oops... 5 5

[wombat]

On 4/23/2022 at 7:52 PM, Sigur Ros said:

 

You can blame the employer, sure.  Just like we do here.   But you still can't blame the product.

I have no idea what this means. 

[kav]

On 4/23/2022 at 4:58 PM, wombat said:

I have no idea what this means. 

I'm just thinking if an employer says we need x number of books graded per hour, and you know you cant do a great job with that workload, but you want to keep your job and feed your family, and the employer is ok with the results, its not your company-who are you to tell them how to do things?  How does the fault fall in your lap?

[Lord Gemini]

*deleted*

Edited April 24, 2022 by Lord Gemini

[Sigur Ros]

On 4/23/2022 at 7:55 PM, kav said:

So if you worked at a car shop and boss said I need this engine rebuilt in one hour and you couldnt do it-your fault?

Is this really the analogy you're going to use for mislabeled comic books...?! 

[kav]

On 4/23/2022 at 8:09 PM, Sigur Ros said:

Is this really the analogy you're going to use for mislabeled comic books...?! 

Sure.  Job that cant be done well in time allotted.  Fair analogy.
To be clear I have no idea what's going on at CGC I am just positing thoughts.

[Upgrayedd2]

On 4/21/2022 at 8:04 AM, Axe Elf said:

What insufficiently_thoughtful_person said that?

That would mean that everything possible is true, which is obvious nonsense.

Quantum physics says if the universe continues expanding for an infinite amount of time, everything is possible. Granted the probability (this is the key word) is so small that it will not happen on our lifetime and well after the sun has absorbed the planet earth.

[AJD]

On 4/23/2022 at 7:01 AM, Bluemedgroup said:

Who knows what the future brings though?

I mean there are people out there who say their only Superman is Christopher Reeves.  

Meanwhile all the people under the age of 25 are asking who is Christopher Reeves???

You misspelled 'George'.

[Axe Elf]

On 4/23/2022 at 10:28 PM, Upgrayedd2 said:

Quantum physics says if the universe continues expanding for an infinite amount of time, everything is possible.

This is incorrect.  In an infinite universe, everything possible will eventually happen, but even in an infinite universe, you can't draw a circle with corners or produce a married bachelor.  Just having a lot of time and space doesn't make the impossible possible.

[JC25427N]

On 4/24/2022 at 1:27 AM, Axe Elf said:

This is incorrect.  In an infinite universe, everything possible will eventually happen, but even in an infinite universe, you can't draw a circle with corners or produce a married bachelor.  Just having a lot of time and space doesn't make the impossible possible.

If given infinite time you could keep drawing squares in succession tilting the angle infinitesimally and you will eventually draw a circle by the process of creating a shape that has an infinite amount of corners 

 

wait this isn't the numberphile forums, my bad

Edited April 24, 2022 by JC25427N

[Axe Elf]

On 4/24/2022 at 12:38 AM, JC25427N said:

If given infinite time you could keep drawing squares in succession tilting the angle infinitesimally and you will eventually draw a circle by the process of creating a shape that has an infinite amount of corners 

Nonsense.  A circle has a specific definition--"a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center)."  It is therefore impossible for a circle to have corners.

[JC25427N]

[kav]

The universe is not actually infinite.  It is finite but unbounded.  

[Randall Dowling]

On 4/24/2022 at 12:41 AM, Axe Elf said:

On 4/24/2022 at 12:38 AM, JC25427N said:

If given infinite time you could keep drawing squares in succession tilting the angle infinitesimally and you will eventually draw a circle by the process of creating a shape that has an infinite amount of corners 

Nonsense.  A circle has a specific definition--"a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center)."  It is therefore impossible for a circle to have corners.

I'm not in here to get into this but if one took calculus, one would know that what @JC25427N is saying is precisely correct.  And so also is your definition of a circle.  Both things are true.

[wombat]

On 4/24/2022 at 4:26 PM, Randall Dowling said:

On 4/24/2022 at 1:41 AM, Axe Elf said:

On 4/24/2022 at 1:38 AM, JC25427N said:

If given infinite time you could keep drawing squares in succession tilting the angle infinitesimally and you will eventually draw a circle by the process of creating a shape that has an infinite amount of corners 

Nonsense.  A circle has a specific definition--"a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center)."  It is therefore impossible for a circle to have corners.

I'm not in here to get into this but if one took calculus, one would know that what @JC25427N is saying is precisely correct.  And so also is your definition of a circle.  Both things are true.

 

[Hamlet]

On 4/24/2022 at 3:26 PM, Randall Dowling said:

I'm not in here to get into this but if one took calculus, one would know that what @JC25427N is saying is precisely correct.  And so also is your definition of a circle.  Both things are true.

 

[kav]

On 4/24/2022 at 1:26 PM, Randall Dowling said:

I'm not in here to get into this but if one took calculus, one would know that what @JC25427N is saying is precisely correct.  And so also is your definition of a circle.  Both things are true.

In calculus and analytical geometry, a circle has infinite corners.
So the answer is yes, you can draw a circle with corners.  
You can also have a married bachelor, as different states have different laws on common law marriage.  Married in one state, bachelor in another.
To be more specific, such a person can stand at the state line between 2 states with different laws, one foot in one state, one foot in another.  He stands there, a married bachelor.
Some states, like California, will recognize a common law marriage from another state, but not all of them.

Edited April 24, 2022 by kav

[kav]

In the real world, every circle has a finite number of corners.  Imagine a circle drawn in gold, the line one atom thick.  Where each atom meets the adjacent atom, it meets at an angle-in effect a corner.  The angle is 179.9999999- to some number of finite digits degrees.

[ExNihilo]

On 4/23/2022 at 1:13 PM, Sigur Ros said:

On 4/23/2022 at 12:40 PM, kav said:

Imagine your job is examining cogs for defects.  You have a full plate examining 100 cogs a day.  Suddenly you are required to examine 200 cogs a day, in the same timeframe.  Due to the laws of spacetime physics, this means you will spend 1/2 the time examining each cog as you did before.  Less time examining cogs for defects means more defects slip through.

So the number of errors go up, according to your scenario, not the error rate as Gaard explained.  That is what you are saying. 

I understand that, and agree it's likely in some lines of work, but the responsibility falls on the employee making the errors. That is all I am saying. 

The issue with kav's example is that the time frame in which the job is to be completed remains the same.  What we're seeing with CGC is an increase in submissions, but also an increase in turnaround times.  Therefore, in theory, they're still directed to check "100 cogs a day".  Is there an internal desire or mandate to check more cogs?  Possibly, but we would see TAT times come back down then.  Thus far, there are still a number of people out there commenting about submissions from 2021 that are still with CGC (though we are seeing FastTrack submissions returned fairly quickly).

I know CGC announced a while back that they implemented some new internal mechanism that would help them get back on track, but I don't recall if the specifics were detailed.  Frankly, (this is pure speculation on my part) I believe they increased staff, but not all staff were trained up to previous standards, hence the errors being brought to light.  In essence, I think it's a combination of increased rate of errors (from new hires) and increased output (as a result from increased staffing).

[Axe Elf]

I think the amount of education needed here may exceed my ability to deliver it on a message board, but a circle can't be drawn in a line of ANY thickness.  As I defined it before, a circle is "a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center)."

Points.

They have no width.

It is therefore, and as previously explained, impossible for a circle to have corners--because a corner must be described by at least three points comprising an angle.  A circle cannot be comprised of angles.  Even if the points comprising the circle also exist as vertexes to angles (and they all exist as vertexes to an infinite number of them)--but the circle itself does not have corners.

And for @kav, I can only refer you to the fundamental logical law of non-contradiction:  a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time.

If you want to continue the conversation in the absence of logic, I'm afraid I will have to withdraw, as I am only versed in methods of rational thought.

[kav]

On 4/24/2022 at 2:38 PM, Axe Elf said:

I think the amount of education needed here may exceed my ability to deliver it on a message board, but a circle can't be drawn in a line of ANY thickness.  As I defined it before, a circle is "a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center)."

Points.

They have no width.

It is therefore, and as previously explained, impossible for a circle to have corners--because a corner must be described by at least three points comprising an angle.  A circle cannot be comprised of angles.  Even if the points comprising the circle also exist as vertexes to angles (and they all exist as vertexes to an infinite number of them)--but the circle itself does not have corners.

And for @kav, I can only refer you to the fundamental logical law of non-contradiction:  a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time.

If you want to continue the conversation in the absence of logic, I'm afraid I will have to withdraw, as I am only versed in methods of rational thought.

The main component of intelligence is being able to recognize and admit being wrong.  This is due to no learning is possible otherwise.  Most everyone will not be able to do this, and that is why most everyone's IQ is in the 100 range.  Your analysis of circles, both mathematical, and real, are incorrect.