Thank you for not lecturing me. I am very well-versed in math. I took numerous math courses in college (more than I can count over 30 years later). I have two engineering degrees and math is a huge part of engineering. I had considered becoming a math major before settling on engineering. I am not saying I am a math genius by any means but math has always come very easy to me and I enjoy doing math. I may not differentiate equations on a daily basis but I took and passed differential and intergral calculus, differential equations, and probability and statistics (as well many other higher level math courses). Perhaps instead of saying, "the lower your bill the greater the penalty, potentially" I should have said, "the lower your bill the greater the penalty as a percentage of your total bill, potentially". Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding caused by my less-than-perfect communication skills. But I will stand by my (clarified) statement, "the lower your bill the greater the penalty as a percentage of your total bill, potentially". I did not mean to imply anything other than what I wrote. Let me try to further clarify my statement: From a certain dollar amount as you move toward zero your potential penalty increases as a percentage of your total bill. I made no mention whatsoever about moving in the opposite direction (i.e., from a certain dollar amount as you move toward infinity). I believe you are the one that first mentioned that. If I may quote you: I agree with that statement, however that was not my point. My point was the opposite; (to say it another way) as the bill gets smaller the potential "penalty" remains at a number less than $1.00 that gets increasingly significant (as a percentage of the total bill) as you approach zero. (A 98.02% penalty on a bill of $1.01 is significant in my book. If penny candy still existed I would think a 9,900% penalty on a one-cent purchase is significant.) I think I have now made my thoughts perfectly clear and I am finished with this discussion with you.
I love all the graphs and the math. That's all truly impressive. I stink at math. But one thing I do know is when I smell a rat. And I smell one here. Rounding up stinks. 4th grade math dictates that you round off to the nearest number or dollar.
You have made it clear where my misconception arose; when you said "as this gets smaller, that gets bigger" I thought you were implicitly asserting that "as this gets bigger, that gets smaller." As you have pointed out, and as I have come to realize through some retrospective scrutiny of our correspondence on this matter, this seems to have been produced solely out of my own assumptions, and not your own. I thank you for your patience in unveiling this oversight, although I think the true disparity here is just in the terminology originally asserted by both of us (percentage vs. penalty). As for this comment: I hope the only discussion that is being finished is this admittedly petty distinction between 'penalty' and 'penalty percentage.' You undoubtedly have a vast volume of numismatic knowledge that dwarfs mine significantly (as has become evident to me by past postings in which you have answered some of my numerous questions!). Perhaps the butting of heads between two Type A personalities resulting from an oversight (on my part, as is evident in hindsight) is something neither of us has much control over . I hope you can continue to respect me (if ever there was any); I'm not an antagonizing person but am admittedly excessively particular... I apologize for any unintended offense I may have called. Perhaps on an x-y coordinate plane defined as understanding vs. time, we can see a convergence of our individual courses (despite the haphazard path mine may have taken as a result of confusion) and find ourselves leaving this situation with equal understanding of the other's ideas. P.S. Thank god there is another on this forum who also enjoys mathematics!
No problem, cube. I was just getting tired of the path you were leading me down. I'm glad you now understand what I was trying (poorly as it turns out) to say. And by the way, I am not a Type-A personality. Far from it. I am generally very easy-going although I can be stubborn and I can argue to the nth degree when I know I am right. Fair warning.
Not entirely fair; I signed up for this site unaware that argumentative Hobos traipsed these forums! LOL On Topic: I might consider calling up this restaurant tomorrow and figuring out more clearly what sort of practices they are employing. oval man certainly points out that some of the statements sort of imply that rounding down occurs; after all how else would it "all work out," unless he was only referring to how it works out for him! If it's only rounding up, seems like this restaurant has found another way to deprive people of their money in a deceptive fashion!
The amount rounded up could probably be classified as breakage. At the very least the owner would owe additional sales on the breakage amount but it is possible that state statutes would allow some states to claim the entire amount.
FWIW: I just did a quick search for reviews of The Grape. First of all, there are seven locations: three in Florida and others in GA and LA (thanks for the link, rubbudo). http://www.yourgrape.com/locations.shtml I didn't know this and it kind of turns me off; I tend to like small, neighborhoody establishments. Anyway, I read reviews of two locations: Coconut Point, in Estero—the subject of this thread—and Jacksonville. A cursory read of about 15 reviews revealed not one customer mentioning anything about the restaurant's pricing structure, let alone a rounding policy. One or two reviewers commented that the prices were a bit high. The reviews in general varied from poor to very good, with some customers raving about all aspects of their experience and a few others citing uncleanliness at one of the locations. The Coconut Point location had the better reviews of the two and the cleanliness complaints were regarding the other location.