============================================
 * Original From: Paul Edwards, 3:711/934.9
 * Original To  : Rod Speed, 3:711/934.2
 * Original Date: 1997-04-08 19:09
============================================

RS>> Pity it gives the WRONG result with the 9999 and 15001 parcels
RS>> Paul. That particular alg is useless, and we STILL havent decided
RS>> at what point we stop giving the spare share to the 9999 and start
RS>> giving it to the 150xx parcel as we move from 15001 to 15099.

PE>> Sorry, I meant compare (100-xx)/150xx to 1/9999.

RS> Soorree, we want to allocate it to the parcel we think it should go.
RS> Its VERY far from clear that thats the place it should go Paul.

RS> It basically produces this result.

RS> Parcels       Parcel that gets the bonus share
RS> 9999    15001   9999
RS> ..
RS> 9999    15098   9999
RS> 9999    15099   15099

RS> That NOT a a very sensible result at all. The 15098 should have got it.

WHAT???  For what reason?  I would have allocated it to the 9999, based on
the fact that:

1. It creates the least error by doing so (as a %).

2. It creates the least error in so far as the number of shares that needed
to move (1) to get to the amount that really deserved to have that bonus
share.

I'll be stunned to find out why you think 15098 is more appropriate.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---