# Maelin & Pit math educate the MUD 2016-01-25

From Discworld MUD Wiki

Maelin and Pit educate the MUD on math. This references a previous talker discussion in 2010.

(One) Deprae wisps: the one verb I didn't try. thank you much (One) QUiyan wisps: "October 23 is called Mole Day." (One) QUiyan wisps: okayyy (One) Deprae wisps: woohoo, must be a good day for witches ;) (One) QUiyan wisps: "It is an informal holiday in honor of the unit among chemists. The date is derived from Avogadro's constant, which is approximately 6.022×1023. It starts at 6:02 a.m. and ends at 6:02 p.m." (One) QUiyan wisps: witches have warts not moles (One) QUiyan wisps: moles have moles :P (One) Sycorax wisps: Uh, one of the stranger things I've heard upon logging in (One) QUiyan wisps: were you expecting moles to have eaglets?! :p (One) QUiyan wisps: "[Reality leaves Discworld]" (One) QUiyan wisps: okay, moles have eaglets (One) Sycorax wisps: Do they have aglets too? (One) QUiyan wisps: yes (One) Sycorax wisps: You had to look that up, didn't you? (One) QUiyan wisps: since Reality left, no, not really :P (One) QUiyan wisps: they can have whatever they wanna have :P (One) Sycorax wisps: It's the little metal bits they put on the ends of shoelaces to stop them from fraying (One) Epic wisps: what's up with my office. It'as laready lunch time and noone came magically around to offer me to bring some food. :( (One) Epic wisps: also my spelling is weird today. (One) Maelin wisps: I don't think a mole counts as a unit, I think it's just a number. (One) Asha wisps: or a mammal (One) Sycorax wisps: It's a unit, except it's usually abbreviated to mol (One) Maelin wisps: It's not a unit of anything, though. It's literally just the number 6.022x10^23. (One) Dacrian wisps: yes. What designates something as a unit thiugh? (One) Dacrian wisps: *though (One) Asha wisps: scientists (One) Asha wisps: or those people that own the metre and the kilogram (One) Maelin wisps: Wikipedia's first sentence on 'units of measurement' says "A unit of measurement is a definite magnitude of a physical quantity, defined and adopted by convention or by law, that is used as a standard for measurement of the same physical quantity." which I think captures it reasonably. (One) Dacrian wisps: a mole is a unit of measurement though (One) QUiyan wisps: HAI MAELIN (One) Maelin wisps: It doesn't feel like one, but then again, "The mole is a unit of measurement for amount of substance." so I guess I'm wrong. (One) Dacrian wisps: a mole is a defined number of atoms (One) Exome wisps: Anyone know what this means? "Elurium destero Eluriem destrato." I have no idea what language it is in, if any. Found it next to a sketch on my desk. (One) Zeek wisps: avocados number. :) (One) QUiyan wisps: Maelin, I read a log containing an argument you had regarding PROBABILITY (One) Dacrian wisps: 1 mole of hydrogen atoms weighs 1g, 1 mole of carbon atoms weighs 12g, but they have the same number of atoms (One) Taffyd wisps: was it about goats (One) Taffyd wisps that he checks behind Quiyan's door. (One) Sycorax wisps: Avogadro. Avacado number is how many you can eat before diarrhoea sets in (One) QUiyan wisps: i think at some point you started arguing against your preferred calculation method or something :P (One) Maelin wisps: Dacrian: Yeah but it's just a number. We can talk about how many grams a dozen carbon atoms weighs. (One) Maelin wisps: Why does "mole" get to be considered a unit where "dozen" and "hundred" are not? (One) Maelin wisps: Quip: what was the argument? (One) Dacrian wisps: a metre is just a number (One) QUiyan wisps: Maelin, I'm not sure i wanna open that can of worms :P (One) Dacrian wisps: the answer is "because" (One) Maelin wisps: Dacrian: No it isn't. A meter is a specific defined *length*. (One) QUiyan wisps: well a mole is 6.02 x 10^23, and 2 moles is 2 x 6.02 x 10^23, and 3 moles is ... (One) QUiyan wisps: and one dozen is 12, and 2 dozens is 2 x 12 and 3 dozen is... (One) Maelin wisps: When you say "this rope is one meter" versus "this rope is one kilogram", the fact that you said "meter" communicates information about what property of the rod you are describing. (One) QUiyan wisps: look this was decided way back in history when they REALLY LIKED AVOGADRO okay? :p (One) Epic wisps: I like avocado (One) Epic wisps: on bread. in salad... (One) QUiyan wisps: i like avocado too (One) Sycorax wisps: Pity it's expensive (One) Maelin wisps: Actually re-reading the wikipedia article I guess it's because the word 'mole' *inherently* communicates that we are counting what WP terms 'elementary entities', i.e. atoms, molecules, etc. (One) Epic wisps: we should talk about mole. the chocolate spicy sauce... (One) Taffyd wisps: like a hogshead (One) Asha wisps: avocado's number is an accurate measurement of a number that is not as high as you would like (One) Epic wisps: it goes well with avocados. (One) QUiyan wisps: http://bit.ly/1SelO6g (One) Dilitrio wisps: Hmm. Maybe I should have avocado for dinner. (One) Dilitrio wisps: Totally. (One) Dilitrio wisps: Eggs benedict royale with lemon-dressed rocket and avocado on the side. (One) Maelin wisps: Anyway Quip at least link the log (One) Maelin wisps: Don't just be like, "hey maelin I read an interesting thing you said the other day, but I won't tell you what it was, anyway that's all" (One) Epic wisps: don't make me hungry. :( (One) Epic wisps: not when noone is bringing me food. (One) Epic wisps: I got spoiled, now don't ruing my expectations. :( (One) Epic wisps: *ruin (One) Maelin wisps: Did you guys see this story about how Amazon gave away this guy's private details to an attacker three times: http://bit.ly/1OJfT6V (One) QUiyan wisps: i can't find it now, maelin :P (One) Maelin wisps: Well for god's sake tell us something about it beyond the fact that you read it (One) QUiyan wisps: ummm :P (One) Sycorax wisps: Wow, they really blew that (One) QUiyan wisps: a family had this daughter, they have 2 children, what is the chance they had 2 girls (One) QUiyan wisps: there, Pandora's box is open. :P (One) Maelin wisps: Oh thaaaat one. (One) Dacrian wisps: 50% (One) QUiyan wisps: ruuuuuuuuun :P (One) Dacrian wisps: go! (One) Epic wisps: it depends. (One) QUiyan wisps: Pandora's box *really& is open now :O (One) Epic wisps: and there you see the difference between quantitative and qualitative research as shown by Dacrian and me. (One) Zeek wisps: 'had' ? (One) Tayle wisps: C (One) QUiyan wisps: okay okay HAVE 2 girls. 2 daughters, not including mom, OKAY (One) Maelin wisps: Well I think I now have the skill to understand the problem better. It depends on your prior for how the family was selected. (One) QUiyan wisps: i really oughta start regretting this wayy earlier :P (One) QUiyan wisps that she hides :P (One) QUiyan wisps: no don't start, Maelin, i'll find the link and you can relive it and avoid bombing (One) :P (One) Maelin wisps: I found the link already I think. (One) Maelin wisps: It also includes a hilarious joke from me which I will now retell verbatim! (One) Maelin wisps: There were two cats, an English one called One Two Three, and a French one called Un Deux Trois. They decided to have a race to cross the English channel. Which cat was the winner? (One) Maelin wisps: A: One Two Three. Because Un Deux Trois quatre cinq. (One) Tayle wisps: The English one because the French one got held up by rioting asylum seekers? (One) Kruuk wisps that he chuckles (One) QUiyan wisps: the French one "quatre" SINKS (One) QUiyan wisps: argh (One) Ukhata wisps: i dont get it... (One) Kruuk wisps: cinq =~ sank (One) Maelin wisps: Also whoever made this log doesn't know how to put their talker into brief mode, what a buffoon. (One) Kruuk wisps: i.e the french cat sank to the bottom of the channel (One) QUiyan wisps: i don't speak french, i see "sinks" :P (One) Ukhata wisps: what avbout the "quatre" in there? (One) Ukhata wisps: i mean, for me it just says 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in french.. (One) QUiyan wisps: "squat and sank" (One) Kruuk wisps: it's pronounced catre (One) Ukhata wisps: i know.. (One) QUiyan wisps that she butchers it :P (One) Kruuk wisps that he sighs (One) Ukhata wisps: catre sink? is it supposed ot be like cat sinks? (One) Maelin wisps: 'Un deux trois' is French for one two three. 'quatre' is French for four and it sounds like the English word 'cat', and 'cinq' is French for 'five' and it sounds like the English word 'sank'. (One) Kruuk wisps: it's a pune or play on words (One) Ukhata wisps: youve onviously havent heard it pronounced properly before if thats what you think it sounds like :P (One) QUiyan wisps: isn't it terrible having to ECKSPLANE the joke like that :P (One) Ukhata wisps: sorry :( it just doesnt like that to me :( (One) Tayle wisps: Even if the french word for 4 sounds like a sinking cat I don't see how it's even relevant to the question (One) Maelin wisps: So "un deux trois quatre cinq" is French for "one two three four five" but it sounds like "because Un Deux Trois cat sank". (One) Tayle wisps: Oh, I get it, this is a joke that only works if you also give the answer. (One) Ukhata wisps: and if you dont speak french :P (One) Maelin wisps: Most jokes only work if you also give the answer. (One) Kruuk wisps: and here is a corgiepiller navigating in snow: https://i.imgur.com/gLGhZ6X.gif (One) QUiyan wisps that she applauds Kruuk for posting something she can understand :P (One) Kruuk wisps that he bows (One) Kruuk wisps: damnit, I really don't want to be at work today, I just had 5 days off for my birthday... I was really enjoying not being in the office. (One) Sancti wisps: You were born over 5 days? (One) Ukhata wisps: http://i.imgur.com/NScgzts.gifv (One) Kruuk wisps: Yes (One) Sancti wisps: And I thought my labour experience was bad! (One) Sancti wisps that she offers commiserations to Kruuk's mother. (One) Kruuk wisps: I take my birthday drinking very seriously (One) Ukhata wisps: i bet yer mom did too (One) Kruuk wisps: I imagine so, she doesn't really talk about it (One) Kruuk wisps: probably trying to forget (One) Ukhata wisps: giving birth over 5 days... sheesh, i think shed need a barrel of whiskey to get through that.. (One) Ukhata wisps: to to forget it (One) Ukhata wisps: or* (One) Kruuk wisps: for the record I wasn't actually born over a period of 5 days. I just always take about a week off work for my birthday every year. (One) Ukhata wisps: aaaah :P (One) Ukhata wisps: im soon going to change jobs, well, not jobs as such, change employer. samde job. i just hope i can take up my standing free days before i start at the new place. (One) Ukhata wisps: i can use a vacation.. (One) Kruuk wisps: smoke 'em while you got 'em (One) Maelin wisps: Wow, it is really interesting how bad I was at explaining this five and a half years ago. (One) Martinez wisps: hmm? (One) Ukhata wisps: this still about the joke? (One) Maelin wisps: Quip mentioned she'd read a log of me arguing about a mathematical conundrum. I googled the log and am re-reading it. (One) Maelin wisps: I was just *terrible* at communicating this stuff. (One) Pit wisps: What was the mathematical conundrum? Was it the 9.99999... thing? (One) Sycorax wisps: How do you know you're actually better now, though? (One) Maelin wisps: No it's this one, and I'm just going to quote Hurukan exactly: "The Johnson family has two children. Their daughter Susan works for IBM. What are the chances that both of their children are daughters?" (One) Tayle wisps: So is it 50%? :P (One) Ukhata wisps: theoreticly 50% (One) Maelin wisps: Sycorax: I mean I don't *know* but I have strong reason to believe. I work as a maths teacher, so I spend a lot of time thinking about 'where does that person misunderstand this thing, and what do I need to say to correct the misunderstanding' (One) Maelin wisps: Now, at the time Hurukan would have told Tayle and Ukhata that they were wrong, and tried to claim that the correct answer is 33%. (One) Feyfi wisps: one third! (One) Feyfi wisps: aw (One) Ukhata wisps: that implies a 3rd option :P (One) Sycorax wisps: I don't know how much programming you know, but you reminded me of this: http://bit.ly/1SepK72 (One) Ukhata wisps: girl/girl and girl/boy whats the 3rd option? (One) Feyfi wisps: girl/boy and boy/girl are separate options (One) Maelin wisps: The **actual** correct answer is this: it depends on your assumptions about how the family was selected, and there is not enough information given in the statement of the conundrum for you to determine which possible assumptions are the correct one. (One) Ukhata wisps: that would be girl/girl and girl/girl seperate options as well, falling back tp 50% (One) Maelin wisps: Or in other words the conundrum statement is ambiguous (but in a very subtle way that is hard to spot) and there are several very reasonable but different assumptions you could make about what it means, and depending on which assumption you choose your answer would be 50% or 33%. (One) Sycorax wisps: Do you teach primary school or high school? (One) Maelin wisps: Senior high school maths, Sycorax. (One) Ukhata wisps: i see no way it could be 33%... (One) Sycorax wisps: Yeah, that's a job where explaining concepts very very well is so important (One) Maelin wisps: Okay so I'll describe how you could select a family in such a way that 33% would be the correct answer, Ukhata. (One) Ukhata wisps: please do (One) Zeek wisps: two children, one's a girl, what's the chance the other's a girl? That's all there is to it, right? (One) Maelin wisps: Here's what you do. You get a bunch of families all with two children. (One) Sycorax wisps: I had a maths teacher who did a terrible job at explaining the standard deviation. I had to go for extra classes (One) Tayle wisps: Okay, I have a problem with this method already. (One) Ukhata wisps: me too, but okay (One) Ukhata wisps: let him explain first (One) Passerin wisps: The obvious one, I hope. (One) Tayle wisps: The original question was only considering one family and so I considered that family in a complete vacuum. (One) Maelin wisps: There are four possible ways that the children can come out in a family: GG, GB, BG, BB. So half of all the families are one boy and one girl, one quarter of the families are two boys, one quarter are two girls. (One) Sycorax wisps: I think the world would be a more rational place if kids did more probability. Even adults mess it up badly (One) Maelin wisps: Now you discard all the families that are BB (25% of the families). And select a random family from all the families that are left. (One) Ukhata wisps: this is a way to view it, but its a wrong way :) (One) Passerin wisps: And then on the other hand, tomorrow is Australia Day, aka 'decide what you want that thing to mean and argue about it with other adults' day. (One) Maelin wisps: Of the remaining families, *two thirds* will be one boy and one girl - that's one third with an older girl and a younger boy, and one third with an older boy and a younger girl, and the remaining third will be families with two girls. (One) Passerin wisps: with an undertone of 'everyone eho doesn't agree with you is unAustrailan'. (One) Ukhata wisps: because then you cant just cut 25 % of the 4 options and call it 1/3... (One) Pit wisps: Why not, when you already know that those 25% are not applicable Ukhata? (One) Tayle wisps: Glad I generally don't spend Australia Day with people who take it that seriously. Benefit of being an immigrant, I suppose ;) (One) Pit wisps: Unless you believe that "their daughter Susan" refers to a boy? (One) Ukhata wisps: like i said eealier, if BG and GB are 2 options, then GG and GG are both seperate options as well.... (One) Pit wisps: That's the other way of viewing it, I'm sure. (One) Ukhata wisps: older son, younger sister, and vice versa. then older dughter ands younger duaghter and vice versa both exist as wel... (One) Maelin wisps: Ukhata: The point is that someone could actually do this, and then they could describe a situation using exactly the words of the conundrum, and that *if that is how they produced the conundrum scenario* the probability of two girls is 33%. (One) Ukhata wisps: okay, i can see how someone could do it wrongly like that. i meant i could see no way that it actuallty IS 33% chance.. (One) Passerin wisps that he is slightly afraid to confess to having completely lost track of the argument. (One) Maelin wisps: How is that 'doing it wrongly'? (One) Ukhata wisps: because you cannot stripe an option out and then see the other 2 options seperately, when in fact they are the same.. (One) Maelin wisps: They generated a probability distribution and then described the scenario and they did not lie or say anything false in their description whatsoever, and the correct answer, in the distribution they generated, is 33%. (One) Pit wisps: Okay Ukhata, how about this reformulation: I have 100 families of two children. I select a random family to accompany me. Given that this family has a daughter called Susan, what's the chance that they have two daughters? (One) Ukhata wisps: one variable has bee set, the other vriable doesnt gain more chance/options (One) Pit wisps: If you answer 50%, I can guarantee you that a simple experiment will prove you wrong. (One) Ukhata wisps: but why are GB and BG seperate options? (One) Passerin wisps: Well, it sort of does, Ukhata; because the more variables you give us, the more human that hypothetical family becomes. (One) Tayle wisps: I think that would only be correct if you stated the assumptions you made. Because in the universe the family in the question lives, they might be the only family that exists, and there would only be a sample size of one so you can't do statistics. (One) Zeek wisps: The other sibling is either a boy or a girl, 50% easy. (One) Maelin wisps: Ukhata: Because families with one boy and one girl are twice as common as families with two girls. (One) Passerin wisps: Which is entirely unscientific, but hey, not everything in the world is ruled by science. (One) Maelin wisps: You don't *need* to count BG and GB separately, if you can recognise that the two different categories (mixed gender family vs both daughters family) are not equally likely. (One) Pit wisps: You can also say "Given that the oldest child of this family is a girl, what's the chance that both are girls?" (One) Pit wisps: This one is obviously 50%. (One) Ukhata wisps: off course they are, but the question wasnt what is the chance this here family out of millions has 2 girls. the question was: the Johnson family has two children. Their daughter Susan works for IBM. What are the chances that both of their children are daughters? (One) Passerin wisps that he would assume so. (One) Pit wisps: But then you say "Given that the oldest OR the youngest child of this family is a girl, what's the chance that both are girls?" (One) Ukhata wisps: that is 50% (One) Maelin wisps: Ukhata have you ever seen the Monty Hall Problem? (One) Ukhata wisps: mebbe (One) Ukhata wisps: yes (One) Sycorax wisps that she groans. (One) Ukhata wisps: and i get that one (One) Maelin wisps: So there's a common mistake that people make with the MHP which is that they assume that because they can divide the set of possible outcomes into N groups, that each group has a 1/N probability of occurring. (One) Passerin wisps: Yep, you've lost me. (One) Passerin wisps: Not that that matters - as an inebriated scholar in the languages and humanities I can neither prove nor disprove your point. (One) Passerin wisps: whatever it is. (One) Passerin wisps: something involving numbers. (One) Maelin wisps: So if you believe that the Johnsons were chosen using this decision process: [Select a family that has at least one daughter, choose a daughter, and give the name/occupation of that daughter], then the correct answer is 33%, because only one third of all the two-child families that have at least one daughter, actually have two daughters. If you, instead, believe that the Johnsons were chosen using this decision process: [Select a family, choose one child, and give the name/occupation of that child] then the correct answer is 50%, because ONE HALF of all two-child families have both children of the same gender. (One) Tayle wisps: What happens if I don't believe that? (One) Maelin wisps: Then you can get pretty much any answer, Tayle, but you should have a justification for your weird prior probability distributino. :) (One) Tayle wisps: Cool :) (One) Tayle wisps that she believes the family is actually a race of all-female lizard people and thus the answer is 100%. (One) Tetrikitty wisps: so what do you think the odds are of each choice? then you can average it out (One) Sycorax wisps: I think the problem might be easier if rephrased to use, say, fruit instead of people (One) Passerin wisps that he doesn't understand how one-third of two-child families with at least one daughter have two daughters. Why's that one 33% instead of 50%? (One) Ukhata wisps: i was purely looking at the non commited variable. and that variable has 50% chance of being one or the other. (One) Passerin wisps that he feels like he's missing something very obvious. (One) Pit wisps: So, Ukhata, in my formulation... would you say 50%? (One) Maelin wisps: Passering: Imagine a hundred people flip two coins each. About 25 of those people will get HH, about 25 will get HT, about 25 will get TH, and about 25 will get TT. Do you agree so far? (One) Tetrikitty wisps: if you have 50% of a boy or a girl, then with two children you get a quartered square graph thing BB, BG, GB, GG (One) Ukhata wisps: yes pit, 50% (One) Pit wisps: Then, your notion of probability bears no relevance whatsoever to reality. (One) Passerin wisps: Granted; but we're excluding (say) the 25% who have HH and only looking at any one who has a T. (One) Maelin wisps: Passerin: Okay. So you agree that 75 people got at least one tail. Of the people who got at least one tail, how many got *two* tails? (One) Pit wisps: Because if we did that experiment a thousand times, only about 333 of those we'd get two daughtesr. (One) Tetrikitty wisps: though, according to the Intersex Society of North America, 1% of all babies are neither a boy nor a girl (One) Sancti wisps: I look away for a second and (One) turns into School of Hard Sums. (One) Zeek wisps: right Tetrikitty, but you already know one girl works at IBM which rules out one of the BG, I reckon. (One) Ukhata wisps: im not saying im right. im saying that i purely look at the chance of the unset variable. it has no bearing me on my way of thinking what gender the first child has. it is simply a 50% chance on what gender the 2nd child has. (One) Pit wisps: Which two variables? (One) Passerin wisps that he plays the game of losing connection, which always adds a fun extra variable. (One) Pit wisps: How do you define "first child" and "second child"? (One) Maelin wisps: Check talker history Passerin, it's still all there! :) (One) Pit wisps: Because if it's eldest and youngest, the information that one of them is a girl tells you nothing. (One) Ukhata wisps: the unset variable here is the 2nd, the set viable being the first. (One) Passerin wisps that he did, obviously, but my brain is booze-fogged and literary, so numbers take a while to sink in. :) (One) Pit wisps: If you're going to do a probability calculation, you have to assign your variables *beforehand*. (One) Pit wisps: You can't say "the girl is variable 1, the other one is variable 2". (One) Passerin wisps: yep. It still evens itself out. (One) Ukhata wisps: i can, and i did (One) Passerin wisps: You just don't know which is which. (One) Ukhata wisps: cuz it doesnt matter to my think pattern (One) Maelin wisps: Passerin: So out of the 75 people who got *at least one tail*, only 25 of them got *both* tails. 25 / 75 = 33%. :) (One) Pit wisps: That's fine then. You just get a notion of probability which bears no relevance to reality, so which is quite useless! (One) Passerin wisps: I don't know. That's numbers. I just know logic. :) (One) Maelin wisps: Similarly, only 33% of the two-child families that have at least one daughter actually have both daughters. (One) Passerin wisps: If you have a family with one daughter, and there's another child, that child has 50% chance of being male (or female) (One) Passerin wisps: Or rather, 49%, allowing for various intersex/fluidity of genders. (One) Regos wisps: Actually the chance of a boy is slightly higher than 50% (One) Dacrian wisps: I got two of each (One) Passerin wisps: Slightly lower, according to the statistics that I know; but this may varyfrom place to place. (One) Maelin wisps: For our purposes we are assuming that all children are unambiguously male or female and every child at birth has an exactly 50% chance each way. (One) Ukhata wisps: what Passerin said is how i view it as well (One) Maelin wisps: Passerin: and to your question, it depends, again, on the prior probability, or in other words, how you selected the family with one daughter. (One) Regos wisps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IaYhG11ckA MinuteEarth Why Do We Have More Boys Than Girls? (One) Passerin wisps that he selected all of them. Because I have the grandest finesse. (One) Ukhata wisps: family with daughter, chances that other child is a girl (One) Dacrian wisps: because girls have cooties? (One) Tetrikitty wisps: cue derail (One) Passerin wisps: HOW DARE YOU SI (One) Passerin wisps: +R (One) Dacrian wisps: don't you touch me (One) Passerin wisps that he looks for a sword to draw. (One) Regos wisps: is there a command that you can use to push someone to some other room? Other than killing them and dragging their corpse? (One) Passerin wisps: (But I suspect the point is that Maelin is starting from a different point of supposition to the rest of us!) (One) Pit wisps: No, Maelin is explaining that there are, in fact, different points of supposition. (One) Tetrikitty wisps: you can use Fear, Horror, Agoraphobia, beesargh or Sorsalsean's Seismic Eruption, but these don't control which direction they move in (One) Pit wisps: Select every single two-children family in the world, which has at least one daughter. (One) Maelin wisps: The probability that a randomly selected girl with one sibling has a sister is 33%. The probability that a randomly selected *child* with one sibling has a sister is 50%. So the question is, did you randomly select a girl from all the girls, or did you randomly select a child and it just happens that you selected a girl? (One) Ukhata wisps: i understand pit, that out of a 100 different different families, only 25% have 2 daughters. and if you cut out any 2 boys, 33% will have 2 girls left from the left over 75 families. im aware of this. but in this case, i purely looked at the chances of the unknown child being a boy or a girl seperate from the rest of the facts. and that chance is 50%. (One) Pit wisps: How many of them will have 2 daughters? (One) Passerin wisps that he doesn't understand how the sex of child #1 has any bearing on the sex of child #2. (One) Maelin wisps: You can't 'purely look at the chances separate from the rest of the facts', Ukhata. You made a choice about what assumptions to make about the probability distribution. The fact that you are unable to see that you made that choice, because the choice was subtle, and the fact that you are unable to see that other choices are just as valid, because *your* choice seems like "the obvious one", does not make those facts not so. (One) Passerin wisps that he grants that Maelin is more of a statistics person than I am, and therfore am trying to understand what is his point of departure here. (One) Maelin wisps: Passerin: Because probability is in the map, not in the territory. (One) Maelin wisps: Which is to say, probability is a way that you can quantify *your own uncertaint*. It is not a fact about the universe, it's a fact about your mind. (One) Passerin wisps: I'm drunk. Make it fact, not metaphor? ;) (One) Ukhata wisps: which comes down to, is your question based on large amounts of data, or just this one unknown child's chances of being one or the other. (One) Maelin wisps: When you learn things, that changes your probability estimates. (One) Passerin wisps: Yes, yes, I know my mind, I'm trying to understand yours. (One) Zeek wisps: If you didn't know that the sibling who worked at IBM was a girl, then I could see it would be 33%. (One) Tetrikitty wisps: passerin: it's like... you mix 1 part Choco Pops, 1 part oatmeal and 1 part Honey Stars. and then you go through and pick out the oatmeal. this doesn't affect the amount of the other two, but their relative proportion of the whole goes up (One) Maelin wisps: Sorry I don't mean that as a 'it's just your own view' kind of thing, I'm making a deep and important point about *what probability is*. Probabilities are subjective. They depend on your state of knowledge. (One) Ukhata wisps: basis of data (One) Ukhata wisps: and* (One) Tetrikitty wisps that she might be hungry (One) Passerin wisps: ah, so I am incapable of understanding then and there is no point in explaining what you're actually talking about? :) (One) Maelin wisps: No no (One) Pit wisps: I get an itch to set up some experiments. :P (One) Zeek wisps: remember in the monty hall problem the three doors are closed, then he reveals one of them, whereas with this sibling one the reveal is at the beginning. (One) Ukhata wisps: let me say it like this, i read the question as "the johnsons have a daughter, mother gives birth to a 2nd child, what is the chance the 2nd kid is a girl" basicly. (One) Passerin wisps: Yes. Which is 50/50. (One) Passerin wisps that he doesn't see where the 30% comes in. (One) Pit wisps: Aaaaaah, but then the gender of the *eldest* child is given. (One) Passerin wisps: 33%. (One) Pit wisps: And then you can set beforehand X0 = gender of eldest child, X1 = gender of youngest child. (One) Maelin wisps: Seriously Passerin? We just did that :P (One) Ukhata wisps: not so much the birth sequence, but the question as what facts are known and how. (One) Passerin wisps: No, we never did. I asked for it and you never answered. (One) Pit wisps: That's completely different from saying "they have a child" which is "gender of <most female of X0 and X1>". (One) Maelin wisps: It's 33% because one third of (the families with at least one daughter) are actually (families with two daughters). (One) Denzil wisps: Is this like the "A Bat and Ball costs $110, the Bat costs $100 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost" question? :p (One) Passerin wisps: urgh, it's half eleven. I'm going to bed. have fun! (One) Maelin wisps: That was that whole thing with the coin flips, did you forget already? :P (One) Passerin wisps: and that makes no sense. which is what I was asking you to explain. (One) Ukhata wisps: for me the youngest could have been a girl, and then what are the chance the eldest was born as a girl is still 50% to me :) (One) Pit wisps: Yes, true. (One) Pit wisps: But what if <most female of eldest/youngest> is a girl? (One) Ukhata wisps: i just set the known daughter as being either the eldest OR the youngest. not both or either (One) Kruuk wisps: you'd want to know a number of factors such as diet and alchool intake as well because they can have some effect on gender (One) Kruuk wisps: alcohol* (One) Ukhata wisps: i took both options seperately, compred the chance of the other kid being born boy or girl. deemed that chance to 50% in both cases, voila 50% (One) Synth wisps: Anyone play Dota 2? (One) Maelin wisps: Ukhata, do you agree with this statement: Out of all the girls who have exactly one sibling, 33% of them have a sister. (One) Pit wisps: Right. So, we're back at Maelin's point: you can see the problem in two ways. (One) Ukhata wisps: yes (One) Synth wisps: my gl is 322. heh (One) Maelin wisps: Right. And do you agree with this statement: Out of all the families with two children, each child has a 50% probability of being a girl. (One) Ukhata wisps: i can see that out of all the firls with 1 sibling, 66% most will have a brother (One) Ukhata wisps: yes, that is true. but again. i wasnt basing my idea on a million data points. :) (One) Maelin wisps: It doesn't matter, the large numbers thing is just a slightly more intuitive way to access the probability. (One) Maelin wisps: The fact that the answers 33% and 50% are *both valid* comes from the fact that a person might choose to interpret the conundrum in a way that boils down to the second statement (50%), which is what you did, OR ALTERNATIVELY that a person might choose to interpret the conundrum in a way that boils down to the first statement (33%). And there is not enough information in the conundrum itself to tell you which of those two interpretations you *should* use. (One) Ukhata wisps: just ask the question properly then :P (One) Pit wisps: Ukhata: you said right at the start that you didn't see any way for it to be 33%. (One) Pit wisps: While Maelin *said* that it could be both. (One) Maelin wisps: But now, I think, he does, so... success! :D (One) Ukhata wisps: i still dont see how that chances can be 33%. the probablity however... (One) Pit wisps: The point wasn't to convince you that the correct answer was 33%. Just that there was a way of reading the question so it would be 33%. (One) Maelin wisps: Chances are the same thing as probability. (One) Maelin wisps: People who claim that they are different don't know what they're talking about :P (One) Ukhata wisps: in which case i probably (:P) dont :P (One) Ukhata wisps: its a million to chance, but it just might work ^_^ (One) Ukhata wisps: nah, i give over. i see your point of view. (One) Maelin wisps: AT ANY RATE, I would like to thank everyone for participating in the Susan Johnson Argument Redux, especially my esteemed colleague Pit who was also with us way back for the original in 2010. (One) Pit wisps that he giggles. (One) Pit wisps: I was on the 33% side at the time, wasn't i? (One) Pit wisps: I* (One) Sycorax wisps: Are you going to record this and revisit it in another five years' time? (One) Denzil wisps: Same time in 2021? (One) Maelin wisps: On a personal note I am very satisfied that I felt like I explained with far greater clarity than the first time, and though I clearly still have some ways to go, I am gratified to notice the improvements I've made so far. (One) Maelin wisps: Last time I think you were just sniping from the sidelines while I got way too worked up at Julnar. (One) Denzil wisps: That does sound like Pit (One) Pit wisps: Now that that's over with, let's revisit 0.99999... :D (One) Pit wisps that he runs away. (One) Ukhata wisps: i dont know about that one pit (One) Denzil wisps: We could do blue eyes, I guess (One) Ukhata wisps: tell me! (One) Pit wisps: NOPE (One) Denzil wisps: That's pretty famous (One) Ukhata wisps: TELL ME!!!! (One) Pit wisps: 1 = 0.999999... (where the dots stand for infinitely many nines) (One) Pit wisps: Discuss. (One) Ukhata wisps: multiple exlamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind, sooo :D (One) Maelin wisps: That one's easy. The number 0.999..., as in, zero point nine recurring, is exactly and precisely equal to the number one. (One) Maelin wisps: (not that there is any other way to be equal...) (One) Ukhata wisps: i would think it would always be less than one, yet functionally equal. (One) Pit wisps: This is true, but the standard proof given to undergraduates to demonstrate it is actually very finicky, which you don't realise until you've learned to do proper analysis. ;) (One) Pit wisps: Nah, the standard proof: (One) Maelin wisps: Ukhata: Indeed! But that is actually incorrect. There is no such thing as "functionally equal" that is distinct from actual equality. 0.999... is actually, legitimately equal to 1. They are two representations of the same number. (One) Pit wisps: 0.99999... * 10 - 0.99999... = 9.99999... - 0.99999 = 9. (One) Pit wisps: So if X * 10 - X = 9, that means X * 9 = 9, so X = 1. (One) Maelin wisps: Augh you should at least do it with the x, your way is far too concise to be clear (One) Pit wisps: Sorry, I was trying to remember it. :P (One) Maelin wisps: Let x = 0.999..., then 10x = 9.999..., therefore 10x - x = 9, i.e. 9x = 9, thus x = 1 (One) Pit wisps: Remember that I actually agree with the people saying "You can't do that!" Because, yes, you *can* do that, but the way you demonstrate that you're allowed to do that requires looking at the definition of real numbers, and then you might as well just prove the point directly using the definition. (One) Maelin wisps: It is a *little* bit dicey, I agree, but I think it's valid. If they want to identify key steps and say "explain that" then you can roll out the definition of Cauchy convergent sequences and whatnot. (One) Martinez wisps that he guess you can just check the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999 which converges to 0.999999... and to 1, hence 0.999..=1 (One) Ukhata wisps: yeah, in function they are the same but 0.9999999 < 1 simply cuz its not 1.. (One) Juppie wisps: it is based on the definition of inifity: 10*inifity = 1*inifity = 3*inifity (One) Maelin wisps: Ukhata: 0.9999999 is not the number we're talking about, we're talking about 0.999... with *recurring* nines. It is very important to recognise that these are different. (One) Maelin wisps: And to understand the difference between them and their properties. (One) Ukhata wisps: i know that it is the same. but its isnt _exactly_ the same otherwise it would be 1, not 0.9999 recurring (One) Whippet wisps: And magnets. How do they work? (One) Martinez wisps: just that we have two names for it doesn't make it different :D (One) Ukhata wisps: by slaughtinering kittens (One) Juppie wisps: magnets have infinite fieldlines ... (One) Juppie wisps: actually, field lines don't exist (One) Maelin wisps: So there's a very tricky thing right here, which is that the decimal representation of a number is *not the same thing* as the number itself. ANd unfortunately nobody learns this fact in high school so they just kind of assume that the representation *is* the number. (One) Maelin wisps: Ukhata: Do you agree that 1 = 1.0 = 1.000... ? (One) Ukhata wisps: yes (One) Maelin wisps: Those are different combinations of symbols, but they all represent the same number. (One) Ukhata wisps: because 0 doesnt have a value (One) Maelin wisps: It turns out that 0.999..., which is another combination of symbols, *also* represents that number. (One) Ukhata wisps: thats like baptising a rabbit, calling it fish and eat it on friday when you camnt eat meat..... (One) Juppie wisps: it is like 0 which can be represented by 7/infinty and by 11/infinity and so on (One) Pit wisps: At some point, one of the teaching assistants gave me a 9.999... for my homework. (One) Maelin wisps: No. The issue here is that in high school you kind of unconsciously picked up the rule of thumb (or, worse, were explicitly told by a misguided teacher) that "if two decimal representations look different then they must necessarily represent different numbers", and this rule of thumb turns out to not be true in some cases. (One) Pit wisps: (we're graded on a 1-10 scale, with decimals allowed) (One) Juppie wisps: it still bugs you, Pit, doens't it :) (One) Pit wisps: Even if, yes, that was entered as a 10 in my records, I was still mildly annoyed. :D (One) Juppie wisps that he would feel the same (One) Geryon wisps: Send that person to the woodshed for a lecture from Maelin (One) Maelin wisps: There's only one thing we do in the woodshed, Geryon, and it's not lecturing. (One) Ukhata wisps: its butchering of fish (One) Ukhata wisps: which used to be a rabbit (One) Ukhata wisps: which is why i though (and still do think) that 0.9999... is in all functions the samer as 1, but still less than it. (One) Maelin wisps: Incidentally, Juppie, infinity is not a real (i.e. conventional) number and you can't do conventional arithmetic with it. (One) Maelin wisps: Ukhata: How much less is it? What is the value of 1 - 0.999...? (One) Ukhata wisps: cuz what if you write infinity+1 is that bigger then infinity? (One) Pit wisps: What infinity are we takling about? (One) Pit wisps: Omega? Omega^omega? (One) Pit wisps: You have to be precise about these things, you know. (One) Maelin wisps: Pit: shh! (One) Ukhata wisps: its simple maeling that value is more then 0, less then everything else (One) Pit wisps: Aaaaah, a physicist. :D (One) Geryon wisps that he divides Maelin by zero (One) Maelin wisps: Oh. Let's call this "greater than 0 but less than everything else greater than 0" number 'x'. What would I get if I divided that number, x, by 2? (One) Epic wisps: half. (One) Ukhata wisps: you being able to devide the number implies there is something bigger than it. which is just said there isnt. (One) Maelin wisps: So... you're saying there is a number I'm not allowed to divide by 2? (One) Pit wisps: What if you multiply it by 2? (One) Ukhata wisps: not so much a number, as the difference between 1 and 0.999 recurring isnt dividable by 2 (One) Pit wisps: (Actually, Maelin, you can probably get a consistent mathematical theory if you do this -- and define it as 1/infinity. Although you have to be *very* careful with your axioms.) (One) Maelin wisps: That's what I was about to say Pit :P (One) Juppie wisps that he wants the NaN title (One) Ukhata wisps: am i very wrong? i mean i just see it as that :) (One) Pit wisps: Completely. :D (One) Ukhata wisps: okay. ill take it anyway (One) Maelin wisps: Ukhata: you are welcome to construct a mathematical system where 0.999... represents some number that is distinct from 1, and where they have a nonzero difference that you aren't allowed to divide by 2. But the system you are describing is absolutely not at all the same as the real numbers, i.e. the system that is used by convention with decimal numbers. (One) Pit wisps: Unless we've just invented a new way of doing mathematics that'll rock physics and become the norm in a generation or so. (One) Pit wisps that he wonders whether we can do that. (One) Ukhata wisps: lets go for it! (One) Dilitrio wisps: If anybody can get people to adopt a totally new system of mathematics, it's Maelin. (One) Martinez wisps: pretty sure there are numbers systems with 0.999... =/= 1, not sure about the not being able to divide though (One) Dilitrio wisps: It might take him a few hours, though. (One) Maelin wisps: Martinez: I don't think there are any generally studied ones. You'd need an entirely different definition of how to interpret decimal expansions. (One) Martinez wisps: of course, can't think if any real use of any of them anyway (One) Maelin wisps: (I might be wrong and there might be some studied ones but I've certainly never heard of them and I have weak-to-moderate evidence that there aren't) (One) Pit wisps: Infinitesimal, that's the word I was looking for. (One) Pit wisps: Are there well-described definitions of the real numbers with infinitesimal numbers, and do *they* have 1 = 0.999...? (One) Epic wisps: it's a very good word. (One) Maelin wisps: There are a whole bunch of generally studied number systems that have infinitesimals, but they all still have 0.999... = 1. (One) Ukhata wisps: would this mean that basicly any recuring behind the dot number is the same as the next number in line? ie 0.xxxxxxx recurrins is the same as 0.x(+1) ? and how would this scale into 1.x ? (One) Pit wisps: No, actually. (One) Pit wisps: Although it's an interesting question! (One) Ukhata wisps: i mean is 0.8888888888... the same as 0.9 ? (One) Pit wisps: The number 0.8888... say, is the limit of 0.8, 0.88, 0.888, 0.8888, ... (One) Martinez wisps: that always stays below 0.89 (One) Maelin wisps: No. It only works for recurring 9s. But it does mean that, for example, 1.999... = 2, and 0.00999... = 0.01 (One) Claudio wisps: Oh, dear (One) Pit wisps: But since 0.88888 < 0.88889 and so on, you'll never get 0.9. (One) Claudio wisps: Just calculate the limit of 1.0 - 0.9, 1.0 - 0.99, 1.0 - 0.999 and etc (One) Maelin wisps: Pit's right though, it is interesting to look at why it works for 9s and not for 8s or anything else. (One) Maelin wisps: (hint: it's because we have this many finger: ||||| ||||| !) (One) Ukhata wisps: and how would this work in a hexadecimal system ? (One) Zeek wisps: whats the valid expression for '10.0 x 0.1' in the math command? (One) Maelin wisps: In hexadecimal, 0.fff... = 1 :) (One) Martinez wisps: math 10.0*0.1 (One) Maelin wisps: And in octal, 0.777... = 1, and in binary, 0.111... = 1 :) (One) Ukhata wisps: i mean, what is 1.1111... equal to? just 1.1111... or? (One) Maelin wisps: 1.111... can't be represented in any other decimal form! (One) Maelin wisps: So actually what happens is this: any number that can be represented in a *terminating* decimal form, can also be represented in a *recurring* decimal form using the 999... trick. (One) Ukhata wisps: ah (One) Ukhata wisps: that makes sense (One) Maelin wisps: But any decimal number that doesn't terminate (and doesn't end in recurring 9s) has only one possible representation. (One) Ukhata wisps: i enjoy learning on the mud! (One) Pit wisps that he beams. That *is* great! (One) Pit wisps: Mind you, Maelin is crazy. (One) Pit wisps: What with being a teacher in real life and then coming on Discworld to educate people for his hobby. ;) (One) Maelin wisps: I've been on summer holidays for six weeks. (One) Maelin wisps: Getting antsy ;) (One) Maelin wisps: Oh god it's back to work on wednesday *_* (One) Ukhata wisps: you australian maelin? (One) Maelin wisps: Yup. (One) Ukhata wisps: or at least, southern hemispere? (One) Maelin wisps: Melbourne. (One) Ukhata wisps: that explains the summer holidays :D (One) Ukhata wisps: always wanted to visit australia/surrounding areas. but the plane tickets there are stupidly expensive (One) Sapphyr wisps: Worth it though. (One) Ukhata wisps: if you have the money... (One) Ukhata wisps: well, okay i have the money.. but i also have a house :P (One) Maelin wisps: Hmmmmmm you know what just occurred to me is interesting, is that *depending on which base you count in* (decimal, binary, ternary, etc), it will be a different selection of numbers that have multiple representations. (One) Ukhata wisps: always base -1 ? (One) Pit wisps: But it will always be only rational numbers, right? (One) Maelin wisps: Like the number 1/3 has only one representation in decimal (0.333...) but in ternary you can represent it as 0.1 or as 0.0222... (One) Maelin wisps: Oh yes, certainly only rationals. But only a subset of the rationals. (One) Zeek wisps: there are only 10 types of people who understand binary, those who do and those who don't. (One) Ukhata wisps: should that be those who dont xor those who do ? (One) Ukhata wisps: shouldnt* (One) Maelin wisps: I mean I guess this is just the same as the observation that in different bases, different rationals terminate. But it's neat when you realise that terminating is equivalent to being expressible in two different ways. (One) Ukhata wisps: ive always found it funny how in any numeral based system the base is always 10 :) (One) Juppie wisps: like inches ... :) (One) Maelin wisps: Yes, I like that too :D I enjoy the thought of us meeting aliens and saying, "hey what base do you count in" and them saying "10" (One) Ukhata wisps: hahahaaha (One) Ukhata wisps: which can be from binary to dodecahedral(is that type?) (One) Maelin wisps: It can be absolutely anything from binary upwards, if you have enough symbols to represent all the different digits. (One) Maelin wisps: The limiting factor is how many distinct symbols everybody can be bothered learning. (One) Ukhata wisps: i once learned to count in shapes. that was funny :P it showed the idea that the symbols themselves are worthless (One) Zeek wisps: they'd probably just snarl and say 'all your base belong to us!' (One) Ukhata wisps: man this chatting has burned my xp/hr from idling :D (One) Ukhata wisps: not to mention my productivity at work :D (One) Maelin wisps: 1.5 per second, smooth and steady. (One) Maelin wisps: Augh I went rock climbing tonight and my grip strength is now shot, hope I can operate the barbeque tomorrow (One) Hannazus wisps: That's the worst case of first world problems I've seen all day, Maelin. (One) Ukhata wisps: doesnt have to be positive affection ^_^ (One) Ukhata wisps: mt (One) Maelin wisps: Hannazus what are you even doing on the MUD again didn't you leave us forever (One) Hannazus wisps: Nah. I'm like a boomerang. (One) Ukhata wisps: hell be a fan allright (One) Ukhata wisps: mt (One) Maelin wisps: well as long as you don't bring all those other old jerkbags who stopped playing back with you (One) Epic wisps: stay nice. stay classy. (One) Maelin wisps: Like that one person, you know the one I mean, the one who stopped playing. Nobody liked *that* jerkbag. (One) Maelin wisps: But anyway welcome back Hannazus (One) Hannazus wisps: No. He/she was AWFUL. Never again. (One) Argothial wisps: Hey! I had stopped playing! But I do that frequently. I get distracted by shiny things...OH THERE IS ONE! (One) Argothial wisps that he runs off (One) Tetrikitty wisps: I stop playing every day! (One) Tetrikitty wisps: sometimes multiple times a day. (One) Maelin wisps: Bloody casual. (One) Epic wisps: I stopped playing once. (One) Ukhata wisps: ive stopped and started again multiple times over the last 15 years.. (One) Ukhata wisps: i still miss koth lip khin :( (One) Maelin wisps: In fairness I haven't actually, like, *played* DW for like ten years now (One) Maelin wisps: I just sit around being a smartarse on the talker. (One) Hannazus wisps: You? Smartarse? Nooooo! (One) Maelin wisps: Better a smartarse than a dumbarse, as I always say :) (One) Ukhata wisps: not so much a smartass, as a smart person :P (One) Supreme wisps: If a person is an ass, they may be an Apuleiusian cosplayer. (One) Ukhata wisps: or someone doing the school play for christmas. and he has to be the ass, with marjolein :) (One) Maelin wisps: Or they could just have a bad case of steatopygia. (One) Ukhata wisps: lets see who else except pit gets that reference (One) Supreme wisps that he doesn't. (One) Ukhata wisps: its a dutch reference :) (One) Supreme wisps: Who is Marjolein? I must know! (One) Maelin wisps: Isn't it a spice? (One) Maelin wisps: Or something I dunno. I don't do cooking. (One) Supreme wisps: That's marjoram. (One) Ukhata wisps: its a dutch childrens song (not a lulaby) from a song show called children for children. marjolein is a dutch girls name. (One) Supreme wisps: Children For Children sounds like a political movement. (One) Maelin wisps: If you have to go down to the sixth letter of a word to tell the difference between it and another word then as far as I'm concerned it's just the same thing. (One) Ukhata wisps: bay had to be the donkey (ass) and he was even the backside, which he was teased for, untill marjolein (his crush) offered to be the front with him (One) Maelin wisps: Surely a donkey with two fronts would have confused and unsettled the audience. (One) Maelin wisps: And ruined the suspension of disbelief in the rest of the play. (One) Ukhata wisps: rofl (One) Ukhata wisps: hoorah for purposly misinterpretation (One) Geryon wisps: The Children's Crusade was a great success, though (One) Maelin wisps: A great success for the muslims, yes! (One) Geryon wisps: ... for the slavers that made a mint selling off the surviving children. (One) Geryon wisps: Proof positive of my #2 Rule. (One) Supreme wisps: 'Always make a mint'? (One) Maelin wisps: That is a *great* rule (One) Ukhata wisps: always sell children? (One) Maelin wisps: That rule is less great, but still pretty good. (One) Ukhata wisps: you mustve made a boatload by now off that maelin? (One) Geryon wisps: Geryon's #2 Rule: When someone begings a conversation with "God told me...", move away quickly. Get clear. Avoid at all costs. Seek shelter. (One) Supreme wisps: He replaces his students with inexpensive Japanese robots. Their parents don't notice. (One) Ukhata wisps: except now they can count :P (One) Supreme wisps: And vacuum. (One) Geryon wisps: "God told me to collect all the children I can find and travel to the Holy Land to retake Jerusalem.' (One) Geryon wisps: <--- #2 Rule applied (One) Maelin wisps: The Japanese robots are, if anything, slightly more lifelike and engaged than the teenagers they replaced so the parents are pleased even if they do realise. (One) Ukhata wisps: rofl, probably too true :D (One) Maelin wisps: That reminds me of that old Onion article, lemme find it (One) Geryon wisps: <3 Onion (One) Maelin wisps: "Brain-Dead Teen, Only Capable Of Rolling Eyes And Texting, To Be Euthanized" (One) Ukhata wisps: i have the same sort of rule Geryon, if some tell me "deity X told me... " i cut them off and close the door :) (One) Maelin wisps: Video link: http://www.theonion.com/video/brain-dead-teen-only-capable-of-rolling-eyes-and-t-27225 (One) Maelin wisps: G'night gang (One) Umiven wisps: good night (One) QUiyan wisps: the madness in Bangkok having 13 deg C weather (One) QUiyan wisps: Bangkok! (One) Supreme wisps: You shall have to search for your only shawl. (One) Supreme wisps: Oh, Bangkok. Never mind. (One) QUiyan wisps: they may not have shawls! (One) QUiyan wisps: i have multiple shawls! :p (One) Supreme wisps: You are shawly wise. (One) Seirou wisps: Ooh, useful innovations: http://bit.ly/1ZYKZjl (One) QUiyan wisps: they aren't used to it, i can tell you that! :p (One) QUiyan wisps: and hong kong almost froze over. hong kong was sweltering just a week ago! (One) Supreme wisps: 'Mother, what is this feeling in my skin?' 'It is 'cold', dear one. You are 'chilly.'' (One) QUiyan wisps: chilly does not begin to describe it (One) QUiyan wisps: they have no insulation, no indoor or floor heating, hardly any warm clothes (One) Supreme wisps: Serves the right for living such idyllic lives! (One) QUiyan wisps: i wonder if they can cope! (One) Ukhata wisps: well, theyll know better next year :D (One) QUiyan wisps: Seppy, be kind! :p (One) Supreme wisps: They have been singing and going shawl-less whilst sensible people elsewhere have been shivering! (One) Supreme wisps: If you insist, Quiyan. (One) QUiyan wisps: bangkok has not had such cold weather before (One) QUiyan wisps: yes i insist :p (One) Ukhata wisps: wanna bet they have a way to heat/stay warm next year? (One) QUiyan wisps: well they have fire. but the slums will be cold. (One) Ukhata wisps: not if they dont control that fire :P (One) QUiyan wisps: fire within the houses in the slums is not such a good idea! (One) QUiyan wisps: look, i feel for them, they are tropical people like me (One) QUiyan wisps: below 25 deg C is a trial, below 15 is torture :p (One) Denzil wisps: God, old people are annoying. My grandmother called me up to tell me that she was tired. That was literalLy the entire phone call. She left a voicemail telling me to call and it sounded urgent, but she must have fallen asleep because it was about 2 minutes of background noise before it cut off. (One) QUiyan wisps: below 10 is probably life or death (One) Ukhata wisps: below 10 is like sweater weather, dont even use my coat in 10 c ... (One) Ukhata wisps: and 15 is actually nice weather (One) Ukhata wisps: 25 is bloody hot! (One) Qianling wisps: we live in constant 30 deg C weather ... (One) Ukhata wisps: i'd die...