Comments on: Only 99.99% http://dbzer0.com/blog/only-9999 A bug in the code of the universe. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:59:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: heather http://dbzer0.com/blog/only-9999/comment-page-1#comment-4864 heather Sun, 01 Jun 2008 00:22:17 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=691#comment-4864 That is really midnumbing idea. On that principle, does the commenter assume that only 99.99% of rocket scientists believe in rockets? That is really midnumbing idea. On that principle, does the commenter assume that only 99.99% of rocket scientists believe in rockets?

]]> By: Arnoc http://dbzer0.com/blog/only-9999/comment-page-1#comment-4858 Arnoc Fri, 23 May 2008 11:38:32 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=691#comment-4858 I would say 0.50.5 is unlikely. 0.5 itself is the problem. The goal of this is not to give you headache, mate. Its the jumping between systems that you wouldn't call causal. But has everything to be causal just to be useful, interesting and worth a look? I doubt it. ;) Some munchkin does not sound bad. When and where? :) It does depend on what we are trying to achieve and for me the path is more interesting than the result. Life will finally result in death and I am not going to reduce my life to death. :P I would say 0.50.5 is unlikely. 0.5 itself is the problem. The goal of this is not to give you headache, mate. Its the jumping between systems that you wouldn’t call causal. But has everything to be causal just to be useful, interesting and worth a look? I doubt it. ;)

Some munchkin does not sound bad. When and where? :)

It does depend on what we are trying to achieve and for me the path is more interesting than the result. Life will finally result in death and I am not going to reduce my life to death. :P

]]> By: Db0 http://dbzer0.com/blog/only-9999/comment-page-1#comment-4857 Db0 Fri, 23 May 2008 11:23:58 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=691#comment-4857 Aaargh! You're always taking the road that is trying to give me headaches you bastard! <blockquote>Does this matter? In my question we do. </blockquote> The problem with defining as 1 as yes and 0 as no is that we now have a binary system. In a binary system we do not have a middle ground. What is 0.5? "Maybe"? And 0.8 is "possibly"? Other than a nice game with words, it doesn't have any other meaning. <blockquote>Is a conclusion the only thing what this all can be about? Never thought about that questions are more interesting than answers could be? When we always just stick to a pattern of rules and regulations this life will bore us to death one day.. :] This has never been only about results. Or has it? </blockquote> Well, it depends on what we're trying to achieve. There is not specific problem in having plays of words and games like that but I'd rather be playing an actual game if it comes down to that :) How about some Munchkin? :P Aaargh! You’re always taking the road that is trying to give me headaches you bastard!

Does this matter? In my question we do.

The problem with defining as 1 as yes and 0 as no is that we now have a binary system. In a binary system we do not have a middle ground. What is 0.5? “Maybe”? And 0.8 is “possibly”?
Other than a nice game with words, it doesn’t have any other meaning.

Is a conclusion the only thing what this all can be about? Never thought about that questions are more interesting than answers could be? When we always just stick to a pattern of rules and regulations this life will bore us to death one day.. :] This has never been only about results. Or has it?

Well, it depends on what we’re trying to achieve. There is not specific problem in having plays of words and games like that but I’d rather be playing an actual game if it comes down to that :)
How about some Munchkin? :P

]]> By: Arnoc http://dbzer0.com/blog/only-9999/comment-page-1#comment-4856 Arnoc Fri, 23 May 2008 11:15:17 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=691#comment-4856 "But we don’t have a “yes or no” issue here" Does this matter? In my question we do. ;) "But we’re then guilty of performing a fallacious error, similar to equivocating. We must be speaking about the same thing in order to reach any conclusion." Is a conclusion the only thing what this all can be about? Never thought about that questions are more interesting than answers could be? When we always just stick to a pattern of rules and regulations this life will bore us to death one day.. :] This has never been only about results. Or has it? “But we don’t have a “yes or no” issue here”

Does this matter? In my question we do. ;)

“But we’re then guilty of performing a fallacious error, similar to equivocating. We must be speaking about the same thing in order to reach any conclusion.”

Is a conclusion the only thing what this all can be about? Never thought about that questions are more interesting than answers could be? When we always just stick to a pattern of rules and regulations this life will bore us to death one day.. :] This has never been only about results. Or has it?

]]> By: Db0 http://dbzer0.com/blog/only-9999/comment-page-1#comment-4855 Db0 Fri, 23 May 2008 11:00:15 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=691#comment-4855 <blockquote>If 0% = 0 and 100% = 1 and 0 = no and 1 = yes, is 150% more than yes? Or is it maybe yesser than yes? </blockquote> But we don't have a "yes or no" issue here :) <blockquote>If you consider scientists as described in the first place and I do as described in the second and we switch to absolute numbers, then going over 100% with a non-congruent definition is not a problem.</blockquote> But we're then guilty of performing a fallacious error, similar to equivocating. We must be speaking about the same thing in order to reach any conclusion.

If 0% = 0 and 100% = 1 and 0 = no and 1 = yes, is 150% more than yes? Or is it maybe yesser than yes?

But we don’t have a “yes or no” issue here :)

If you consider scientists as described in the first place and I do as described in the second and we switch to absolute numbers, then going over 100% with a non-congruent definition is not a problem.

But we’re then guilty of performing a fallacious error, similar to equivocating. We must be speaking about the same thing in order to reach any conclusion.

]]>