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: 4
4
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:00 AM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

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

I have the correct number of limbs, thank you very much.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:05 AM

ok?

pretty sure 100% of this post is false.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:23 AM

I have to agree that the number is probably made up. I've never seen anybody with six fingers, though I have seen somebody with an extra nipple.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:54 AM

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
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.

No, "99.7% of humans have an above average of number of limbs" doesn't mean that the 99.7% of people have more then the normal amount of limbs. The mean number of limbs is probably something like 3.94. If 99.7% people have more then that, then the statement is accurate. The mode (normal or most occurring) is of course 4. Say you get 9 A's and one B on tests in a class at school, While normally you get A's, that B dropped your average. Thus, 90% of your tests have a higher grade then your average.
Now, I don't now whats the point of the thread or what there is to discuss. Maybe, just to see if anyone can get it I guess.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:21 AM
How is it "average" if 99.7% of humans are above it?

Come on ATS, i thought you're better than this?

How is this thread still up?

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:23 AM

How about a source? What makes this so? What's the twist, because if you are talking hands feet, arms legs, toes fingers.. then I would have to disagree with the post.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:35 AM

Because, the alleged .3% of people have less then the other 99.7% of people. This lowers the average to below what the 99.7% of people have.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:52 AM
there is a difference between average number of limbs and an average human's number of limbs. The first is a number by taking the sum of all limbs in the group and divide by the number of humans. I am sure the amount in a very large group would be some where around 3.99 something. There for everyone in the group that had 4 limbs would have more than the average. On the other hand the average human (in this case then norm vs. the average) would be 4 limbs and it would be a totally different percent.

On the other hand I did want to say the 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Ariess

Because, the alleged .3% of people have less then the other 99.7% of people. This lowers the average to below what the 99.7% of people have.

Define "average"...

Average is also known as "medium" or "middle", right? More or less...

How does 0.3% of people lower the average ENOUGH to be below the other 99.7%?

The only way you could make 0.3% be "below average" is if they possess negative quantities.

Then again, anyone who still can't distinguish the use of "then" and "than" in context of comparison, doesn't deserve any merit in anything relating to the what they are saying.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:20 AM

Originally posted by remembering
there is a difference between average number of limbs and an average human's number of limbs. The first is a number by taking the sum of all limbs in the group and divide by the number of humans. I am sure the amount in a very large group would be some where around 3.99 something. There for everyone in the group that had 4 limbs would have more than the average. On the other hand the average human (in this case then norm vs. the average) would be 4 limbs and it would be a totally different percent.

On the other hand I did want to say the 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Note that he didn't state "collectively" in his initial post. He's given a quantity of humans possessing a number of limbs.
Simplify his statement. Does saying "For every person that has 4 limbs, there are 10 people with more. Yet, he's normal."

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:22 AM

Average n. :The result obtained by adding several quantities together and then dividing this total by the number of quantities; the mean.

If out of 1000 people there is 3 people with 3 limbs, 2 people with 5, and 995 people with 4 limbs you get 3999 limbs. Divide that by 1000 people, and you get an average of 3.999 limbs per person. 997 have more then 3.999. Divide 997 by 1000, and you get .997. .997 is 99.7 percent. Meaning that 99.7%, of the 1000, have "an above average number of limbs"
edit on 4-2-2012 by Ariess because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:29 AM
99.7% of humans do not understand sarcasm it seems.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 05:44 AM

Originally posted by xxdaniel21
How is it "average" if 99.7% of humans are above it?

Come on ATS, i thought you're better than this?

How is this thread still up?

You're the one being ignorant? You and others should be better than this.

I am astounded at the ignorance displayed throughout this thread, with only a small number of people actually understanding why the OP is most likely correct, accepting that we don't actually have an accurate figure on the number of limbs or people on Earth.

Most people are not using the correct definition of average, obviously the proper mathematical definition is what is being referred to, which from wiki, is:

"In mathematics, an average, or measure of central tendency, of a data set is a measure of the "middle" value of the data set."

To get the average number of limbs for the population you add up the total number of limbs, and then divide by the number of people.

If 10 of us were in a room, and 9 of us had 4 limbs, with one of us having 1 missing limb, it would total 39 limbs. 39/10 (number of people)=3.9 as the average number of limbs. Which means 9/10 (90%) would have an above average number of limbs, and 1 below average.

This has been explained before, and the only attempt at refuting it was to state that we round the 3.9 number up?!

No, we don't do that in maths, that's just plain wrong.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 10:32 AM

Originally posted by remembering

On the other hand I did want to say the 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

The other 67% are made up after slow and careful deliberation, the other 2/3 are just nonsense.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Magnificient

I have to agree that the number is probably made up. I've never seen anybody with six fingers, though I have seen somebody with an extra nipple.

Just one extra? Miss Chernobyl would not be impressed. Turn her around and she has extras like a cat.

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:25 PM
I think she would need a special toilet seat.

posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 01:37 AM

I am astounded at the ignorance displayed throughout this thread, with only a small number of people actually understanding why the OP is most likely correct, accepting that we don't actually have an accurate figure on the number of limbs or people on Earth.

Actually amazing to read some of the replies, perhaps the intent of the OP? What are(n't) they teaching in school these days?

posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Ariess

Average n. :The result obtained by adding several quantities together and then dividing this total by the number of quantities; the mean.

If out of 1000 people there is 3 people with 3 limbs, 2 people with 5, and 995 people with 4 limbs you get 3999 limbs. Divide that by 1000 people, and you get an average of 3.999 limbs per person. 997 have more then 3.999. Divide 997 by 1000, and you get .997. .997 is 99.7 percent. Meaning that 99.7%, of the 1000, have "an above average number of limbs"
edit on 4-2-2012 by Ariess because: (no reason given)

Perfectly correct.

posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:15 PM

But guys have a fifth limb so the calculations are way off.

posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:42 PM

Indeed. If anything, this thread is a perfect example of the failure of the education system. Decimal averages are rounded up? What kind of average is that? How is it the average if you change it?
Here, a new definition of 'average': the sum of the terms in a group divided by the numbers of terms, rounded to the nearest prime number.
No, wait, let's round it to the nearest Fibonacci number.
Or how about the nearest imaginary number?

You can't round an average. If you do it ceases to be an average.

Those who understand what an average/mean is know that the OP is right (whether they intended it this way or not) - at least, in general, since it's hard to pinpoint exact numbers.

new topics

top topics

4