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

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?

99.7%? Are we all supposed to have four toes? I don't care, I'm keeping my nuts

reply to post by abecedarian


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

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.

reply to post by The1Prettiest1One


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

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by The1Prettiest1One

 

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.

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

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.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by abecedarian

 

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.

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

223! Loch Ness monster!

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?

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.

reply to post by KaiserSoze


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

Never mind, someone above me posted the exact same thing...

99.7% of humans have an above average number of limbs

that sentence doesn't make any logical sense: discuss

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

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by KaiserSoze

 

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

That's lame and incredibly ignorant.

reply to post by The1Prettiest1One


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

reply to post by ignorant_ape

99.7% of humans have an above average number of limbs

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

Originally posted by ezekielken
reply to post by The1Prettiest1One

 

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.