I noticed in a thread earlier someone talking about not having more potatoes (tatties) if you sliced up a load of potatoes...
.... anyway I had this type of conversation before...
So, if you take two slices of bread and butter them, add whatever you want as a filling, place the two slices together, and THEN cut in half...
Do you have one or two sandwiches?
I've had loads of people say there two, but damn it... there is ONE sandwich! ONE! It's just cut in half, that's what I say.
How else would you define a sandwich as (bearing in mind the "pig/tattie" subject) "some roast pork between two pieces of potato scone"? If you halve a "piece" you still have two pieces. If you halve "some pork" you still have two lots of "some pork". So if you halve "some roast pork between two pieces of tattie scone" you do in fact end up with two somethings, each of which is "some pork between twa bits o' tattie scone", and so, by definition, each of the two somethings is "a sandwich".
Therefore you have two sandwiches.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Try: "some roast pork between two slices of bread".
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Yes, but when you halve a slice of bread, you get **two half-slices** of bread...
Slices of potato scone, then.
But when you halve it by slicing, you get two slices.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Nope - a slice of bread has crust all around it. Half a slice doesn't!
Peasant. Upper class bread has had the crusts removed, and still comes in slices.
Besides, it's not impossible to halve a crusty slice in such a way that both halves are still crusty, and still have the same height and width, but are merely twice as thin.
How can anything be "twice as thin" ?
You must mean half as fat....
By being 100% thinner.
Same thing. How else would you define thinness but the reciprocal of thickness?
It is true that any object is 100.04999% the reciprocal of its own opposite (he he he!). The only exception is paper which is defined as the thin flexible sheets of the white rectangular objects known as paper.
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Care to substantiate that?
"Troy Steadman" wrote
If it were "100% thinner", then it would have *zero* thickness! Are you in the real world? ;-)
Zero is correct.
Thick things have thickness. Thin things have thinness.
Yes. 100.04999% can be written 100%. So can 99.950034977%.
99.950034977% is the reciprocal of 100.04999%:)
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Now you're just looking silly...
For every measurable quantity Q, if A is 100% Q-er than B, it means that A is twice as Q as B.
So if X is 100% thinner than Y, then X is twice as thin as Y. That doesn't mean X is 0 times as thick as Y, but half as thick!
For bread, crusty or not, if one loaf is sliced twice as thinly as another, it simply means it has twice as many slices. The two loaves in question are assumed to have been identical prior to slicing, you understand.
Is this what they taught you in Debating Society, Tim? Hurl abuse at your opponent? A Millwall fan by any chance?
I said this as a spoof:
...which I attempted to do. Obviously not being as well endowed in the fried-egg-cum-shoelaces department as you are, I am struggling with the Pure and Applied maths. But it seems to me that 1.0004999 is the reciprocal of 0.99950034977, just as certainly as 1 is the reciprocal of 1.
"Oppose" and "reciprocate" share meanings. "Reciprocal" means "complementary". Man and woman, nuts and bolts, Oxford and Cambridge, not dogs and cats, nor Bill and Ben, reciprocate, are opposite to, and complement each other.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Rubbish. Suppose Q has "thickness", say, 100.0 (units are irrelevant, this is just to give it a number - any number will do!).
Now if A is "100% thinner" than Q, then A is 100% x 100.0 = 100.0 less "thick", and so the "thickness" of A is therefore *zero*. [100.0 - 100.0 = 0.0.] Even Troy can see that!
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
That doesn't follow! BTW - what are you trying to take 100% of?
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Yes, and if two slices were taken from either loaf then a single sandwich could be made - it's just that the sandwich from the "thicker" loaf would have twice as much bread in it...
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Touchy! I didn't intend to hurl abuse, merely suggested how the comments in your posting looked...
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Who are they? :-(
"Troy Steadman" wrote
I know!
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Yes, I asked that because your comment didn't (and still doesn't) make sense.
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Unfortunately, making yourself look rather silly!
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Yes, OK.
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Let's assume for now that all these words actually mean *exactly* the same thing.
Then what you said was:-
Which is, of course, FALSE - if we consider "the reciprocal[opposite] of its own opposite" to be the same as the "object" itself, then it is plainly
100.00000% - not 100.04999% as you quoted.You then tried to substantiate this by saying:-
All of which maybe true, but doesn't make your previous false statement any truer!
Or are you happy with the following:- "The sky is blue. My car is blue. Therefore, my car is the sky ... "
No, not rubbish.
Q is a measurable quantity. This quantity doesn't *have* thickness or thin-ness, but *is* one of them. You want to take an object, B (say, for a slice of bread), and note its thickness and its thin-ness.
OK, except that it's only the size of the units which is irrelevant, not the units themselves. So let's give them a name. Let's say our B has thickness 100.0T.
No, it is twice as thin. Thin-ness is measured in different units, not T (because Ts are units of thickness) , but (say) t. So let's say our original B had thickness 100.0T and thin-ness
37.2t.The quantities of thickness and thin-ness are complementary and reciprocal, like resistance and conductivity, measured in Ohms and Mhos (or Sieverts as I understand they're now called), or like a car's average fuel consumption and its fuel economy, measured in (say) litres per 100km and miles per gallon.
The product of a unit of one quantity and a unit of its complementary quantity is constant and dimensionless. Sometimes the units are co-ordinated to make the product equal to 1, as is the case when we multiply an Ohm by a Sievert.
If we multiply an l/100km by an mpg, we get litre-miles per hundred kilometre-gallons, for all the sense that makes, but it reduces to the dimensionless constant of about 0.0035.
So it is with thickness and thin-ness, so if our B was 100T thick and 37.2t thin, the product of its thickness and its thin-ness was 3720Tt, and the product of any other item's thickness and thin-ness, if measured in the same units, will always be 3720Tt. If we double B's thin-ness to 74.4t, this has the consequence of its thickness ending up as 3720Tt/74.4t, which, no surprise, is 50T.
Of course it doesn't follow, it's a premise. 100% more of anything is by definition twice of it.
B's thin-ness of 37.2t!
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required