I am certainly not a "mathemetician," or, as you can probably see, a "speller." However, your profile claims that have the things in the universe are above the mean, half are below. I remember fourth grade math. I know that in order for there to be a "median," there actually has to be something there. For instance, there is no median in the set of numbers {3,4}, because there's no value in the set in between.
So, its impossible for half of everything in the universe to be above the median and half below, because SOMETHING has to be exactly at the median.
I think its better if we talk about the mean instead of the median. There is a mean of the set of numbers {3,4}, 3.5. A mean doesn't have to be an actual member of the set, whereas a median does.
I was going to post my name, but realizing the complete douchebaggery of this post, I decided not to.
Well, if you're gonna get really technical about it, there are an infinite number of things in the universe, so the number on each side of the median or mean (or whatever) so closely approaches 1/2 of all the things in the universe that mathmatically speaking, Robin's statement is true.
Despite the non-douchebagness of this post, in the spirit of things, I think I too will be anonymous.
I think I have a response to these anonymous comments.
The first Anonymous made the mistake of thinking the thing at the median is *itself* a thing. On the sidebar, it says: "Half the things in the universe are worse than the median; half are better. The former are 1s; the latter are 2s." Nowhere is it said here that the median is itself a thing.
Consider a universe that looks something like this:
St. Patrick's Day (2) International House of Pancakes (2) The median, whatever it is Blindness (1) Arsenic (1)
If the median were a thing, then in the above universe it would be a false to say "half the things are above the median and half the things are below." But if the median is not a thing, then it is true to say that. Given that the arbiter has decreed that half the things in the universe are above the median, I think we can say that the median must not be a thing.
What might the median be, if not a thing? It might be a theoretical construct, and therefore not a thing. Or it might be something else which is not a thing. Hopefully the arbiter will tell us in due course what the median is.
4 Comments:
Robin-
I am certainly not a "mathemetician," or, as you can probably see, a "speller." However, your profile claims that have the things in the universe are above the mean, half are below. I remember fourth grade math. I know that in order for there to be a "median," there actually has to be something there. For instance, there is no median in the set of numbers {3,4}, because there's no value in the set in between.
So, its impossible for half of everything in the universe to be above the median and half below, because SOMETHING has to be exactly at the median.
I think its better if we talk about the mean instead of the median. There is a mean of the set of numbers {3,4}, 3.5. A mean doesn't have to be an actual member of the set, whereas a median does.
I was going to post my name, but realizing the complete douchebaggery of this post, I decided not to.
By Anonymous, at 2/03/2005 6:01 PM
Sylvester Stallone! He's the median! (This is not Robin, but I'll share my name when you share yours.)
By Anonymous, at 2/04/2005 3:19 AM
Well, if you're gonna get really technical about it, there are an infinite number of things in the universe, so the number on each side of the median or mean (or whatever) so closely approaches 1/2 of all the things in the universe that mathmatically speaking, Robin's statement is true.
Despite the non-douchebagness of this post, in the spirit of things, I think I too will be anonymous.
By Anonymous, at 2/04/2005 6:00 PM
I think I have a response to these anonymous comments.
The first Anonymous made the mistake of thinking the thing at the median is *itself* a thing. On the sidebar, it says: "Half the things in the universe are worse than the median; half are better. The former are 1s; the latter are 2s." Nowhere is it said here that the median is itself a thing.
Consider a universe that looks something like this:
St. Patrick's Day (2)
International House of Pancakes (2)
The median, whatever it is
Blindness (1)
Arsenic (1)
If the median were a thing, then in the above universe it would be a false to say "half the things are above the median and half the things are below." But if the median is not a thing, then it is true to say that. Given that the arbiter has decreed that half the things in the universe are above the median, I think we can say that the median must not be a thing.
What might the median be, if not a thing? It might be a theoretical construct, and therefore not a thing. Or it might be something else which is not a thing. Hopefully the arbiter will tell us in due course what the median is.
David
By Anonymous, at 2/05/2005 11:28 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home