On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:01:40 -0800, "Joe User" <joeu2004 wrote:

You fail to acknowledge and seem to fail to notice that I demonstrated by
example that it is not.

I quoted your comment about there being no perfect method. But if it makes you
feel better, I explicitly acknowledge than one can construct sets of data and
rules for division for which the simpler rounding algorithms are inadequate,
and the data set and rules you posted earlier are an example of that
inadequacy.

Your example, although demonstrating this point is, in my opinion, unrealistic.

I think it more likely that those who are dividing a pot of $15 with a rule of
10% to 10 people, and 0% to 10 people, rounded to the nearest $1, would come up
with a different rule.

The situation I am dealing with has to do with dividing a much larger pot
amongst many fewer people, and the maximum deviation from perfect has been a
mere penny, using simple rounding algorithms.
--ron