-my body releasing carbon dioxide has nothing to do with what i breathe in.
-looks like i should've reworded. is successfully participated in every single soccer game. as in, i was on the field for at like a couple minutes playing in regulation high school time against an opponent.
-i said i was 100% in attendance. that means that 100% of the days i was physically in school. i haven't gone to the bathroom in school this whole year. we have gross bathrooms. i've been late to a class. but does that mean i wasn't at school? no. i was still on the campus.

no, describing what is success and what is failure does not manipulate data. describing success and failure defines how the data should be interpreted. you can fudge the interpretation of data, though. just look at the global warming crusade. Chlorofluorocarbons are used in refridgerants, destroy O₃ and are generally claimed to be a cause of global warming. you know what else is a large source of CFCs? Volcanoes. The actual data of how many CFCs are being released into the atmosphere cannot be manipulated. it's a straight fact. sure, you can lie about it. but the actual quantity won't change. the interpretation will.

fair enough, about the last point though.

no, describing what is success and what is failure does not manipulate data. describing success and failure defines how the data should be interpreted. you can fudge the interpretation of data, though. just look at the global warming crusade. Chlorofluorocarbons are used in refridgerants, destroy O₃ and are generally claimed to be a cause of global warming. you know what else is a large source of CFCs? Volcanoes. The actual data of how many CFCs are being released into the atmosphere cannot be manipulated. it's a straight fact. sure, you can lie about it. but the actual quantity won't change. the interpretation will.

"Success" and "failure" is defined by what the researcher is looking for, which CAN and WILL influence what data is collected--and how it is collected. I'm not talking about the dictionary definations of these words.

Quote from: nemo on December 12, 2010, 11:10:48 am

no, describing what is success and what is failure does not manipulate data. describing success and failure defines how the data should be interpreted. you can fudge the interpretation of data, though. just look at the global warming crusade. Chlorofluorocarbons are used in refridgerants, destroy O₃ and are generally claimed to be a cause of global warming. you know what else is a large source of CFCs? Volcanoes. The actual data of how many CFCs are being released into the atmosphere cannot be manipulated. it's a straight fact. sure, you can lie about it. but the actual quantity won't change. the interpretation will.

"Success" and "failure" is defined by what the researcher is looking for, which CAN and WILL influence what data is collected--and how it is collected. I'm not talking about the dictionary definations of these words.

you've just proven my point. a 100% success rate is possible because a researcher defines successes and failures. Thank you.

Also, i think Homer is right. in a finite set 100% success if very possible, and in an infinite set it is very difficult (not impossible). just try to comprehend how large the universe is and how many trillions of galaxies there must be and how many trillions of solar systems there are within each galaxy, with multiple planets in each. can you even begin to argue for impossibility when this is such an overwhelming huge universe?

I thought CFC meant Centucky Fried Chicken?

Quote
can you even begin to argue for impossibility when this is such an overwhelming huge universe?

Yes, P∨¬P. QED.

I googled this and didn't find anything

Could you supply a link.

What I said is not to say that it is impossible to have impossibilities () But that if you have nothing that disproves the theory or goes against what is to be 100% Then the probability is as stated. However if only one instance of that disproof manifests itself. In that particular case,, yes it is impossible to be 100%. Because you have something that prevents it from being 100%.

(I hope this makes some sort of sense. I'm not a good explainer of things)

Homer, what you quoted is actually a universal truth 

I've already edited my mistake, if you want to read it again.

The real impossibility is P∧¬P, given P∩¬P=∅. This basically says that if you have two events P and not P that are mutually exclusive*, then the occurrence of both of them is impossible.

*The condition isn't strictly necessary, but I'm sure that someone could come up with a situation in which you could have P∧¬P.

Ahh I see now. Thank you.