Unoffical empeg BBS

Quick Links: Empeg FAQ | RioCar.Org | Hijack | BigDisk Builder | jEmplode | emphatic
Repairs: Repairs

Topic Options
#226000 - 07/07/2004 14:51 Mathematical impossibility?
mschrag
pooh-bah

Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
"the average Internet user, according to the same statistics, also has 2.8 children who are using the Internet as well"

in the best case, call it 1.4 children per person to account for two parents both claiming the same 2.8 children ... wouldn't that mean the average number of children outnumber the average number of internet user by a factor of 1.4, skewing the average internet user to be their children instead? it makes my head hurt to think about. intuitively it seems wrong, but with the "average" part thrown in, I'm not entirely certain it's mathematically impossible

Editors Note: 1.6? WHO SAID 1.6? LOOK A PURPLE MOOSE!


Edited by mschrag (08/07/2004 05:07)

Top
#226001 - 07/07/2004 15:37 Re: Mathematical impossibility? [Re: mschrag]
tfabris
carpal tunnel

Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
I'm not clear on what the question really is, but does the problem have anything to do with the fact that 2.8 divided by 2 is 1.4, not 1.6?
_________________________
Tony Fabris

Top
#226002 - 07/07/2004 15:56 Re: Mathematical impossibility? [Re: mschrag]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
People don't understand either statistics or language. I'm sure what was intended was something more along the lines of "Internet users, on average, have 2.8 Internet-using children". However, it seems like a made-up statistic. Source?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#226003 - 07/07/2004 16:20 Re: Mathematical impossibility? [Re: mschrag]
genixia
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
Let's assume that every child has 2 parents. p=2c
Let's define total of childless internet users as m.

((m + p)/(m + p)) x 2.8 = c = p/2

(m + p)/(m + p) = p/1.4

m+p = p(m+p)/1.4

1.4(m+p) = p(m+p)

p=1.4, c=2.8, m is undefined. This is the only solution that fits the text. Of course, since it is physically impossible to have 1.4 parents and 2.8 children we know that solution does not exist. For starters my 3 year old internet user has two internet-using parents.


Edited by genixia (07/07/2004 16:22)
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962 sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.

Top
#226004 - 07/07/2004 16:38 Re: Mathematical impossibility? [Re: mschrag]
JBjorgen
carpal tunnel

Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
Maybe they meant "internet service account holder" since that would require one to be at least 18 in most cirucumstances.
_________________________
~ John

Top
#226005 - 08/07/2004 00:27 Re: Mathematical impossibility? [Re: mschrag]
Ezekiel
pooh-bah

Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Autobiography of Mark Twain"

'Nuff Said.

-Zeke

Top
#226006 - 08/07/2004 05:09 Re: Mathematical impossibility? [Re: tfabris]
mschrag
pooh-bah

Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
Quote:
I'm not clear on what the question really is, but does the problem have anything to do with the fact that 2.8 divided by 2 is 1.4, not 1.6?

Silly Tony, everyone knows that I said one point FOUR not one point SIX in the post you referenced. I would have had to have gone back and edited my post to correct that otherwise, which would be, I should say, awfully misleading.

Top
#226007 - 08/07/2004 05:13 Re: Mathematical impossibility? [Re: wfaulk]
mschrag
pooh-bah

Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
Quote:
People don't understand either statistics or language. I'm sure what was intended was something more along the lines of "Internet users, on average, have 2.8 Internet-using children". However, it seems like a made-up statistic. Source?

The source was completely unreliable ... It was a link from a link from a blog I was reading earlier today that I don't recall offhand now. The sentence just jumped out at me when I read it. I tend to agree that there are good odds that it was made up (dare I quote a made up % chance that it's made up to initiate Irony Mode? perhaps 90% odds?). I was more curious from a mathematical standpoint, if it is even POSSIBLE that it could be true.

Top