St_Fred wrote:sabik wrote:Sk25 wrote:St_Fred wrote:[...]wouldn't the whole "quantum uncertainty/Schrödinger's cat" issue affect [...]
[Yes] but until we see someone actually having sex they may or may not have it. [...]
The other problem is that it tends to end up with the girl a little bit pregnant.
Ah but with quantum uncertainty, the girl isn't pregnant until you test
Think that's what he meant... apropos - am I the only one who feel this would have been a much nicer, more realistic and much much more humane example to use for explaining the problem, instead of killing half a cat?
Although a bit unrelated - may I also point out: Heisenbergs uncertainty principle clearly states that you cannot exactly know how much the person you have sex with enjoys it AND how long your relationship to said person will last. Actually you might - the situation is a bit more complex than with particles - there is a possibility discussed you might be able to learn both facts, but if and only if you don't know the persons name.
neoliminal wrote:Katieesq wrote:80 times per year? I think I'm a couple standard deviations away from that mean.
Indeed, which way... and how on earth did you figure? As this is probably the value that incorporates the average over the whole lifetime, it should be really hard to estimate... until you're sure you've come sufficiently close to the end of your lifetime. (Which I feel makes the figure generally a very dubious one)
tentative wrote:[...] the calculation is dead wrong? [...]
No, it's not "wrong" it is a valid model, just not a very good one - and this just means that the standard deviation is so big as to make the result useless... which really surprises nobody and is probably the reason it wasn't mentioned.... and as such demonstrates the uselessness of statistics if taken to extremes, which was kind of the point (or one of them) of the comic.