I started the subthread with the comment because saying the difference between those numbers is small is weird, … because it is.
Those numbers represent percentages (90.005% and 90.0005%) and those two inputs, especially when applied to a chaotic system, will produce outsized differences over time.
And the data shows that the two filters produced outsized differences over time.
I'm not broadening the scope of my contention. I'm pointing out that my contention (there is a large difference in those numbers that is hidden by the way the author presents them) is confirmed by the data.
The data have nothing to do with the hypothetical where the air filters process 10% of the air in the room. They also have nothing to do with the air filters in the thought experiment, which are simplified, ideal filters that have the exact characteristics we say they do. Nobody is applying the numbers in question to any "chaotic system", because this is just a simple framing designed to illustrate exactly one, utterly banal point: If you don't process most of the air, it doesn't matter how efficient you are. In fact, that's all the section should have been. That one sentence. No numbers (it doesn't need them), and very little detail. Just, "if you don't process most of the air, the efficiency doesn't matter". You can't disagree with that conditional statment. You can argue that the premise is flawed, or irrelevant, or unrealistic to the point of uselessness, but you can't argue with the totally boringly obvious statement that if you aren't processing 90% of the air at all, then your efficiency doesn't matter. It's not more controversial than saying that "if your air filters are turned off, their efficiency doesn't matter."
Those numbers represent percentages (90.005% and 90.0005%) and those two inputs, especially when applied to a chaotic system, will produce outsized differences over time.
And the data shows that the two filters produced outsized differences over time.
I'm not broadening the scope of my contention. I'm pointing out that my contention (there is a large difference in those numbers that is hidden by the way the author presents them) is confirmed by the data.