Re: Knowledge and responsibility
From: Jim Blair (jeb_at_wisc.edu)
Date: 12/27/04
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: An Even Better OWLS Experiment."
- Previous message: John Fields: "Re: Is zero even or odd?"
- In reply to: Varney: "Re: Knowledge and responsibility"
- Next in thread: Varney: "Re: Knowledge and responsibility"
- Reply: Varney: "Re: Knowledge and responsibility"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:47:34 -0600
"Varney" <varney@collorado.edu> wrote in message
news:cqcc4f$ne2$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
> Jim Blair wrote:
> >><ilya_shambat2004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1103728293.861896.121910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>>The linear thinking is inadequate in describing life, for a simple
> >>>reason: Life is non-linear.
> >>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > ??? Life is linear.
>
> Bzzt. Try again.
>
> > We all age exactly one day each 24 hours.
>
> Nope.
>
> I myself age slightly less than a day in one of your 24 hour periods
> since I live in Colorado and a higher altitude than you do in wis.
Hi,
???
>
> > A plot of
> > your age vs time is as linear as it gets with no scatter in the data:
> > correlation coefficient = 1.000.
>
> It is a trivial exercise to show that we do not all age in a linear
> fashion with respect to one another.
> Hell... one can even prove that one does not age uniformly with oneself.
I don't understand your point. Are you speaking of "subjective age"? As in
a stressful time "ages" one faster than a relaxed time? As in "life in
Colorado is less stressful than in Wisconsin?" Or you don't have the
stress of watching so many of your football team's games decided in the
final second like us Packer fans? ;-)
Are you trying to introduce relativity theory and Lorentz time dialation?
Being at a higher altitude, your velocity from the earth's rotation is
greater?
>
> I am willing to bet that there will be a flurry of "you are wrong" posts
> from the ignorant. I am also willing to bet that someone will take time
> to argue why my argument is correct.
>
> Since from your page you seem to like things about statistics etc. you
> might appreciate the following, offered to reduce the sting of the above
> comments.
>
> In a conversation between Gen. Leslie Groves and Enrico Fermi, the
> subject of how one defines a "great general" came up.
>
> Fermi: 'So Leslie, how many generals are know as "great"?'
>
> Groves: 'Well Enrico... about 3 out of every 100 generals will perform
> well enough to be considered "great".'
>
> Fermi: 'So how does a general become "great" in the eyes of his peers?'
>
> Groves: Well, usually a general is considered "great" if he wins 5
> consecutive major battles.'
>
> Fermi: 'Well... let's see... Considering that most modern armies are
> equally matched on the battle field, this means that each has a 50%
> chance of winning the battle. So if a general were to win 1 battle at
> 50%, then 2 battles in a row would be 25% chance, 3 is about 12%, 4 is
> about 6%... so the chances of winning 5 in a row is about 3%. Yup...
> about 3 in a hundred.
> However general, that is not "greatness"... that is simply statistics.
I like your story. But would not agree with the premise that being a "great
general" is determined by winning consecutive battles. Given a large enough
advantage, a poor general may beat a good one. And a great general may lose
(or better avoid) the battles and so win the war.
I think of Sam Houston. He retreated from the Mexican army and
"lost/avoided" battles all across Texas. Until he decided it was the right
time and place for the one battle that his army could win. He was a great
general because he won only one battle: the decisive one.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: An Even Better OWLS Experiment."
- Previous message: John Fields: "Re: Is zero even or odd?"
- In reply to: Varney: "Re: Knowledge and responsibility"
- Next in thread: Varney: "Re: Knowledge and responsibility"
- Reply: Varney: "Re: Knowledge and responsibility"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
