It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# 99.7% of humans have an above average number of limbs : discuss

page: 3
4
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:50 PM

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by The1Prettiest1One

Originally posted by abecedarian
However, as one cannot have "3.97" limbs, it would be rounded to 4, thus 97 would have the statistical average and 3 would be below average.

No, it wouldn't be rounded. The average doesn't have to actually exist in the population as a category.

To be a useful number, it must be rounded. It's like saying the average family has 2.5 children based on one family baving 3 and the other having 2. It's not possible to have 1/2 of a child as it either is a child or not and therefore a whole number.

A partial limb would be considered a limb, not a fractional equivalent.

You're trying to change the definition of 'average'.

So if one family has 3 kids and the other has 2, what would you propose the "average" to be?

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:52 PM
99.7%? Are we all supposed to have four toes? I don't care, I'm keeping my nuts

edit on 3-2-2012 by rickymouse because: added

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:58 PM

you tell me - i know - i am curious - do you know what the average number of human limbs is

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:01 PM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
oh dear - i have " ignored " my thread for 1 hour - i asked you to discuss it -

I thought you might be busy counting your limbs so didn't take it as an issue.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:04 PM

lets cut to the chase - what do you think is the average number of limbs for a human ?

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:29 PM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

lets cut to the chase - what do you think is the average number of limbs for a human ?

I have to say offhand that I don't know that. Noone knows with perfect precision unless everyone is sampled and it's going to vary slightly accross time as people are born and die. If so much of the population is above the average it must be slightly fewer than four limbs. Who knows, maybe it's closer to three than four.
edit on 2/3/2012 by The1Prettiest1One because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:39 PM

Originally posted by KaiserSoze
The average human has one fallopian tube. Please discuss.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:40 PM

Originally posted by TurkeyTots

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by The1Prettiest1One

Originally posted by abecedarian
However, as one cannot have "3.97" limbs, it would be rounded to 4, thus 97 would have the statistical average and 3 would be below average.

No, it wouldn't be rounded. The average doesn't have to actually exist in the population as a category.

To be a useful number, it must be rounded. It's like saying the average family has 2.5 children based on one family baving 3 and the other having 2. It's not possible to have 1/2 of a child as it either is a child or not and therefore a whole number.

A partial limb would be considered a limb, not a fractional equivalent.

You're trying to change the definition of 'average'.

So if one family has 3 kids and the other has 2, what would you propose the "average" to be?

Really?
2-to-3.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:41 PM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

you tell me - i know - i am curious - do you know what the average number of human limbs is

You made the claim, you explain the math.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:43 PM

Originally posted by abecedarian
Really?
2-to-3.

223! Loch Ness monster!

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:45 PM
I've got 5 acres here with lots of trees and each one has lots of limbs. Since I own the land I should have all the limbs also.
I know I'm not normal but what's that got to do with limbs?

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:43 PM
I hate to be the one to state the obvious, but here it goes. If 99.7% of humans posess a particular trait, then it IS average. A trait can't be considered above average if nearly everyone has it. The original statement is like saying that an above average number of people have the ability to walk. Since nearly everyone can walk, the people who can't are the ones who are not average.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:23 PM

thats as close as we have got so far to a correct answer , well done

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 08:00 PM
Never mind, someone above me posted the exact same thing...
edit on 2/3/2012 by spacekc929 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 08:02 PM

99.7% of humans have an above average number of limbs

that sentence doesn't make any logical sense: discuss

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 08:06 PM
Well it's all about perspective, isn't it?

If I had three limbs, I would perceive myself to be average and the rest of the 4 limbed populace is not.

This also begs the question whether the original question is close to the OP.

Well, my two cents on the matter.

Cheerio

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:44 PM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

thats as close as we have got so far to a correct answer , well done

That's lame and incredibly ignorant.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:04 PM

im surprised more dont seem to get your logical and correct analysis of the statement. too much human, not enough vulcan? lol

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:18 PM

99.7% of humans have an above average number of limbs

99.7% makes up the average. So your question is flawed and illogical.

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:22 PM

Originally posted by ezekielken

im surprised more dont seem to get your logical and correct analysis of the statement. too much human, not enough vulcan? lol

I prefer the vulcan approach myself, when it's available, however rare that may be with illogical humans.

top topics

4