You miss 100% of the shots you don't take

[Porii Sames]

In the title, is this mathematially/philosophically true? I'd say no, because:

If you take no shots, then you can't miss a percent of any of them, because the number is 0, and you can't mathematically find the percent of 0.

Discuss.

[Kayle]

In the title, is this mathematially/philosophically true? I'd say no, because:

If you take no shots, then you can't miss a percent of any of them, because the number is 0, and you can't mathematically find the percent of 0.

Discuss.

What grade are you in, even? <_<" Did you like only recently learn/remember you can't divide by zero? There are ways to get around that, you know!

Sure, you can say "100% is philosophically false" and I'll just say "Fine, the saying is REALLY supposed to be, 'you miss all of the shots you don't take.'" And then that's completely true. You can't quantify "all" and "no", all you can do is make the simple true-false comparison: If you take no shots, did you miss any of them? Missing a shot is defined as NOT MAKING it, so did you make any of the shots (if you took no shots)?

No you didn't, so you missed them all.

[Porii Sames]

I'm in 9th grade, I just thought of the poster again today for the first time in a year.

I would say that missing a shot may not be defined as not making it. If you want to ask someone out, you run the risk of them saying no, which would ruin your shot. However, if you don't ask them out, you don't miss the shot because they didn't say no and you may never know whether or not they wanted to go out with you.

[Barkjon]

Of course you do, because you don't know how many shots you actually took. Assuming this is basketball, you could not shoot and assuming you did shoot you could have airballed them all.

I'm just confusing this matter worse though.

LOGICZ IZ HARD!

[Kayle]

I would say that missing a shot may not be defined as not making it. If you want to ask someone out, you run the risk of them saying no, which would ruin your shot. However, if you don't ask them out, you don't miss the shot because they didn't say no and you may never know whether or not they wanted to go out with you.

Then you're running into the problem that any philosophical statement can take, which is that someone who feels like being a troll can simply shift their paradigm out of its way.

If you define three different possibilities for a binary choice - YES, NO and N/A - then you're correct. But there's no point to doing that, because when someone asks you, they want the results of the situation. If you didn't take a shot, you DEFINITELY didn't make it. So by default you can't answer YES, you have to answer NO.

If you didn't take a shot, in that sense, you missed it.

[Porii Sames]

Of course you do, because you don't know how many shots you actually took. Assuming this is basketball, you could not shoot and assuming you did shoot you could have airballed them all.

I'm just confusing this matter worse though.

LOGICZ IZ HARD!

You could not shoot in this situation and give it to someone else/not shoot altogether risking the other team getting the upper hand.

@Kayla

If you try to ask someone out, it could be to simply get someone to go out with you for bragging rights (not me). If that fails and said person says no, then you missed the shot. If you never took the shot in the first place, you didn't miss the shot because you didn't lose anything.

CONFUSING.

[toxictaipan]

Porii Sames, is the glass half empty, or half full?

[Kayle]

If you try to ask someone out, it could be to simply get someone to go out with you for bragging rights (not me). If that fails and said person says no, then you missed the shot. If you never took the shot in the first place, you didn't miss the shot because you didn't lose anything.

You never lost anything, you just didn't gain something. If you don't try, you don't gain it, ergo you miss it.

[Jaeger]

If your looking at it from a mathematical perspective than you've already missed the point. Kind of to bad to because this is a great saying to live by...

[Porii Sames]

I know, and it is a good thing to live by.

It's just wrong.

[Kayle]

I know, and it is a good thing to live by.

It's just wrong.

babby's first troll! get the camera

[Porii Sames]

*sigh*

About here is where a. I get trolled b. this thread goes downhill c. both.

[toxictaipan]

Porri Sames, you never answered my question.

[Regis_Neo]

Logic is a lie. NON-BELIEVER!

[DJGigabyte]

If you look at this in a purely mathematical way:

What you need to do is divide 0 by 0, but dividing by 0 causes problems in maths.
So, algebra time!

Let 0 = x

Now we need to do x/x

A common rule in maths is that any time there is a fraction with the same number on the top and the bottom, the answer is always 1 (or 100%)

x/x= 1 therefore 0/0= 1 also.

So you do miss 100% of the shots you don't take.


And since we're ignoring the really meanings of things and looking at them in the wrong way:

toxictaipan- The glass is completely full. Even if only 50% of the glass contains a liquid, the other half is full of air. SCIENCE!

[toxictaipan]

And since we're ignoring the really meanings of things and looking at them in the wrong way:

toxictaipan- The glass is completely full. Even if only 50% of the glass contains a liquid, the other half is full of air. SCIENCE!
You stole my counter-troll! :mad:

[tehmoe]

its doesnt matter because none of this is real, im not real and neither are you.

[Jaeger]

its doesnt matter because none of this is real, im not real and neither are you.

You should have taken the blue pill

[Porii Sames]

If you look at this in a purely mathematical way:

What you need to do is divide 0 by 0, but dividing by 0 causes problems in maths.
So, algebra time!

Let 0 = x

Now we need to do x/x

A common rule in maths is that any time there is a fraction with the same number on the top and the bottom, the answer is always 1 (or 100%)

x/x= 1 therefore 0/0= 1 also.

So you do miss 100% of the shots you don't take.


And since we're ignoring the really meanings of things and looking at them in the wrong way:

toxictaipan- The glass is completely full. Even if only 50% of the glass contains a liquid, the other half is full of air. SCIENCE!

Um...

how does 0/0...=1...?

Isn't 0/0 irrational too?

[tehmoe]

You should have taken the blue pill

i mixed it with a red pill to balance it out

[DJGigabyte]

Um...

how does 0/0...=1...?

Isn't 0/0 irrational too?

It's complicated, and I'm not sure how to explain it.

But 0/0 is still 1, the same way that any number to the power of 0 is 1.

[NoPoke]

what's with the dividing by zero?? when you take a percentage you don't divide by zero, you multiply by a number between 0 and 1. Rearranging a formula to include a division by zero is likely to be invalid. [As an engineer I used to do this a lot, but then I understood the context so could make sure that the operation remained both mathematically and physically valid. If you blindly manipulate equations then you often get stupid answers]

100% = all. you miss all the shots you don't take.

miss = fail , shot = opportunity. You fail all the opportunities you don't take.

[FWIW 0/0 is undefined without further information: It might be 1 or some other number such as zero or the awkward case of infinity or even stay as undefined which will typically exclude that point from the domain for which the answer is provided.]

[gallade]

You could not shoot in this situation and give it to someone else/not shoot altogether risking the other team getting the upper hand.

@Kayla

If you try to ask someone out, it could be to simply get someone to go out with you for bragging rights (not me). If that fails and said person says no, then you missed the shot. If you never took the shot in the first place, you didn't miss the shot because you didn't lose anything.

CONFUSING.

Anyways, i really think it's true, you don't make any shots, do you?

[Kayle]

[FWIW 0/0 is undefined without further information: It might be 1 or some other number such as zero or the awkward case of infinity or even stay as undefined which will typically exclude that point from the domain for which the answer is provided.]

It can also be any number in between (the average speed between two points in time goes to 0/0 as the distance between those two points goes to zero, but you are obviously never moving 0/0 miles per hour). Calculus!

[yellowfire7]

To restate it, if you don't take any shots, then you miss 100% of those shots.

The total number of shots is zero. 100% of zero is zero.

So, if you don't take any shots, then you miss zero shots.

If you don't take any shots, then by definition you make none and miss none. The statement is true. In fact, any percentage of zero is zero, so any percentage would work. You miss 42% of the shots you don't take.

[LegendaryLugia]

If you don't take any shots, then by definition you make none and miss none. The statement is true. In fact, any percentage of zero is zero, so any percentage would work. You miss 42% of the shots you don't take.

Life. Don't talk to me about life.

[Kayle]

Life. Don't talk to me about life.

Oh wow, I didn't even notice... :rolleyes:

[Politoed666]

Somebody has this in their signature... who is it? :< It's bothering me. I just saw it.

[Benzo]

If you take a shot at trying to make reasonable sence in this subject without getting confused, you have a 100% fail rate to NOT succeed in getting the full 100% of getting anyone to agree that a shot not taking is even worth the attempt if you don't try in the first place.

So- if you take the shot, and miss, then you failed in the accomplishing department. Thus, if back at square one- you could debate for yourself to see if the goel is even acomplishable, if you take the 50%/50% of either trying or not trying at all.

so, I think that if you try with at least getting past the "what if" factors, you could go with at least a 100% attempt at getting a 100% fail result.

just get past the 50/50 of either doing it or not, THEN worry about the result. If you want results, you got to try. Don't try, and you have a 100% result in the first place.

[waynegg]

I know, and it is a good thing to live by.

It's just wrong.

"Miss" has many meanings. One is a young lady. Another, to fail to be on target. In this case it's used as a pun in the phrase and means to let go by. As one does nothing and allows opportunities to pass you have a quantitative something which is very much measurable as a percentage.

Example: 25 opportunities pass you by without seizing even one, you missed 100% of those 25.

[NoPoke]

@Pori, the phrase is not wrong, your rigid interpretation however is. Even worse is your insistance that your reinterpretation as a mathematical statement is correct and that alternatives are therefore wrong. You asked if the phrase was mathematically and or philosophically wrong. It is mathematically loose but that does not make it wrong.

zero is an important number in mathematics. It is really easy to mess up the use of zero. For example what is the factorial of zero? Try your calculator and see what it gives: many get it wrong.

---

Before you take your shots how many have you missed? If you are going to perform a calculation with that quantity how do you plan on representing that quantity?

How much is all of nothing?

[GameStoreGrump]

Let's look at one important word in this phrase "miss." By stating that you have missed something, implies that you had the chance to take it. So, this statement doesn't say there are none to take, just that you didn't take them. So the actual formula shouldn't be 0 / 0, but rather 0 / X, when X is the unknown amount of chances.

0 / X = 0 , so you hit 0% of the time, therefore you miss the inverse of this, which is 100% of the time.

[pokemon99]

"I miss 100% (Or all) Of the shots I don't take."

Explain how it is possible to not miss (Or Gain) on something you didn't do?

If I don't use the internet, how am I gaining information from it?

If I don't take a shot, how am I having a chance at making it?

Answer these please.

~P99

[Porii Sames]

Let's look at one important word in this phrase "miss." By stating that you have missed something, implies that you had the chance to take it. So, this statement doesn't say there are none to take, just that you didn't take them. So the actual formula shouldn't be 0 / 0, but rather 0 / X, when X is the unknown amount of chances.

0 / X = 0 , so you hit 0% of the time, therefore you miss the inverse of this, which is 100% of the time.

The inverse of 0/X is not 1 however. X/0 is infinite and irrational, which is my point here.

@P99

If you missed on something you may have gained something in the process, like character.

[z-man]

The inverse of 0/X is not 1 however. X/0 is infinite and irrational, which is my point here.

@P99

If you missed on something you may have gained something in the process, like character.
Why... does that matter? Mathematically, XP = Y when X is the number of tries you make and P is your success percentage. Y is the number of successes. Whenever you divide by a variable, you must always make the note (unless X = 0). For example, P = Y/X as long as X is not = to 0. When X = 0, P is unimportant. Y is going to be 0. We can say that when you take 0 tries, you make 42% of your tries... because 42% of 0 is 0. Missing 100% is the same as saying you make 0%. 0*0=0. Simple math... nothing to argue.

I must correct you in a few pointless points that you have made errors about. X/0 is neither infinite nor irrational. It is undefined. HUGE difference. When the inverse of any fraction is 1, that fraction must also be 1. I don't know why you're arguing that 0/X's inverse is not 1.

Also, at the thread, 0/0 is not 0 or 1. X/X is 1, and 0/X is 0, but that is assuming that X is not zero. You cannot divide by zero ever. If you plug in 0 for the X in the numerator and then substitute, you'll end up getting 0=1. Just fyi ;) Ever notice how whenever you have a variable in a denominator, you must make an exception for it? That is why.

EDIT: I see why you got confused about the inverse. The word he was looking for something along the lines of alternative. In probability, if you have two events which are defined as A and not A, to find not A when you have A, you use 1-P(A) when P(A) is the probability of A. Inverse has very little to do with this. Using an inverse with fractions and probability will give you a P>1 or confusion. 1-0=1, so because you hit 0% of the shots, you do not hit 100% of the shots.

[yoyofsho16]

...why is this a thread?
If you don't attempt something, you obviously can't accomplish it.
YOU added the 100% part. This has nothing to do with math.

Hahahaha at anyone who said 0/0 = 1

[pokemon99]

It is though. 0 goes into 0 1 time. (and 0, and 100000, and 9999999999)

[GameStoreGrump]

The inverse of 0/X is not 1 however. X/0 is infinite and irrational, which is my point here.

@P99

If you missed on something you may have gained something in the process, like character.

Sorry, let me rephrase. As z-man pointed out, I should have said:

The Probability of Event Y is P(Y) = 0 / X.
The Probability of Not Event Y is P(not Y). *Instead of inverse
P(not Y) = (1 - P(Y)).
P(not Y) = (1 - (0 / X))
P(not Y) = (1 - 0)
P(not Y) = (1) = 100%

Source (http://www.wtamu.edu/academic/anns/mps/math/mathlab/col_algebra/col_alg_tut58_prob.htm). Property 2 of Probabilities.

[skovtrold]

Usually, when I do shots, I pour them straight down my throat, but the later in the evening it gets, the more shots I miss..