OK, I'll try my best below to help you understand two things: 1) how these statements came across to me; and 2) that I do understand the meaning of the words "impossible" and "not possible" vs. "highly unlikely," "improbable", etc., and have not been using them (contextually) incorrectly. I may very well be wrong in my statements, but I wasn't using them incorrectly. There's a difference. And maybe that's the part we disagree about.
There was no intent whatsoever on my part to be patronizing. If anything I wrote came across that way, I apologize sincerely.
And please keep in mind that I have stated - TWICE - that I have no disagreement with the substance of what you have written about the ratings system.
I understand that you have no disagreement with my substantive statements about the ratings system. I did get that, yes originally. I accept the apology. I'll explain the rest below so as not to be repetitive.
That is an interesting article, thank you for posting. I learned something, and I always appreciate that.
If I read the article correctly, it sounds like they are sequencing the whole genome, or close to it, to detect subtle genetic differences between identical twins. Standard paternity tests examine a much more limited number of markers and would be unlikely to distinguish between identical twins.
Perhaps & possibly. I can tell you that the biological sciences (genetics, genome sequencing, mapping, etc., among others) are not my specialty. Mine lies in the physical sciences and mathematics. On biological siences, perhaps you, and I am certain many others, are far more knowledgeable than I.
The first definition of "impossible", per your link, is "incapable of being or of occurring". I will go back to the probability that the air in a room suddenly rushes to the corners, leaving most of the room in a vacuum. This has probably never happened. It will probably never happen while humans exist, and might never happen while our universe exists. But it could happen tomorrow, and the probability can be calculated.
Would you consider such an event "incapabable of being or occurring"? That could be the essence of our communication disconnect.
Yes sir. That is impossible. While anyone may theorize about things like that all the time, the laws of physics are finite. That occurrence is impossible. The expression "anything is possible" is only true in certain contexts. While we may be able to imagine anything, there are certain things that are not possible in the world as it is currently situated. Might there be another world out in the galaxies somewhere where that occurrence might be possible?? Sure, maybe, I don't know. But my answer in this context of this world we live in today is that the example you gave above is incapable of being or occurring, thus impossible. I am going to continue to reiterate that I do know what the word means.
Mathematically, a lot of things can be calculated. I can calculate the probability that chromosomes might spontaneously realign themselves overnight and my wife will wake tomorrow morning and be my husband. But that's not possible. There exist an entire field of mathematical study and application based upon imaginary numbers. Just because something can be calculated, doesn't merit therein proof that it is possible in the real world. This one.
I am genuinely baffled why you interpret what I have written as disrespectful. That was not my purpose or intent. I respect your knowledge of disc golf and statistics, as I specifically stated previously. But we clearly differ on what "impossible" means. Which is pretty far from the substance of this thread.
I do not think we disagree on what the word means -- but perhaps I am wrong about that. The thing I feel is disrespectful was to keep telling me that "I didn't understand what I was actually saying" over and over. It came across as "you're not smart enough to really understand what the words mean." I hope you aren't baffled as to how I might interpret it that way. It's like telling me, "you didn't really mean orange when you said 'orange'; you meant 'blue'."
I completely agree that no "sure thing investment" exists. Given your interest in finance and statistics, you might find the Long-Term Capital Management saga rather interesting. Or perhaps not. In any case, I have not read this book but it is supposed to be quite good.
At Long-Term, Meriwether & Co. truly believed that their finely tuned computer models had tamed the genie of risk, and would allow them to bet on the future with near mathematical certainty. And thanks to their cast--which included a pair of future Nobel Prize winners--investors believed them.
When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management
The Nobel Prize winners were Merton and Scholes, who received Nobel Prize in Economics for developing the Black-Scholes-Merton model for valuing derivatives.
See here. We both do know what the words mean. Common ground has been established. You clearly state above that they had "
bet" on the future with "
near" mathematical certainty. Therein lies the difference. I take you at your word when you said these guys were
betting on a
near certainty.
