"Ronald Raygun" wrote
This is your mistake! Troy didn't say "twice as thin", he said "100% thinner".
Now, the process of making something "thinner" is by reducing its thickness. If you reduce its thickness by 100%, ie you "make it 100% thinner" (as Troy said), then the thickness becomes zero.
QED.
No mistake, these two mean the same thing, in exactly the same way as 100% thicker means twice as thick, and in the same way as 100% Q-er means twice as Q for any Q, not just for "positive" Qs like thick, big, and expensive, but also for "negative" Qs like thin, small, and cheap, and of course for things we don't tend to think of in positive and negative terms, such as resistance and conductivity.
You have to think logarithmically. Complementary positives and negatives don't add and subtract, they multiply and divide. Thin-ness, smallness, and cheapness are *reciprocals* of thickness, bigness, and expensiveness, in the same way that conductivity and resistance are reciprocals of each other.
Correct.
It is true that if you reduce its thickness by 100% then the thickness becomes zero. But the "ie" bit inbetween is wrong.
Making something N% less thick is *not* the same thing as making it N% thinner, not for N0, nor for any N except N=0.
Making something N% less thick actually makes it M% thinner where M = 100N/(100-N). E&OE, but I think I've got the arithmetic right:
It works for N=M=0, for NP; M0, and for, say, N; M0:
Making something 90% less thick makes it 10% as thick, which is therefore 1000% as thin, which is 900% thinner.
Of course, 100N/(100-N) is *approximately* equal to N, but only for small N, so making something 1% less thick makes it approximately 1% thinner. So it's easy to understand why in your little fantasy-world you assume that X% less thick means the same as X% thinner for all X. But that leads into a quagmire from which the only way out is to define these things in terms of reciprocals, and to accept that there is practically no such thing as zero thin-ness.
My car isn't blue.
You have got this completely and utterly wrong.
It all depends on who is the thinner and who is the thinnee. It is the recipient of the thin that is important not the thinner who thins it. Of course if it is a thin itself that is being thinned by the thinner then I wonder if that would make then it the thinnor.
Similarly, it is the thickee who you should be concentrating on and not wasting all this time over the thicker who thicked the thickee irrespective of the thickness as measured on my trusty Acme thickometer currently calibrated in Ts but with the mere movement of a couple of jumpers can be easily converted into a thinometer duly measuring Tts.
Of course maximum thickidity and inverse thinnity are easily confused by first year students as being the same thing but of course us senior pundits of the Big Thick Theory or even those of the Steady Thin Conjecture know that Tt, when divided by .32T on Thindays is actually equivalent to inthinity.
Sadly, nobody told my school dinner lady which went some way to explaining the state of the gravy.
At last - a poster who has thoroughly grasped the central issues here, has analysed them to perfection, both within and without context, and has then explained them in plain English, without once needing to point out the distinction between the quantitative (eg thickness) and qualitative (thinness) characteristics (which was where it started, IIRC) which could so easily have obfuscated the clarity which has shone through this vital thread.
I think (or do I mean I thickk?) that in terms of going gaga this is the thick end of the wedge.
Speaking of thinners, just what is the difference between
(a) turpentine (b) white spirit (c) turpentine substitute (d) dick turpin
?
The odd one out is "(e) terrapin" - all the others are fictional.
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Maybe so, but you obviously don't know the colour of *my* car!
Planets count as "the sky" so your car, whatever colour it is, is the sky.
Viewed from somewhere suitable such as The Moon of course. I'm intrigued to know why you think colour is important. I have grey car as it happens, and that would have served you just as well.
We are all in the sky, Tim. That is where everything is.
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Eh? What do you think my car has to do with planets??
Your car is on a planet and is made out of planet. It is 100% planet, and you cannot get more "to do with planets" than that!
While I am "putting you right" perhaps the following advice might come in useful:
1) Fry an egg. All you need is one frying pan, one egg, and a few drops of extra-virgin olive oil. Don't settle for less than 125% viginity. 2) Buy some shoes. Ensure that if they have lace holes your wife tells you where she's hidden the laces. 3) Next time don't let your wife choose your car."Troy Steadman" wrote
She didn't choose the car -- just the colour!
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Actually, it's made out of stars...
Wow - that's impressive!!! Dunno why, but I always need a hot plate to fry an egg...... :-)
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required