Re: Me and David C. Ullrich
- From: john_ramsden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 13 Oct 2005 14:38:34 -0700
Elmo wrote:
>
> We're studying what it means to say, "at least one is".
No we're not - Everyone knows that "at least one" means
"one or more", and that's all there is to it.
We're studying whether two statements of a problem mean
effectively the same thing.
> Don't blame me for "the possibility of 'at least one tails'",
In some _other_ question that might be a possibility,
but as you yourself say later in the same post:
> The question is, "Two coins were flipped and at least
> one is a head. What are the chances for two heads?"
That's it - no mention of at least one tails! Forget
the damned tails!!
> I'm not sure what you mean by "self contained". The statement
> was made about a two coin flip [with at least one head - JR].
> How do we know? The statement told us so.
Exactly, and by "self contained" I just mean it told us
no more and no less, and NOTHING ABOUT AT LEAST ONE TAIL!
> This question has been around for a long time. I know
> for over 50 years,
Jesus H - You've been mulling over this for 50 years?!
.
- References:
- Me and David C. Ullrich
- From: Elmo
- Re: Me and David C. Ullrich
- From: john_ramsden
- Re: Me and David C. Ullrich
- From: Elmo
- Re: Me and David C. Ullrich
- From: Elmo
- Me and David C. Ullrich
- Prev by Date: Re: Me and David C. Ullrich
- Next by Date: Re: Euler angles/rotations revisted
- Previous by thread: Re: Me and David C. Ullrich
- Next by thread: Re: Me and David C. Ullrich
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
