It's because our silly little brains think there is a bigger difference between 3.12 and 3.14 than between 2.6.30 and 2.6.32.
When really the prefixes 2.6 and 3 are equivalent in meaning, and the real difference between 12 and 14 and 30 and 32 is also exactly the same.
Human brains seem to be evolved to think about numbers in a logarithmic fashion. We stop to think for a long while to debate whether to spend 50 or 75 bucks on a piece of clothing, while we can't perceive the difference between spending 50,000 or 50,025 thousand on a car. The difference would have to be 50,000 to 75,000 thousand for us to perceive it equally.
> We stop to think for a long while to debate whether to spend 50 or 75 bucks on a piece of clothing, while we can't perceive the difference between spending 50,000 or 50,025 thousand on a car. The difference would have to be 50,000 to 75,000 thousand for us to perceive it equally.
A bit off-topic, but I've read about this irrational thought pattern before, and it strikes me that it's not that irrational. In general, one buys a car far less frequently than one buys a piece of clothing, so saving 25 bucks every time one buys a piece of clothing is going to add up to a lot more than saving 25 bucks every time one buys a car. The expense of a purchase correlates with how rare that type of purchase is, so it seems sensible to me.
When really the prefixes 2.6 and 3 are equivalent in meaning, and the real difference between 12 and 14 and 30 and 32 is also exactly the same.
Human brains seem to be evolved to think about numbers in a logarithmic fashion. We stop to think for a long while to debate whether to spend 50 or 75 bucks on a piece of clothing, while we can't perceive the difference between spending 50,000 or 50,025 thousand on a car. The difference would have to be 50,000 to 75,000 thousand for us to perceive it equally.