:View attachment 6913
> but everybody knows a number line actually goes on forever, so there is no farthest hundredth and your 7.511 becomes a DNF (did not find [farthest hundredth])



Well, assuming you don't fix the tenths place, this would only be reasonable. DNFs for everyone!


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 20, 2016)

Sarah Strong's results remain unchanged.

Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk


----------

